UCLA has been surprisingly tight-lipped about its progress in creating and filling a new vice chancellor position to address concerns about diversity raised by an independent report earlier this academic year.
The report, produced by an ad hoc committee headed by former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, found UCLA policies about allegations of racial bias to be vague and remedial procedures so difficult to access that they were “essentially nonexistent.”
In response, Chancellor Gene Block announced Dec. 6 the creation of a new administrative position, Vice Chancellor of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. The purpose of the position is to “ensure UCLA’s actions help create an inclusive campus for everyone,” Block wrote in an email statement to the campus.
Despite Block’s promises of inclusion, the secrecy that continues to surround the position only accomplishes the opposite.
Instead of including faculty and students in the selection process by informing them of the university’s progress, UCLA has made little information on the position available. University spokesman Steve Ritea could only tell the editorial board that the university is currently planning and preparing for a nationwide search that it anticipates initiating and announcing in the spring.
UCLA could not comment on the person or body responsible for finding a person to fill the position. The university has so far given no explanation as to why the search will take until spring quarter to begin, despite it having been announced nearly two months ago.
The university’s lack of transparency is all the more troubling in light of the finding in the Moreno report that UCLA’s bureaucracy creates barriers to legally mandated resources. In keeping details about the position under wraps, the school is failing to stomach the medicine it has prescribed itself.
The Vice Chancellor of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion position was created in response to poor handling of faculty complaints dealing with serious allegations of racial discrimination, among other issues.
UCLA may very well be working on the details of the new position. But by failing to disclose even cursory information about the new administrator’s duties and purview, the UCLA community is left with little evidence that the report’s findings have spurred action by Block’s office.
This lack of inclusion displays a disheartening inability by the university to learn from its own mistakes.
The UCLA administration would do well to change track and be forthcoming in their planning and search process. In doing so, it would display a willingness to remediate the institutional shortcomings that brought about the announcement in the first place.