GUEST COLUMNIST: A deeper need for 'Unity' on campus

Eric Lee, Guest Columnist Eric Lee, Guest ColumnistI sat there quietly -- watching the slide show of sights and peoples from different parts of the world, as well as various cultures and races from the very country we live in. I wasn't quite sure why they decided to show these slides to start of the information session. It was all fine and dandy, but seemed straight out of a movie on peace and love around the world. The Unity Center represents an effort by students to create "a central location on Penn's campus dedicated to the exploration and celebration of diversity in all its forms in an effort to foster community building, promote respect, and expand our "comfort zones." The center has recently received much criticism surrounding its purpose, methodology and future implications. Issues with effective inclusion and representation of ethnic groups and overlapping of functions plague its development. Many communities and departments are calling into question the Unity Center and the purpose of its establishment. But these problems are logistical and superficial compared to the deeper concern the Unity Center embodies. And that is not the concept of unity. We need unity and we need to understand each other and bridge gaps. We need to communicate and build relationships that cross "comfort zones." But most of us already know this. The Unity Center does not offer us a new idea. The deeper concern the Unity Center idea embodies is a lack of commitment and effort by the University to foster and educate its student body about issues of diversity. Administrators have become so detached from the concerns of its community that students took the responsibility to educate themselves, thus the evolution of the Unity Center. The student themselves started this idea, and came together to address serious problems occurring at their level. And what has the University done? Let's take the Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan University President Judith Rodin announced last semester as an example. As part of the University's Agenda for Excellence, it represents administrators' first institutional commitment to the recruitment and retention of minority students at Penn in a long time. And thanks and praises should go to all those involved in pushing the University to service the needs of the minority student population. But even Rodin's plan is an example of a half-hearted effort at addressing diversity issues at Penn. The plan does not include the Asian American population at the University. Why they call it a Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan when it does not include all minorities is beyond me? The University says it is a plan for underrepresented minorities, but is the concept of "minority" a quantitative issue? Does that mean Asian Americans are "overrepresented?" Are there simply more than enough of us on this campus to be included in this plan? But it is not the ideological flaws of this plan that we argue. The Asian American community has needs and concerns the Recruitment and Retention Plan could have addressed but fails to. By excluding Asian Americans, the University is not committed to recruiting more Asian American faculty, let alone retaining the few that we do have. By excluding Asian Americans, the University is ignoring the fact that Southeast Asian populations are severely underrepresented at the University. In pointing out the flaws of the Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan and the concerns of the Asian American community, it is evident the University is not dedicated to educating and fostering unity and diversity at Penn. It marks a continuous pattern of alienation from its student body, failure to understand and react to students' concerns and inability to make a commitment to improving and capitalizing on the diversity the University possesses. So I urge all those involved with the Unity Center to step back and see the real problem. The action and concerns should be taken not toward the Center, but towards the University.