“We can shape a future where we slow down once in a while to point our fellow runners in the right direction,” writes Baruch President S. David Wu, “or we can remain indifferent to those around us and pass the finish line alone.”
In my blog some six months ago, I attempted a handful of high-level ideas for our future. With the vaccine distribution expanding and the City gradually coming back to life, now is the time for us to start a deeper conversation about the future to which we want to return—by identifying what parts of the past we want to reclaim and re-imagining a future we want to shape together. In the coming months, I will share my thoughts and observations for that future, with the goal of starting an ongoing dialogue with our community. A few topics to consider include:
- A future where we celebrate our diversity while attaining inclusion and equity by transforming our culture and institution;
- A future where we share a culture of creativity, curiosity, and engagement through institutional learning and collaboration;
- A future where our students experience seamless support to achieve success, meeting their distinctive needs and aspirations;
- A future where we leverage and meet the needs of the fast-changing, hybrid world around us; and
- A future where Baruch helps to re-invigorate a post–Covid New York City through economic, social, and cultural rebuilding.
What I share here are my personal views, philosophies, and opinions of how I see the possibilities, informed by my understanding of the aspirations expressed by the Baruch community. They are by no means the final answer but rather starting points for deeper community conversations. In this blog post, I will start with the first topic in regard to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Finding a Cure for Apathy
When we talk about advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the first challenge we face is that those words, and the issues they represent, loom large but are often considered rhetoric and have lost their full authentic meanings. As I said in my October blog, oftentimes authenticity is absent from our increasingly polarized environment. The conversation surrounding DEI can easily fall into this trap, with some dismissing it as “political correctness,” “liberal rhetoric,” or worse—interpreting it as racial politics in the context of ideological and tribal conflict. The truly troubling part is that even reasonable, compassionate people turn their attention elsewhere or are too afraid to question what DEI really means to them.
This is why I view the first challenge to overcome is that of apathy and a sense that this is a problem for a certain group to perpetuate, or someone else to worry about. For decades, there has been a rich and compelling intellectual framing that made DEI a priority in American universities, which starts with the idea that the foundation of democracy is built on an informed citizenry that respects the freedom of expression and diversity of opinions around politics, religion, class, race, gender, and sexuality, without the fear of prosecution. This is complemented by the reality of demographic shifts in the U.S.—the nation has become increasingly diverse in all dimensions. Particularly relevant for New York City are the immigrants from cultures of the world. While 13.7% of the U.S. population is foreign born, nearly 38% of New York City residents are immigrants. The Baruch community reflects that reality, making it all the more important that we have a deep and nuanced understanding of what equity and inclusion mean in our diverse community.
Recent events have invoked a public reckoning of social justice issues and the structural inequalities that are still painfully evident in our society. Institutions of higher education provide the intellectual, social, and historical context—as well as the platform—to facilitate difficult but thoughtful dialogues, and to inspire social change. Perhaps most significantly, an excellent education is about equipping our students with the framework to think for themselves, and to be respectful and curious about perspectives other than their own. As I stated before, we have a responsibility to create an environment for our students that is conducive to openness and curiosity, to understand cultures, backgrounds, and points of view that are peculiar from their own—that is when learning truly occurs.
Sharing Stories and Changing Hearts
Whichever framing resonates with you—be it democratic foundation, demographic reality, social justice, or learning environment—translating these ideas and concepts into reality requires nothing short of an “institutional transformation.” That is, a leadership commitment for culture change that eventually manifests into policy, structural, and procedural reform. I am often reminded that culture change starts from sharing stories, not by preaching or “logic bullying”—starts from changing hearts, not by winning arguments.
I will take a detour and retell the story of a 2012 cross-country race in Spain. Iván Fernández—who had been running a distant second behind race leader Abel Kiprop Mutai—noticed the man in front of him slowing down. Mutai stopped 30 feet short of the end because he could not read the Spanish signs and erroneously believed he had already crossed the finish line. Rather than capitalizing on Mutai’s error and claiming victory for himself, Fernández used hand gestures to explain the situation, remained behind, and allowed the other man to win the race. When asked by confused reporters why he let his competitor prevail, Fernández replied, “I didn’t let him win; he was going to win. The race was his.” When reporters noted that he could have easily won, Fernández simply said: “What would be the merit of my victory? What would be the honor of this medal?” Fernández chose human decency over self-interest, and we find ourselves in the same moral quandary: Does it matter that others are suffering from indignity and real harm when it does not affect us directly? We can shape a future where we slow down once in a while to point our fellow runners in the right direction, or we can remain indifferent to those around us and pass the finish line alone.
Which Subway Car Do You Choose?
I enjoyed reading Bill Hayes’s Insomniac City—the book is full of vivid descriptions of New York City life—where he shared his experience taking the subway:
“The other day, I was on a local 6 going uptown and seated next to a young woman with a baby in a stroller. At each stop, a man (always a man) would enter the car and end up standing right above us. I had my iPod on and was just watching. Inevitably, each man would make goofy faces and smile at the baby, and the baby would smile and make faces back. At each stop, the standing man would be replaced by a new one, straight out of central casting: First, an older Latin guy. Then he gets off and a young black man appears. Then a white man in a suit. Then a construction worker with a hard hat. Tough guys. New York guys. All devoted to one important task: making a baby smile.”
So much in this brief passage reminds me of something so primal and yet constantly present. We’ve all been in that situation which could go either way: an unspoken level of a human connection leaves us feeling relaxed and happy, or a silent malevolence keeps us on edge while we anticipate the worst. I think of two metaphoric futures in front of us like the subway cars we choose to jump on. In the first car, you feel the energy that everyone around you is devoted to make that baby smile. In the other car, no one makes eye contact, and you have an instinctive fear that any person next to you may harass you because of the way you look, the way you dress, or the accent you carry.
The subway car you choose to jump on is also the future we yearn to return.
14 Comments
Worth reading
I’ve not seen a problem with diversity. As such, I think that this topic being pushed to the top of the college’s agenda is a gross overstatement of an issue. Political Correctness seems to be at the forefront these days and sadly, Pres. Wu is indulging in it. Also, I object to Baruch’s support of anarchistic groups that have threatened to tear down the American government.
Dr. Wu says that institutions of higher education provide the context and platform to fascilitate dialogue and inspire social change. What a scary thought because if there is a problem with a lack of diversity (as that term is commonly understood) within institutions of “higher” education, it is in the political and social teachings of the professorial class rather than in the student body.
Babies are not a threat to anyone. They are cute and responsive. Would it have been the same response if there was someone with a visible disability, a child with an apparent neurocognitive disability or from someone displaying mental health issues. That is where the rubber meets the road.
I appreciate the aspirational content and sincerity of your message and look forward to more. However I must register my disappointment that in the listing of differences early on there was no mention of age/generational DEI. Not only is that the focus of my work for the last 15 years, but I believe it is true that different generational attitudes inform and influence attitudes and behaviors about all other aspects of diversity. It is the missing piece in the activities of most organizations.
I am a member of EOC, and though not a Baruch alum, I have been mentoring Baruch students for about 10 years. I love the students and I’m grateful for that opportunity.I would be happy to talk with you about this point.
I look forward to reading your future messages.
Phyllis
Thank you for sharing and fostering discussions on a topic that is at the forefront of many institutions. Your points are valid and relevant especially, as it relates to the social climate and injustice movement we are experiencing today. As a alum and a person who has worked in Coporate America for over 20 years in the financial services industry, DEI has always been a topic of discussion especially, in front office. There are many similarities between the corporate world and institutions of higher learning. Though there has been progress, there are still boards, such as the U.S. Postal Service’s board that are predominantly comprised of white men, albeit, with limited experience. The board is a perfect place where diversity is key in promoting and advancing the the DEI cause. No board in today’s day and age should be completely compromised of white men. A qualified diverse board only enhances and offers a uniqe perspective and lives up to board members ethical and fiduciary responsibilities.
I look forward to your future discussions on the topic.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I read you from Senegal, West Africa. If anything, Covid19 has challenged a lot of the certitudes we had. The world has been shaken in ways never experienced in recent history. Health systems all over the world have been tested and our capacity to empathize brought fourth. We are all in it together an this should make us think beyond individual nations’ interest but about humanity as a whole. Nobody should be left behind.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I read you from Senegal, West Africa. If anything, Covid19 has challenged a lot of the certitudes we had. The world has been shaken in ways never experienced in recent history. Health systems all over the world have been tested and our capacity to empathize brought fourth. We are all in it together an this should make us think beyond individual nations’ interest but about humanity as a whole. Nobody should be left behind.
Thank you, President Wu. We at the Marxe School have been working on these issues for a number of years now. It is not an understatement to say that a society that embraces the new majority of what former Mayor David Dinkins called a ‘gorgeous’ mosaic is a journey. It requires generations of effort to dismantle white supremacy and bring about greater equity and justice for all.
Hey Mike, what’s this “white supremacy” of which you speak?
I’m sure that the term being used in recent national discussions, “white supremacy” refers in some regard to previously revered leaders, such as Lincoln and Washington. But fear not, history is in the process of being scrubbed clean, as we speak (school names being removed). Rest assured, Jack, in a few years you won’t even remember what country you grew up in. But save your COVID mask because you are going to need it for the upcoming book burnings.
oops-I neglected to include my last name–I am Michael Seltzer and am a Marxe Distinguished Lecturer
ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
“You can’t go home,” is an old saying. Sociologist Alfred Schutz illuminated this truth with stunning force in his essay, “The Homecomer.” Schutz, commissioned by the War Department in the ‘to help veterans re-adjust to civilian life after the Second World War, noted out how the veteran and the people back home, each remember a nostalgic, stylized version of the other. But, in the interim, the other has changed, vastly.
Same thing now. We cannot, and will not, go back to the past, even should the virus wholly disappear. We now inhabit a Brave New World in which we’ve adopted different patterns of interaction that’ll work just fine in a COVID free world. And so, you appropriately ask, “What parts of the past (do) we want to reclaim and (how can we) re-imagine a future we want to shape together.”
You suggest “a future where Baruch helps to re-invigorate a post-COVID NYC thru economic, social + cultural re-building.” Precisely! That is far, far more important than precisely calibrating who receives a B and who a B minus.
You touched on “the reality of demographic shifts in the US population.” If one were to add up all the students in all the public schools in the country, the percentage of white students would be less than 50%. Thus, the issue of poorly educated Black and Latino children is hardly an “inner city” issue. If we do not reach them, we’ll lose not just a generation, but the nation.
Yours is a seminal question, “Does it matter that others are suffering from indignity and real harm when it does not affect us directly?” But of course it does. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.” The heedless rapaciousness of the 1% is mystifying. They are killing the goose (the economy) that laid the golden egg with their steadfast insistence on tax cuts and bailouts that they need not at all. Several civilians are going into space on SPACE-X. How much are they each paying Elon Musk? $55 million dollars! 1% of the nation controls 40% of the wealth.
I greatly enjoyed the story of the baby in the subway. It caused me to remember an episode from when I was in second grade. One nun said to the other as she looked at the class, “My, oh my. They are so innocent!” I thought to myself, “Ha! She doesn’t know Angela stole a candy bar, and Peter just punched John in the back.” Of course, that was hardly what she was thinking of. She was referring to how adults, invariably, get molded into their prejudices, their selfishness and a myriad other odious traits. And, thus, we find ourselves in the fear inducing, rat race of the other subway car, where the 70-30 principle is treated as a joke.
[…] my last blog, I started a conversation about our future by identifying what parts of the past we want to reclaim […]