Report of the Task Force on Institutional Racism
Colby College
14 April 1999
History of the Task Force
The Task Force on Institutional Racism, hereafter referred to simply as "the task force," was formed by President Cotter in response to a student letter of September 7, 1998. The student's letter detailed her case of bringing charges of racial harassment against another student during the spring of 1998 and the handling of that case by the official College channels. The student's letter concluded that, in addition to the incident of racial harassment, the manner in which the case was handled by the College was, itself, an act of institutional racism. The student's letter outlined fourteen specific measures that she believed would redress existing shortcomings in policy and procedure in official College documents as well as improve future conditions for racial minorities on campus (See pages 3-5 below).
Several members of the Colby community who were "Cc'd" on the student's letter grew concerned when there was no significant response to her letter from senior administrators to whom it was addressed. At the urging of one faculty member in particular, President Cotter agreed to discuss the content of the letter and its implications for the community at the October 1998 Campus Community Committee (CCC) meeting. Two things came out of that CCC meeting. First, although students, staff, and faculty at the meeting desired immediate action by the administration on the fourteen measures suggested in the student's letter, President Cotter instead proposed the formation of the task force, being convened by one administrator, one student, and one faculty member. Second, President Cotter charged the task force with addressing five issues that he felt covered the basic areas of the student's initial fourteen suggestions. The five areas were: (1) rewriting procedural standards, (2) training of staff, faculty and students, (3) curricular issues, (4) affirmative action and retention, and (5) campus support networks. Membership on the task force was opened to all members of the Colby community.
Deliberations of the Task Force
Once the task force convened, its initial conversation focused on the mission of the task force. Many members of the task force wanted to be very clear about the mission and extent of power and influence of the task force before beginning work. The concern was whether the task force's recommendations would carry significant enough weight to bring about effective institutional change. The fact that an ad hoc task force had to be formed for the purpose of addressing institutional racism and, that this task force was given no formal authority, is itself further evidence of institutional structures that act as barriers to progress. The task force remains concerned about this issue since its institutional status and power remain unclear.
In the course of discussing the mission of the task force, the task force's title also became an issue. Since the student's letter specifically addressed institutional racism, many believed that the title and mission of the task force should reflect that. Some did not understand the meaning of the term, "institutional racism" including President Cotter, who, in addition, found the term to be needlessly inflammatory, and asked for clarification. The task force therefore spent more time discussing these objections and the meaning of the term, and chose to keep the title, Task Force on Institutional Racism, as it is an accurate reflection of the expressed concerns and is, in actuality, a term with great currency among those who study race and racism in the United States.
From there, the primary area of discussion in task force meetings concerned whose labor should be expended in order to bring about the institutional changes suggested by the student. At issue was another instance of what many on the task force perceived as institutional racism: the expectation that racial minorities are primarily responsible for making institutional changes that eradicate discriminatory practices and are further responsible for the education of the community. There was a strong sense among members of the task force that the College's senior administrators should themselves be working on implementing the very changes that the student had so carefully articulated in her letter which were all strongly supported by the task force.
In addition, members of the task force agreed that the five areas identified by the President were in some ways a "step backward" from the student's original list of suggestions. That is, whereas she had formulated fourteen concrete and practical steps that would improve policy and practices and that could be implemented relatively quickly and easily by the College, the five areas of concern identified by the President were abstractions from those concrete issues.
These two concerns-that the labor necessary for making institutional changes should come from senior administrators, and that the student's letter already contained several concrete steps to bring those changes about-led the members of the task force to conclude that we should bring the administration back into the process of making the changes already put before them. The consensus was that our next step would be simply to compose a report and send the issues back to the President for him and his administration to tackle, in consultation with the task force or the standing committee. In short, the task force agreed that the onus must rest with the administration to do the brunt of the work necessary to make change happen.
Close this window to return.