Archived Information

## Summary Report

**1998 Campus Week of Dialogue**

**Prepared by the**

**Office of Postsecondary Education**

**U.S. Department of Education**

# Revised August, 2000

**Questions or comments regarding the contents of this document should
be directed to:**

**Donald E. Conner**

**U. S. Department of Education**

# 1990 K Street NW

**Washington, DC 20006**

**Phone number: (202) 502-7818**

**Email: donald_conner@ed.gov**

# Summary Report on 'Campus Week of Dialogue' Who Will build America? 

# Survey Response

The month of April 1998 was designated by the President's Initiative on
Race (PIR) as a 'Month of Dialogue'. A 'Campus Week of Dialogue' was
held from April 6^th^ thru 9^th^ of 1998. During that time college and
university presidents across the country were asked to take
responsibility for leading the nation in organizing race-related events
on their campuses. They were encouraged to participate by conducting one
of the following activities: Campus Town Hall Meeting; Campus-Community
Partnership; A Student Leader Meeting; or other campus activities that
they designated. The report that follows summarize some results from the
sessions held.

The following report also highlights data tabulated from
**[approximately one hundred eighty-eight]{.underline}** participation
reply forms (surveys) returned to the PIR office. The results, findings,
recommendations and conclusions from the returned surveys should not be
interpreted to represent all colleges and universities in the nation.
Although many colleges and universities participated in the 'Campus Week
of Dialogue', findings from the survey represent only the responses of
those who conducted an event and chose to complete and submit a survey
form. Through-out the report institutions that returned the survey form
are referred to as participating institutions.

# How Data Was Gathered

The majority of the data analyzed in the qualitative report section was
collected from the returned survey forms returned to the PIR office.
Participating institutions\' aggregate demographical, quantitative data
was collected by merging the survey respondents' file with the U.S.
Department of Education's (ED) Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data
System (IPEDS) file of approximately 10,000 institutions. The IPEDS file
is maintained by the ED National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES). All institutions are required to submit data to NCES for IPEDS.
Data collected and stored on IPEDS include enrollment information,
financing information, degrees awarded and other related data. Of the
188 institutions submitting a survey 177 matched with data maintained in
the IPEDS.

### Most survey questions were open-ended and lent themselves to an extremely wide range and variety of responses. Respondents had great latitude to report on the activities their campus sponsored and the major issues that arose. Responses to the survey were grouped into common themes that emerged from each question. 

**Methodology**

This report looks at the quantitative part of the data and highlights
meaningful statistics related to the schools participating in the survey
and then looks at minority representation at the same schools.

The second part of the report focuses on specific responses to
individual survey questions and highlights findings, insightful
comments, questions raised and recommendations. Edited responses to
survey questions are presented in exhibits 3 thru 8 in the middle of the
report.

# 

# Descriptive Data Analysis-Types of Activities Conducted

Colleges and universities were asked to participate by conducting at
least one of the following activities. 1) A 'Campus Town Hall Meeting on
Race' which is conducted by organizing a meeting or series of meetings
with students, faculty, and staff to discuss complex issues of race on
campus, in the local community or in society'. 2) A 'Campus-Community
Partnership' conducted by hosting a meeting involving both campus and
community leaders discussing ways to work together. 3) A 'Student Leader
Meeting' conducted by encouraging student leaders from all races on
campus to convene a campus meeting to discuss issues of race and how to
work together. 4) 'Other Campus Activities' conducted by sponsoring
other events during the week, including faculty lectures on race, film
showings, cultural festivals, community service projects and other
related events. See Exhibit 1 for a listing of all participating
institutions, the events they conducted and the number of participants
at each event.

The following table illustrates a breakdown of the type of events held
by survey respondents and the number of participants in each of the
events.

## Campus Week of Dialogue

**(Survey Response)**

**Table 1**

  --------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------
  **Type of Event**     **Number of      **Number of       **Percent (%)
                        Events**         Participants**    Participants**

  Town Hall Meetings    69               7,428             24

  Campus-Community      31               2,389             8
  Partnerships                                             

  Student Leader        53               2,170             7
  Meetings                                                 

  Other Campus Activity 102              18,855            61

  **Totals**            **255**          **30,842**        **100**
  --------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------

Table 1 above shows that the events in the 'Other Campus Activities
category was conducted more frequently than any other with over 61
percent of all participants. Approximately 24 percent of participants
attended the Town Hall Meetings. Participation in Campus-Community
Partnerships was about 8 percent while at the Student Leader Meetings
participation was 7 percent. There were approximately 255 total events
sponsored by participating institutions with an estimated 31,000 people
participating.

### The one hundred and seventy-seven institutions that were successfully matched with the ED IPEDS file can be categorized into the following institutional types:

###  

###  **Number of Institutions by Type** 

#### Table 2

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Type of Institution** **\# of Schools**       **Percent**

  **Public**              **88**                  **49.7**

  **Private**             **76**                  **42.9**

  **For Profit**          **3**                   **1.7**

  **Missing**             **10**                  **5.6**

  **Total**               **177**                 **100**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

We can see from Table 2 that about half of the institutions (49.7
percent) participating in the survey were public institutions. Private
institutions were not far behind with 76 institutions (42.9 percent).

Table 3 below provides a further breakdown of institutions by type and
control.

> **Participating Institutions by Type and Control**
>
> **Table 3**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Type of Institution** **\# of Schools**       **Percent**

  Public 4-Year           55                      31.1

  Public 2-Year           33                      18.6

  Private 4-Year          72                      40.7

  Private 2-year          4                       2.3

  Private 4-Year Profit   1                       .6

  Private less than       2                       1.1
  2-Year for Profit                               

  **Totals**              **167**                 **100**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

There were fifty-five, Public 4-Year institutions (31.1 percent) and
thirty-three

Public 2-year institutions (18.6 percent). There were 72 Private 4-Year
institutions (40.7 percent) and 4 Private 2-Year institutions (2.3
percent). Private 2-year institutions numbered 4 or about 2 percent.
There were three for profit institutions (1.1 percent). Four-year
institutions represented approximately 71.8% of participating
institutions

The following chart illustrates the average (mean) percentage of
minority students attending institutions by the type of institution.

> **The Percentage of Minority Students Enrollment by Institutional Type
> at Participating Institutions**

**Table 4**

+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| **I        | **%      | **%         | **%       | **%     | **%   |
| nstitution | African  | American    | Asia      | His     | Non-  |
| Type**     | Am       | Ind         | n/Pacific | panic** | Minor |
|            | erican** | ian/Alaskan | I         |         | ity** |
|            |          | Native**    | slander** |         |       |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| Public     | 8.9      | 1.0         | 4.5       | 5.6     | 80.0  |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| Private    | 9.8      | 1.3         | 4.7       | 3.4     | 81.0  |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| For Profit | 16.0     | 2.0         | 1.0       | 10.0    | 71.0  |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| **Total    | **9.4**  | **1.7**     | **4.6**   | **5.0** | **8   |
| Minority** |          |             |           |         | 0.0** |
|            |          |             |           |         |       |
| **         |          |             |           |         |       |
| Students** |          |             |           |         |       |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
|            |          |             |           |         |       |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+
| ***All     | **       | ***0.9***   | ***5.3*** | ***     | ***71 |
| Insti      | *11.6*** |             |           | 10.3*** | .0*** |
| tutions*** |          |             |           |         |       |
|            |          |             |           |         |       |
| *          |          |             |           |         |       |
| **National |          |             |           |         |       |
| Total      |          |             |           |         |       |
| M          |          |             |           |         |       |
| inority*** |          |             |           |         |       |
+------------+----------+-------------+-----------+---------+-------+

Table 4 further shows that of all the institutions returning the survey,
African--American students represent approximately 9.4 percent of the
students on their campuses. Hispanic and Asian Pacific/Islander students
represented approximately 4.6 percent. Native American students
represented about 1.2 percent.

The last row of the table lists national percentages at all Title IV
eligible institutions by race.

**Minority participation by institutions within a state**

See Exhibit 2 for a table that lists all participating institutions by
state and the percentage of minority students enrolled at each
institution.

> **State Where Participating Institutions are Located**
>
> **Table 5**

+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ######           |           | #######         |                     |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| **State of       | ########  | **% of          | **Cumulative**      |
| Institution**    | Number of | Participating** |                     |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
|                  | **Insti   | *               | **Percent**         |
|                  | tutions** | *Institutions** |                     |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Missing Data     | 9         | 5.1             | 5.1                 |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| AL               | 3         | 1.7             | 6.8                 |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| AR               | 3         | 1.7             | 8.5                 |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| AZ               | 1         | 0.6             | 9                   |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| CA               | 17        | 9.6             | 18.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| CO               | 4         | 2.3             | 20.9                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| CT               | 3         | 1.7             | 22.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| DC               | 4         | 2.3             | 24.9                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| FL               | 4         | 2.3             | 27.1                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| GA               | 6         | 3.4             | 30.5                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| HI               | 1         | 0.6             | 31.1                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IA               | 2         | 1.1             | 32.2                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ID               | 1         | 0.6             | 32.8                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IL               | 8         | 4.5             | 37.3                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IN               | 3         | 1.7             | 39                  |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| KY               | 5         | 2.8             | 41.8                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| LA               | 2         | 1.1             | 42.9                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MA               | 10        | 5.6             | 48.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MD               | 5         | 2.8             | 51.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MI               | 3         | 1.7             | 53.1                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MN               | 3         | 1.7             | 54.8                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MO               | 1         | 0.6             | 55.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MS               | 1         | 0.6             | 55.9                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| MT               | 2         | 1.1             | 57.1                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| NC               | 6         | 3.4             | 60.5                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| NH               | 1         | 0.6             | 61                  |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| NJ               | 5         | 2.8             | 63.8                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| NV               | 1         | 0.6             | 64.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| NY               | 12        | 6.8             | 71.2                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| OH               | 6         | 3.4             | 74.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| OK               | 2         | 1.1             | 75.7                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ######### PA     | 17        | 9.6             | 85.3                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| RI               | 2         | 1.1             | 86.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| TN               | 2         | 1.1             | 87.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| TX               | 5         | 2.8             | 90.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| UT               | 1         | 0.6             | 91                  |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| VA               | 3         | 1.7             | 92.7                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| VT               | 1         | 0.6             | 93.2                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| WA               | 6         | 3.4             | 96.6                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| WI               | 4         | 2.3             | 98.9                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| WV               | 1         | 0.6             | 99.4                |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| WY               | 1         | 0.6             | 100                 |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
|                  |           |                 |                     |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+
| **Total**        | **177**   | **100**         |                     |
+------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+

Table 5 above list the states where participating institutions are
located that returned surveys. They were from forty-one states: The five
states with the most institutions participating represent 36 percent of
participation by all institutions. California and Pennsylvania each had
17 institutions or approximately 10 percent of the total. There were 12
institutions from New York representing approximately 7 percent.
Massachusetts, with 10 institutions and 5.6 percent, was fourth. There
were eight institutions in Illinois representing about 4.5 percent of
schools. The remaining institutions were fairly evenly spread through
the remaining thirty-six states. Five Historically Black Colleges &
Universities (HBCU's), and one Tribal College returned the survey. There
were also five Hispanic Serving Institutions participating in the
survey.

**Part II --The Survey**

The survey consisted of ten questions, three were demographical, and
were discussed in the previous section. The remaining six questions will
be discussed in this section.

**Highlights of the survey responses are presented below. The full
response to each survey is presented in Exhibits 3-8 at the end of the
summary report**.

Following are the questions from the survey. Since most of the questions
were open-ended, the responses varied a great deal between institutions.
Consequently, the questions were not easily tabulated. The approach
utilized in tabulating the survey results is intended to determine the
most common themes that emerge however, all responses do not fit neatly
into the overarching themes. Therefore findings reported here are based
on the majority of responses.

# I. What were the primary issues discussed at your event(s)? Responses to this question were placed into the following themes. Approximately 143 of the responses or about 76 percent of the total responses are represented by the following themes. See Exhibit 3, which provides a complete listing of all responses to this question.

# 

# 1) Race & Racism/ Discrimination & Prejudice (72 responses) The discussions within this theme covered a broad spectrum of race relations within the college and university communities. Some respondents discussed definitions of race and racism and how race relations impact daily life. Other respondents discussed issues such as student\'s voluntary (or self) segregation on campuses. There were discussions regarding responses to hate groups and how some people are in denial regarding racism and the need to address it. There were discussions about family legacies of racism and how racism is often passed down from generation to generation. Other discussions addressed multi-racial marriages. There were also discussions centering on improving race relations. 

**2) Diversity & Multiculturalism** (39 responses) There were
discussions centered on awareness of cultural differences and how to
create sensitivity and appreciation for others. Other discussions dealt
with ways to create a truly multicultural community. Emphasis in several
of the discussions highlighted the importance of understanding cultural
differences and the need to respect people as individuals. Some
respondents wrote that everyone should become a friend to someone from a
different race or culture.

**3) Perceptions & Climate** (17 responses) The discussions in this
group centered on how students perceive racism on campuses and the
perception of race in America. There were also discussions on whether
the campus climate was supportive of and open to all students. There was
a discussion on perspectives of the Holocaust. Respondents in this group
also discussed the institutional and economic climate.

**4) Dialogue, Education & Solutions** (17 responses) The discussions
focused on the difference between dialogue and debate. Other respondents
wrote that the focus was on creating on-going, honest dialogue among
faculty, staff and administrators about racial issues. Discussions
addressed what the university could do working with the community to
enhance race relations. Educational, economic, political, and social
opportunities were the topic of some of the discussions.

II\. What lessons were learned or what concrete outcomes resulted from
your event(s)? Five themes emerged from this question. See Exhibit 4 for
a complete listing of responses to this question.

1)  Continue the Dialogue \-- (41 responses) There was a general
    consensus to continue to have the dialogue sessions because so much
    was learned from them as knowledge counters ignorance and reduces
    and eliminates bias. Some respondents talked about expanding the
    dialogues to include the community and to continue to understand
    each other's perspective.

2)  Hold future race related events \-- (34 responses) Several
    respondents wrote that the events were evaluated as highly
    successful and there is a commitment to have more sessions in the
    future. One respondent recruited 35 student facilitators to expand
    the dialogue sessions next year.

3)  Diversity, awareness & multiculturalism \-- (24 responses) The
    importance of students learning about different cultures and the
    importance of establishing good relations. Some respondents wrote
    that they learned that 'silence and acquiescence can enable racism
    to occur'. Others learned that race remains a sensitive subject.
    Others wrote they learned that issues of race and diversity needs to
    be addressed.

4)  Partnerships developed -- (14 responses) Several institutions formed
    partnerships with the community, with Boards of Education, student
    groups and businesses in the private sector. Others started
    university to university partnerships.

5)  Student Leader meetings -- (11 responses) Several student groups
    agreed to meet and talk again. Students hosted an Intercultural
    Student Conference and they also started an 'Intercultural House'
    where students live off campus and champion the goal of
    intercultural understanding. Similar activities occurred at other
    institutions that responded to the survey.

# 

# III. What race related challenges is your campus facing? 

Six major challenges emerged from this question. There were
approximately 177 responses of which 166 of them were grouped into the
following challenges. **See**

**Exhibit 5** for a complete listing of all responses to this question.

1\) **Race relations including discrimination**---(56 responses) A
reoccurring response was student self-segregation. "Segregation---people
still separate based on race, there is separatism and exclusivity by
racial group". There are small numbers of minorities on campus. There is
covert racism that makes dialogue and understanding difficult. There is
a general feeling of being disconnected if you are a person of color or
a woman.

2\) **Diversity issues**---(35 responses) A major point made was that
many campuses are not as diverse as they should be. There needs to be a
concentrated effort to increase diversity in the student population,
curriculum, faculty and staff at many colleges and universities. There
is also an attitude on some campuses that diversity and race related
issues are problematic and are concerns primarily for minorities.

**3) Recruitment and retention**---(32 responses) This was stated as the
challenge approximately 20 percent of the time. Many institutions
responded that recruitment of a more diverse student body, minority
faculty hiring and retention was a major challenge. The backlash of
angry White faculty opposed to diversity was also cited. There should be
"Recruitment in diverse populations, to offer adequate support for
minority communities within the college". "Reflective staffing and
developing curriculum that includes diversity, developing new teaching
styles while considering cultural differences are challenges. Managing
classroom diversity".

**4)** **Dialogue/Conversations**---(17 responses) It is challenging to
start conversations about race. Getting people to listen to one another
and be honest with themselves is challenging. "Our inability to engage
more non-minority students in face to face discussions regarding racial
tensions and conflict resolution is a big challenge". There is
disappointment that few non-minority faculty and staff is taking a
leadership role in discussions related to racial issues.

**5)** **Perceptions & Climate**\-\-- (17 responses) The big challenge
is to change perceptions of the majority community. Creating a safe
climate to facilitate honest, open, regular dialogues and collaborative
activities around race were another challenge. There is not a supportive
environment for African-American, Hispanic and Asian individuals on many
campuses. One respondent wrote that 'there is suspicion of efforts to
unify because of past wounds and insensitivity from the majority group'.

**6)** **Training**\-\-- (10 responses) Several institutions indicated
that this was the challenge. Race related issues needed to be included
into the curriculum and that race-related incidents should be combated
through training and awareness. Another respondent wrote that teaching
was needed to help various groups communicate. Diversity training should
be provided to all faculty and staff.

IV\. What solutions if any has your campus developed in response to
these challenges? Responses to this question were categorized into the
following themes. See Exhibit 6 for a full listing of all responses to
this question.

1\) Dialogue & Conversations -- (57 responses)

The majority of respondents indicated that their solution to the
challenges is to insure that some type of on-going dialogue sessions
continue where issues can be discussed in an open environment. They also
indicated that it was important to keep the issues of race and diversity
at the forefront of the dialogue. Some stressed the importance of
involving student leaders and students in the planning and assessment of
the dialogue sessions. Others indicated the importance of getting
faculty involved so they can take ownership in the campus climate
regarding race. The following quote encapsulates this theme. "Continue
the dialogue. Integrate multiculturalism throughout the University
curriculum. Diversify the faculty. Involve students in planning,
assessing and research diversity. Engage the surrounding community in
the dialogue".

2\) Diversity & Multiculturalism -- (53 responses) There were slightly
fewer responses that could be put into this category. Based on the
number of responses we can tell that many colleges and universities felt
that this is an important way to deal with the challenges at their
schools. Some schools established diversity task forces or multicultural
committees to plan and address issues of race, diversity and
multiculturalism now and in the future. Several of the institutions
wrote that they intend to include courses on cultural diversity into the
curriculum. The following quote captures the spirit of what many of the
institutions are doing: "We will build coalitions & unite with different
oppressed groups. Show individuals the benefits of change. Provide
incentives for intergroup interaction. Provide opportunities for
thinking and self-reflection to overcome internal pressures". (Presented
as actions to various barriers)".

3\) Training, Awareness & Publicity -- (22 responses) Several
institutions wrote that training was the solution to their campus
challenge. Some institutions developed diversity videos as a way to
educate their staff. One institution wrote that they provide future
student leadership training. Another institution indicated that it would
include instruction about racial bias in the curriculum. Several
institutions indicated that they would start some type of advertising
campaign. One institution created a "No Room for racism" campaign with a
mass educational thrust for campus, community, and continued educational
programming for the university and community.

**4) Recruitment & Retention --** (20 responses) The importance of
recruiting a diverse student body and faculty was the solution for
several institutions. Many of them wrote that they were going to work
hard to increase the recruitment and retention of minority students,
faculty and staff. They wrote of incorporating experiences from
different cultures into the curriculum. Several of them already have a
task force or committee to work on recruitment. The following quote
highlights what may be a general consensus**. '**A formalized
minority-recruiting plan will be developed. Conduct an institution-wide
assessment of programs and systems to better address race related issues
and identify barriers'.

**V. What are [Two]{.underline} specific recommendations you would like
to make to the President concerning issues of race on your campus?**

The themes that reoccurred more frequently from this question were: A
complete listing of responses to this question can be found in **Exhibit
7**.

1)  **Leadership & Direction** \-- (50 responses) The majority of
    respondents

want the President to provide leadership and direction by promoting a
National agenda to do a number of things (only a few are included here)
including creating a 'National Discussion Day' annually. To involve all
Cabinet members and members of Congress in the discussion on race
relations and hold them accountable for being role models. Others want
the President to insure that the effort is an on-going national
activity. Some respondents want the President to be more vocal against
legislation that curbs minority participation at schools. Several
respondents wrote that the President should have a caucus in Washington
of university and college presidents to emphasize his commitment to
diversity and race relations.

2)  **Continue the Dialogue --** (32 responses) Many respondents want
    the

> President to continue to support the dialogues on race, to keep the
> discussions going and to try to get all races involved in the
> discussions. Other respondents wrote that the President should
> encourage educators and the private sector to work together on
> heightening the awareness of the youth of tomorrow. They urged that
> there be continued conversations and follow-up. A respondent wrote
> that the President should focus the dialogues on institutions with
> little diversity.

3)  **Increased Funding & Program Development** -- (29 responses)
    Several respondents

> emphasized the theme of funding for conducting race related
> activities. Some institutions want the President to develop a funding
> resource that colleges can apply toward the challenge of campus
> racism. Some institutions want the President to ear-mark dollars
> specifically to support training and development for faculty, staff,
> and students on intercultural communication. Several institutions
> wrote that the President should provide scholarship funds for
> minorities to attend private universities. One institution wrote that
> there should be funding for the development of intergroup relations
> centers to promote intergroup interaction.

**4) Recruitment & Education --** (12 responses) Under this theme
institutions wrote that there is a need for people of color to be
elected or appointed to higher office to effectively incorporate
viewpoints of different races in the decision making processes. Another
institution wrote that there should be more minorities teaching at our
colleges and universities.

**VI. Would you be willing to commit to organizing future race-related
events on your campus or in your community to help build 'One America in
the 21^st^ Century'?**

This question required a two-part response. Part I asked the respondents
to check a yes or no box. Approximately 134 respondents or about 71
percent checked the **Yes** box indicating that they would be willing to
hold a future race related event. There were about 5 respondents
checking the **No box.** The remaining respondents did not check either
box. All responses to this question can be found in Exhibit 8.

Part II of the question asked respondents to describe the event if they
indicated that they would organize one. Responses to this question
varied greatly, but were grouped into the following categories.

**1) Dialogue & Discussions** \-- (28 responses) Several respondents
wrote that they will continue with this type of discussion each
semester. There was general consensus of the importance in having open
forums and keeping the communication channels open. The following quote
relays the spirit expressed, 'Our community would benefit from a private
candid dialogue between College Presidents, the Superintendent, the
Chief of police, Social Service Executives, the City Council, the Mayor,
the School Committee and the Legislators'.

**2) Diversity planning** -- (8 responses) A number of respondents
indicated that they would continue to develop an activity to increase
diversity. Others will use diversity as the main topic at their event.
The events range from diversity roundtables to bringing multicultural
events to campus.

**3)** **Partnerships** \-- (7 responses) Some respondents wrote that
they would continue to partner with the community or with various
organizations on their respective campuses. Our campus 'Will partner
with the City's Community Relations Commission to sponsor workshops and
forums', was the sentiment expressed.

**4) Miscellaneous** -- The remaining responses were placed into this
category because

they differed from all others. Several respondents wrote that the timing
of the initiative was bad and they would sponsor an activity if they had
more time or could use their own timetable. Others asked that they be
kept informed of any new programs or initiative developments. A large
number of respondents that checked the Yes box did not indicate what
future event they would organize.

**Conclusions**

The overarching and continuous theme that was echoed by most
participating institutions throughout the surveys is to "Keep the
Dialogue Going". The 'Campus Week of Dialogue' generated a lot of
support nationwide. There were dialogues started and relationships
developed that may have a lasting impact. Many people of different
races, cultures and ethnicities are talking to each other about the real
and divisive issue of race relations. The activity drew many people
together that possibly would never have gotten together. The effect of
having the activity is immeasurable.

The support and encouragement of President Clinton was critical to the
success of the event and can't be overemphasized. President Clinton's
support is critical to insuring that future events and activities are
successful. A survey respondent wrote, "if President Clinton weren't
advocating the events, many of the people who participated would not
have". It is very important that some action result from the events.
Many people want the President to make race relations a continued part
of the national agenda.

Several survey respondents wrote that the President needs to provide
leadership, support and guidance now and in the future. He can do that
by keeping the activities going, by establishing relationships with
colleges and university presidents, by encouraging and forming
partnerships that will last into the next century. The President and his
policies should serve as a model for others to follow.