Slavery, Race and Memory Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2019
In Attendance: D. McIntosh, T. Parent, G. Parent, T. Pyatt, J. Soares, M. Tribble, J. Villalba, K. Chavis, D. Franco, M. Jallow, D. Hicks
- Introduction of New Steering Committee Members
Professor Derek Hicks
Mariama Jallow ‘22
- Retreat Debrief/Review Priorities for the Academic Year
- Chavis: How will we broaden the work of this committee. What outcomes would we like to see come to fruition?
- Hicks – The engagement of going to the original campus concretized the work for me: The conversation and class trip has emerged from Dr. Hicks taking a trip to the original campus; What else can emerge from this work; Hicks has contacted a local poet to engage his class to have them think about the ways in which they can engage with the space and experience
- Franco – If you do things that are one-off, they will come and go; Walker consistently pushed the committee to think outside of the box; As we begin to lay out our priorities we should aim for transformation
- Tribble – We need to be cognitively aware that we are presenting this information as sustainable and scalable
- Chavis – We can create a call for student research projects; mentioned URECA as a way for the project to partner with entities that are already functioning on campus – with the capacity to provide funding on campus; we must have actionable items to make this work scalable and sustainable –
- T. Parent – We have the capacity to have SRMP events on our annual academic calendar, voted on by faculty members
- Chavis – We need to be nimble with regards to who we ask to serve on sub-committee; suggests that a subset of the committee to take on the charge of faculty engagement committee; how can we be most effective and stay in our lane; Kami will send out an email
- Jallow – Students in student government have speculation as to why the Board of Trustees minutes are not accessible
- Kersh – There are groups of individuals that already exists within various departments, the college, and schools (CAP Committee) that can be a vital asset to the shaping and implementation of SRMP subject matter within various curricula; we may want to look into asset mapping
Faculty Engagement Committee
Charge: is to develop a proposal to encourage course development and sustainable curricular enhancements (i.e., new departments, programs, targeted hiring, a conference on course development around slavery and race)
- Chavis – Forthcoming micro-grants will be posted to the SRMP website – in particular, the Campus-Wide Engagement Grant and Course Enhancement Grant: the SRMP Travel Grant will be placed on the Provost Office’s website –
McIntosh – Is there a rubric for evaluating the who and what type of projects will receive a grant?
- Enhancing Traditions Committee
Charge: to identify campus “traditions” (i.e., Founders Day), and to draft a proposal for suggested modifications to make these events more inclusive of the entire campus history and reflect the diversity of the community.
- Hicks – Asked what are the ways in which we can infiltrate the fabric/traditions of our campus with regards to the work that is occurring in our academic space-enhancing our traditions – Edith Wyschogrod – The Ethics of Remembering; we are trying to extract the voices from a cataclysm
- Built History Committee
With regard to sub-committees – after being populated, a google doc will be placed on the SRMP website to capture individuals who have an interest in serving
Lecture/Symposia Committee (google doc)
- Chavis explained that there is now a google document that can be accessed via the SRMP drive to make suggestions for visiting lecturers.
BOT Minutes – J. Villalba – BOT Minutes; There is a proposal that will eventually go to the committee on trustees – The question to be asked is “are these minutes accessible online; the second question is who is going to digitize these minutes” – more and more requests are being made to access BOT minutes; The BOT meets again in January; Jose will keep the committee informed
Hate Emails – J. Soares briefed the committee on the hate mails that were sent directly to the Sociology department as well as to the other centers on campus. Additionally, he provided the committee with a timeline of events as to how the situation was handled.