Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

The Syracuse University community did not need a 97-page report compiled by hired investigators or a diversity review created by a predominantly white Board of Trustees special committee to prove that marginalized communities are, indeed, marginalized. Yet, we got them anyway.

Once again, SU’s administration, Department of Public Safety and Board of Trustees have self-exposed their detachment from the student body.

It starts with former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s independent review of DPS. Prompted by the #NotAgainSU movement’s occupation of Crouse-Hinds Hall, Lynch was brought on to investigate DPS’ handling of the protest. The yearlong investigation amounted to 97 pages in total and ultimately concluded that there’s an erosion of trust between the SU community and DPS. 

While this finding is true, why did SU need outside investigators to come to a conclusion that students have known for years?

It boils down to the fact that SU refuses to listen and take action — beyond the formation of a committee or creation of a review — when students who are marginalized say that SU’s policies are systemically discriminatory. Instead, the university pays a third party to investigate whether the students are correct. Worse, SU refuses to admit to or break down these systemically discriminatory barriers. 

The irony is almost laughable. Almost.

The university does not consider the concerns and demands of students as having the same weight as the recommendations of independent third parties and other SU officials.  #NotAgainSU organizers raised concerns in February 2020 about DPS treating students as less than human, but it took over a year and the report from Lynch for the university to begin assessing revisions to DPS’ policies for interacting with students, particularly those participating in protests. 

Ultimately, SU believed that someone with a Harvard degree and no connection to SU had better insights into the issues on campus than SU students themselves.

It’s been two weeks since Lynch’s report was released. Consequently, it’s been two weeks since Chancellor Kent Syverud announced that, “In the coming days, I will share more specific information on how the University will fulfill these recommendations.” Yet, we haven’t heard or seen any plan for the implementation of the recommendations. This lack of immediate action is glaring.

But, once again, we are not surprised. Immediate transparency does not seem to be a priority of SU. 

It should also be noted that there’s a prominent bias in the investigation. Lynch was hired by SU, and it shows. She applauds DPS for a concerning amount of its approaches. She deems the disconnect between DPS and the SU community an “erosion of trust,” when it is, in fact, a trust that DPS officers are responsible for eroding. She even goes as far as to erroneously state that “DPS did not ultimately make the decision to restrict food and personal items from (Crouse-Hinds Hall)” — even though DPS officers, at least one of whom was armed, enforced that decision. 

Though Lynch stated herself that many DPS policies are not public, that DPS does not mandate the de-escalation of mental health crises, and that its protocol falls short of holding officers accountable for harmful actions, the report was a see-through cop-out for SU to do the bare minimum when it comes to institutional reparations. 

The report’s failure to fool the student body into thinking SU was actually taking action against its systemic discriminatory policies should have been a sign that committees, reports and investigations are a lost cause.

Instead, mere weeks later, the Board of Trustees Special Committee on University Climate, Diversity and Inclusion puts out yet another review. This committee is supposedly “devoted to addressing issues of diversity and inclusion,” but six of its seven members are white. 

In this review, the committee makes it clear that they believe the marginalizing actions of DPS should be blamed on marginalized students. They go as far as to not consider marginalization a reality but rather a “perceived” notion created in the heads of students of color. The use of the word “perceived” and “marginalization” in the same sentence is unsettling. No one that detached from the issues of racism should be on a committee addressing issues of inclusion. 

One thing needs to be set straight: people do not perceive their marginalization, they are marginalized. Most often by those who believe marginalization is merely a feeling and not a form of oppression.

The special committee’s final report recommends eliminating South Campus housing and moving students to Main Campus to “better integrate” the student body. The recommendation is offensive to students of color, who view South Campus as a safe haven. SU needs to instead focus on making every on-campus residence a safe haven for students of color. It does not need to force students of color to live in threatening environments where they don’t often feel safe in their own skin. 

But, once again, we are not surprised. The Board of Trustees has proven time and again to be blatantly misinformed on issues of inclusion. So misinformed that they believe their predominantly white and unanimously wealthy committee to be the best make-up for a diversity committee.

“I don’t think our work was in any way, shape or form impacted by the composition of the committee. Quite frankly, quite the opposite,” said Richard Alexander, one of the co-leaders of the committee in an interview with The Daily Orange.

The committee knows nothing about true diversity, despite its overuse of its three favorite words: inclusion, equity and, of course, diversity.

The defensive tactics of both Lynch’s 97-page report and the Board of Trustees’ special committee’s review are telling. They want to solve SU’s issues of systemic discrimination with simple summarizations and no follow up.

It’s time for SU to come to terms with the fact that marginalized students on campus don’t want committees, reviews, reports or investigations that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion. We want action.

The Daily Orange Editorial Board serves as the voice of the organization and aims to contribute the perspectives of students to discussions that concern Syracuse University and the greater Syracuse community. The editorial board’s stances are determined by a majority of its members. You can read more about the editorial board here. Are you interested in pitching a topic for the editorial board to discuss? Email opinion@dailyorange.com.

Published on March 7, 2021 at 11:49 pm

Contact: opinion@dailyorange.com