During my first year at Arizona State University, I would walk around the Tempe campus thinking about the names of the buildings. Eventually, I learned that while some buildings are named after former presidents of the University, most are named after men.
Recently thinking about the buildings again, it hit me that in this school’s 125 years of existence, all 16 presidents have been white, heterosexual and male.
I recognize that there have been many notable accomplishments by ASU’s past presidents. Grady Gammage, who oversaw the transition of Arizona State College to Arizona State University, and his predecessor Homer H. Durham, who focused heavily on bringing academic diversity in programs and degrees to the University, both come to mind as presidents who helped propel ASU forward.
However, ASU actively promotes an image of diversity, stating that, “Arizona State University's commitment to inclusivity is central to its mission as a New American University and is evident throughout its diverse and talented community.”
By having the top executive position only occupied by a narrow population, there is a glaring disconnect between the vision and the reality.
According to ASU’s Quick Facts for Fall 2010, 32.2 percent of undergraduates are minorities and 50.9 percent are women. As someone who fits into these two categories, tracing back ASU’s presidents gives me a feeling of exclusion instead of empowerment.
Mid-next year marks the 10th year of current ASU president Michael Crow’s tenure. This is the time frame he set out for establishing the New American University. Whether Crow will leave ASU is unclear.
Concurrent with his time as president, pushes for equal justice by diverse populations have occurred both in and outside of Arizona.
Two examples that come to mind include the LGBTQ’s successful fight to repeal the discriminatory military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the movement to give undocumented youth citizenship — many leaders of this movement are strong Latinas. Activists worked in concert with their allies to fight for the passage of the DREAM Act, which came closer to passing in December of last year than it has since its original inception in 2001.
These movements reflect an important need for more diverse representation in various levels of society, including the universities.
Without direct representation, groups that are traditionally marginalized are forced to relay their voice and experiences through people who have not experienced their oppression firsthand, potentially leading to compromises or misrepresentation when decisions are made.
In 2009, 18.3 percent of ASU’s administrators were minorities and 52.7 percent were women, according to ASU’s “Ten-Year Review of Students, Faculty, and Staff: 1999-2009.”
If the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU are both serious about enhancing diversity at the University, then it is imperative that ABOR seeks out a candidate who embodies the diversity of Arizona and the United States.
In addition to meeting all the technical requirements of leading a university, it would be ideal to select a woman of color from the LGBTQ community as the next president — or an individual who holds at least one of those identities.
The next president has the potential to be emblematic and important step in progressing ASU. The question is whom will the regents choose?
Reach Athena at asalman3@asu.edu
