OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Open Letter from the BIPOC Collective Quitting the UHP D&I Committee

Monday, September 21, 2020

Dear UHP and GW community,

Throughout the summer, members of the UHP BIPOC Collective were integral in the formation and development of the UHP Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Committee. In June, we sent a letter to Director Bethany Cobb Kung and other UHP administration demanding that they release a statement condemning the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, David McAtee, Tony McDade, and countless other Black lives. We also asked that they establish their support for the Black Lives Matter movement, as the university and many other departments had previously done. Along with this condemnation and statement of support, we demanded the UHP take specific actions to improve the program’s treatment of BIPOC students. One of these demands was the creation of a UHP D&I Committee.

We sent the initial letter with the vision of structurally changing the UHP to ensure future cohorts would enter a program that not only cares for their education, but also takes the necessary steps to construct safe, equitable, and inclusive campus spaces that actualize the program’s stated commitment to diversity of experience and thought. Though many of us have met challenges--both individually and collectively--in attempting to achieve fundamental change in the UHP, we still believed in the program’s potential to better itself.

Despite engagement with UHP administration, staff, and faculty throughout the summer, no concrete changes or plans have been established for the program. Meetings devolved into unproductive sessions in which key UHP administration, staff, and faculty failed to engage with student recommendations, lacked meaningful self-reflection, intellectualized students’ lived experiences- at times making belittling and hurtful comments. It has become clear that there is a fundamental gap in understanding between BIPOC students and the administration, faculty, and staff of the UHP. While this gap should have been met with a willingness to learn and critically engage with the institutions we inhabit, points of disagreement were often met with defensiveness and fragility.

UHP administration clearly revealed their lack of commitment and understanding when they released their “statement of accountability” to students of color in the program. This statement lacked core components requested by the Collective and, by all accounts, failed in its central objective: taking accountability for past harm done. UHP administration wrote the statement with a passive voice, thus placing the blame on students for their long-standing feelings of alienation within the program. When students voiced concerns about the statement, they were met with the same unwillingness to take responsibility. Though the administration offered apologies for how students received the statement, they continued to avoid substantive accountability. From the first D&I meeting, students expressed why accountability and critical self-reflection is essential to rebuilding the trust that had been broken from our negative experiences in the program and lack of support. The program’s botched attempt at taking accountability further degraded our trust and proved once again that they are not in the position to support BIPOC students and better the program.

This past week, members of the BIPOC Collective met with Director Kung and Associate Provost Elizabeth Chacko to discuss the role and power of the D&I Committee. Associate Provost Chacko’s lack of knowledge of key Committee moments--such as the accountability statement--clearly revealed that she had not seriously familiarized herself with our experiences in the program nor our demands for change. She condescended to us, insinuating that we should be grateful that she and UHP administration, faculty, and staff were even listening to us given their busy schedules and lack of obligation in the summer months. She showed no understanding or care of the work we have put into bettering the program as students who also balance a full course load, employment, internships, and other challenges in our personal lives. Instead of offering solutions to circumvent challenges, she instead blamed students for the lack of diversity because of the program’s opt-in function. Over the course of the meeting, she repeatedly stated that the D&I committee’s only power is to “be heard,” despite student recommendations having been regularly ignored throughout the process. She further confirmed her disregard and lack of care for our experiences when she stated that students shouldn’t report instances of bias that only made them “vaguely uncomfortable” and that reports would only result in minimal action if “evidence” and corroboration are presented. Tellingly, none of the measures Associate Provost Chacko listed are required by the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement to report incidents of bias. Her preconditions for reporting also revealed an unawareness of what it means to be one of the only POC in a classroom which often leaves no other affected individuals to turn to for corroboration. After this meeting with Associate Provost Chacko, we realized that the amount of work and energy still required to change the program cannot be done when the UHP administration lacks a fundamental understanding of why and how to approach this work.

We feared from the nascence of this Committee that UHP administration was only using the D&I Committee as a pawn for optics; that, like many D&I institutions before us, the work would largely fall on the shoulders of people of color and our labor would only uphold a culture of white supremacy masked in diversity and inclusion efforts. The Committee consistently lacked sufficient structure and leadership. Administration failed to define the purpose, power, and structure of the Committee, as well as key concepts such as diversity. Certain members of this Collective also sit on the Elliott Diversity and Inclusion Council and know, from personal experience, that this is not how a D&I committee conducts itself. At every turn, UHP administration, faculty, and staff met us with resistance. They lacked any semblance of solidarity and only pointed to the work they had done, rather than the work they must continue to do. Though they affirmed the need for collaboration, administrators made executive decisions without consulting the Committee, failed to communicate even basic information, and rejected recommendations without explaining why or providing alternate solutions.

After this exhausting summer and disappointing meetings from this past week, we have made the decision that we will not only forgo the next D&I Committee meeting, but will also quit the Committee altogether. Clearly, UHP administration, faculty, and staff are not in a place to meaningfully engage with and support diversity and inclusion measures. It is impossible for students of color to collaborate with administration, faculty, and staff when they show a clear unwillingness to question their individual and institutional behaviors that have led to harm and neglect towards students of color.

While as a Collective we are stepping aside from this committee, we will continue to engage, re-imagine, collaborate, and build resources and community for all BIPOC students in the UHP. As students of color, this work is critical to us because it shapes every aspect of our academic experience. Our commitment to this work and our vision for a better program persist, but we can no longer spend precious energy in an ineffectual committee. The work that must be done to re-shape this program will require profound and intentional internal growth and learning among administration, faculty, and staff. In the future, we hope to re-engage with a committee that is sincerely ready and able to commit to this necessary work.

Signed,

The UHP BIPOC Collective