As the Feb. 5 programming for the Diversity Summit was an interactive session, participants were adamant in remaining unnamed to encourage a free-flowing discussion. As such, all quotes are anonymously attributed.
This year, the Diversity Summit celebrated its 20th anniversary as a beacon of inclusivity and outreach to the DU community. The Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODEI) reckoned with a desire to reach beyond the constrictions of a language that falls short of the organization’s wide and encompassing aspirations on Feb. 5’s event.
The session—dubbed “We Rise to the Challenge Beyond Diversity: The Significance of Language”—aimed to tackle an intrinsic and elusive question: “Does the word ‘diversity’ still serve its intended purpose?” The self-described goal of the open discussion was to “commence in a grand renaming of the Diversity Summit for the years to come.”
The question may seem inconsequential upon a glance, but it spurs debate surrounding the lack of achievement associated with diversity and a general misconception of all that the word is meant to encompass.
For attendees familiar with the extent to which diversity is used as a cop-out or for quotas and statistics, the word falls short of impressive ambitions. It stands in for tangible systemic change. One of the attendees expressed it as “the D. comes short of the E.I.,” in keeping with the organization’s own acronym.
Frustration with lack of meaningful progress is made worse as sparse attendance at the conference heightens worries that the right people are not receiving ODEI’s message.
“There’s the choir,” another participant explained, “or the folks who are engaged in it, but some of it is folks who haven’t been exposed, folks who don’t see it as their own civic engagement.”
Several ideas were proposed to “broaden that net to capture more of the people who wouldn’t usually care,” as one speaker put it. The recent extension of the summit to span over three months (January through March) is noted as a well-received change. The condensed format of past summits was thought to be overly-taxing on participants. Still, participants expressed disappointment at the low turnout.
The need for widespread involvement was acknowledged, but the notion of imposing a requirement was met with a mixed reception. Rather, it was agreed that ODEI would prefer to help those who currently refrain from tough conversations find a point of identification, which draws them to participate.
Disregarding the obvious hindrances of non-participance, some expressed the thought that the linguistic dilemma at hand may be located in issues of framing more than anything else. The point referred to a general misunderstanding of the definition of diversity, which encompasses equity and inclusion in its natural form, as more of a problem than the word itself.
Though an interesting idea—reminiscent of common debates over whether a flawed system is past saving, or if work should be done within the system to work up to an eventual ideal—little time was left to flesh out the details. The conversation was truncated to less than an hour discluding pleasantries and a Zoom-etiquette crash course.
“We needed more time,” one participant expressed, a statement which was felt by all as breakout-room discussions came to an early close.
As the meeting came to a close, the complex issue of language’s role in naming the Diversity Summit had yet to reach a conclusion.
One participant asked, “how do we not admire the problem and, instead, come up with ways to address it?” While a renaming was unable to gain traction over the quick duration of one hour, participants were antsy to refrain from further analysis and ready to begin formulating a solution.
