UpDate - Vol. 15, No. 13, Page D-1
November 30, 1995
Diversity
Chairperson shares thoughts on commission issues

     SB. Woo, professor of physics and astronomy, currently serves as
chairperson of the Commission to Promote Racial and Cultural
Diversity.
     Born in Shanghai, China, Woo came to the United States in 1956 to
complete his undergraduate studies, and he later earned two
postgraduate degrees in this country.
     In 1966, he joined the UD faculty in the Department of Physics as
an assistant professor. He was promoted to professor in 1980, however,
he didn't accept the promotion until 1982, when his appointment as the
first faculty-trustee of the University ended.
     Woo and his wife, Katy, have two children, a son, Chih-I, and a
daughter, Chih-Lan.
     To relax, Woo bikes and plays volleyball.

                                 * * *

Q. How were you selected as chairperson of the commission?
A. Maxine Colm, vice president for employee relations, asked me to
   serve as head of the commission.  She was so persuasive that I
   said, "Yes."

Q. Would you agree that being the commission chairperson is a high-
   profile position?
A. To a degree. Diversity and issues associated with the commission
   have gotten to be controversial topics in recent years, but there
   is more acceptance of diversity on this campus than there is
   generally throughout the country. Part of that is because the
   president and members of the administration speak out strongly for
   diversity. It's also helpful to have very good people associated
   with the commission, both as staff and as active volunteers.

Q. What are your goals for the commission?
A. My short-term goal is to help implement the goals of the
   commission, which I shall paraphrase as "ensuring that people of
   diverse intellectual, cultural and social backgrounds participate
   fully in affairs of the University, and that our campus is enriched
   by the presence of diversity." In the long run, I hope to see our
   University become a role model for spreading diversity.
     Thus far, I have found my involvement with the commission
   rewarding. It is not a debating society. It gets things done.

Q. Could you be specific?
A. Let's take last year's commission activities as an example. First,
   the commission stimulated the formation of new caucuses of under-
   utilized groups on campus, such as the Hispanic Caucus and the
   Asian- American/Pacific Islander Caucus. Then, all of the caucuses
   were invited to address the commission and share what they thought
   the University should be doing in the area of diversity.
     After that, the commission issued an annual report, which
   accurately reflected the views of the caucuses and made
   recommendations centered about these caucus reports.  Subsequently,
   at the very first meeting of this academic year, Judy Gibson, the
   staff member who works very closely and well with the commission
   members, gave a report to the commission regarding actions already
   taken by the University as a result of the commission's
   recommendations.
     In our second meeting, President Roselle came and expressed his
   "very positive support" for our annual report. In our third
   meeting, Provost Schiavelli came and discussed in detail his plans
   to implement the remaining recommendations of our annual report.
     So, there was proactive empowering of the under-utilized groups
   on campus, accurate reporting of their views and follow-up action
   and monitoring.
     Not to be misleading, it should be understood that the commission
   is a policy body, not an administrative body, and some of our goals
   will take decades to accomplish.

Q. How would you describe the climate of diversity on the UD campus?
A. Relative to other institutions, I think it is good. I give our
   administration a lot of credit for its sincere effort on spreading
   diversity. However, on my absolute scale, I think it's poor.

Q. In what area is improvement needed?
A. A lot of people on this campus and elsewhere are weary of
   activities in this general area. Because of some past, over-zealous
   pursuit of affirmative action, many people tend to equate
   "affirmative action" with "quota." Further, they think affirmative
   action, equal opportunity and diversity are three catch phrases all
   meaning the same thing: Quota.
     Actually, the three terms address three different needs, set
   different goals and take different actions.
     The past abuses have mostly been corrected. For our nation to get
   out of this racial quagmire that we are in, good people must take
   time to understand what these three terms really mean. If they
   agree with the intent and the prescription, then they must take a
   stand and help implement equal opportunity with the help of
   affirmative action, and lastly, diversity.

Q. Would you explain these three "catch phrases" as you call them?
A. Yes. Equal opportunity is the easiest to understand. The federal
   government has, in recent years, developed a very rational, eight-
   factor analysis of what should be taken into account regarding
   whether a minority group is being accorded equal opportunity by an
   employer. Qualification is given the predominant weight. For
   example, if 0.5 percent of the new Ph.D.'s in political science
   nationwide in recent years are Asian-Americans, then our political
   science department cannot be blamed for not having an Asian on its
   faculty. As another example, if 10 percent of the new Ph.D.'s in
   political science are Asian-Americans, but it was only 1 percent 10
   years ago, then one cannot press the political science department
   to recruit an Asian-American full professor.
     Affirmative action is more controversial. It is making an active
   effort to remedy and prevent discrimination, and it's important to
   add the phrase, "providing that qualifications and quality are not
   sacrificed." For example, given the paucity of Asians in politics,
   our political science department could be asked to actively recruit
   Asian students. In addition, race-specific scholarships for Asians
   who major in political science could be established.

Q. And, what about diversity?
A. This is the area where we as individuals and as a nation might not
   have done as well. My thoughts are still in a formative stage, but
   I shall utter them so as to stir the pot a little.
     Our establishments are opening their doors to protected
   classes-females, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and others. That is
   good. However, the selection process by which individuals in the
   protected classes are to be groomed for advancement is
   unfortunately a cloning operation.
     Let me explain. Being human, we have a preference for those who
   are in our image nowadays; it is not so much the skin color, as it
   is the thought process and value system. So, white males tend to
   promote people who think and act like white males. As a result,
   there is a tendency among the protected classes to sacrifice their
   unique cultural backgrounds and attributes in order to gain
   entrance to the establishment. That is sad.
     Don't get me wrong. The thought process and the value system of
   the white males contributed greatly to human civilization. Among
   the white males were people like John Locke, Issac Newton,
   Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Edison. Our core value system, which
   emphasizes honesty, logic, open process and democratic procedure,
   is admired by people all over the world. However, as our society
   accepts diversity in skin color, gender and sexual orientations,
   should we not also accept diversity in secondary values?
     What might be some examples of secondary values? On my list, they
   include the subtle communication skills and the natural disgust for
   war or war-like behavior by the female sex; the emphasis on long-
   term interests of Asian-Americans; the preference for emotional
   content and expression of blacks, just to name a few. When we
   produce, in the process of introducing diversity, female executives
   who are as game-playing as males, Asian executives who think only
   short-term, black executives who are placid, I consider that to be
   a partial gain in equality, but a significant loss in diversity.
     Hybrid plants give higher yield, better resistance to drought,
   flood, insects and disease. By appreciating differences in
   secondary values, America can take human civilization to yet a
   higher plateau.

Q. What do you say to those who might remark that you, as an Asian-
   American, have excelled in your profession without the aid of
   caucuses and diversity-oriented programs?
A. Some friends think I am a masochist. By that, they are referring to
   my willingness to take some pain and stick my neck out to do things
   I believe in. However, I would like to hope that, in the near
   future, all minorities get a truly equal opportunity. Colin Powell
   said to his children something like, "You have to be better than
   equal to get ahead." Asian-Americans express the same sentiment to
   our children. I've said it to my children. However, I hope that my
   children will not have to say that to their children. That is one
   reason I am serving on the diversity commission.

Q. Would you say that the ultimate goal of the commission is to not
   have a need for existence?
A. Amen.