May 21, 2010 Meeting

Location: Sayles 250

Time: 3:30 pm

Present Fred Rogers, Shannon Schulz, David Schlosser, David Tompkins, Amanda Savitt, Nathaniel Rosenblum, Joe Concannon, Chuck Anderson-Weir, Kristen Vellinger

Absent Pavel Kapinos

Secretary: Laura Garlock

           The CRIC met today to discuss the survey results and to choose new members for next year. First, the committee discussed the turnout of the survey, which so far is 102 students, 102 faculty members, and 148 staff members. While this is a considerable portion of the staff and faculty (roughly one third and one half, respectively—a great increase from last year) it is a rather small sample of students (about 5% of the student body). The survey will stay open for a little while longer, and hopefully there will be an increase in student response. The results indicate that the Carleton community in general supports all of the areas the CRIC addressed in the survey, though the level of support on some seems to have decreased slightly from last year.

           There also may be a couple confusions about the survey. David Tompkins mentioned that the diversity question could be interpreted as “Companies should have mandatory affirmative action regarding gender identities and sexual orientation” rather than “Companies should not be allowed to discriminate based on gender identities and sexual orientation,” as was intended. However, as most respondents still supported the statement, as does Carleton’s “Statement on Diversity,” the committee should still recommend resolutions on this topic. Another possible confusion is that of the influence of CRIC. The committee would like the community to know that it does not make investment decisions, but the question about divestment from Sudan may lead respondents to believe that the CRIC has a more direct role in investment than it does.

           After discussing the survey, Fred Rogers briefly discussed the history of the CRIC. Dan Brook, from the class of 2005, helped initiate the committee. Students drafted a proposal for role and responsibilities of the committee, which later served as the basis for the CRIC Charter (which can be found on the CRIC website). The proposal was voted on by the faculty and the College Council, and was discussed by the Investment Committee. These three bodies ultimately approved the committee.

           The students then discussed the new member applications they had received, choosing their top five choices. The committee would like a mix of strengths and academic interests as well as a mix of class years. From the five chosen applicants, the CSA will select three members who will be on the committee next year. Next year, there will also most likely be a new faculty member in Pavel’s place and a new staff member in Shannon’s place.

            The committee will meet once more before the end of the term, and this meeting will focus on the end-of-the-year report. A sub-committee will be in charge of putting the report together.