Skip to content

University of Rochester

Strategic Plan

Focus groups and community forums

A series of focus groups was organized to gather ideas and feedback on the five strategic pathways. To date, those conversations have been very productive and have included sessions for students, faculty, and staff. Some of the focus groups have been small, while others have seen over 100 registrations and attendees.

In addition to the student, faculty, and staff focus groups, the University will soon host online forums to gather feedback from our neighbors and community partners. Anyone wishing to provide additional thoughts or written feedback can use the online form.

While the feedback and data are still being collected and analyzed, a preliminary review of the focus group conversations indicates that our faculty, students, and staff care deeply about several strategic priorities for the institution.

In no particular order, these priorities include:

  • Initiatives to transform higher education
  • Efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion
  • A robust and coordinated research enterprise
  • Centralized resources for community engagement
  • Investments in our people, technology, and physical spaces

A summary of each focus group with quotes from the participants is included below. To protect privacy and confidentiality, the participants have not been identified.

1. Leading through Research and Scholarship

Enhancing the University’s national and international reputation as a preeminent R1 institution through groundbreaking research, robust scholarship, and expert knowledge creation. View a list of contacts for schools and departments.

More than 50 staff members took part in the focus group to discuss Leading Through Research and Scholarship. The conversation began with recognition that Rochester can point to many successes with research and scholarship, but that the way the strategic pathway is defined seems limiting and old fashioned. Several participants pointed to community engagement, applied research, and a focus on social issues as central elements in the University’s research endeavors.

While some focus was placed on advancements in technology in health care, one participant noted that usage of technology can sometimes increase disparities and inequities. Several staff pointed to the need for a multidisciplinary approach to research and noted that Rochester sets itself apart from smaller liberal arts colleges with its focus on research and knowledge creation.

Challenges around funding and equity, diversity, and inclusion in Rochester’s research enterprise also factored significantly into the conversation, with considerable discussion about the need for centralized resources for research. Some participants discussed the importance of reconciliation and the need for Rochester to acknowledge harms done to people of color in the name of research.

Other participants pointed to the ways duplicated and decentralized efforts cost the University more than is necessary and argued that a centralized structure could lesson duplication and streamline operations. Some participants pointed to the need for more effective communication of research, while representatives from University Communications said that research stories were the most read and most popular content on the University news page.

  • “I don’t love this definition, quite frankly. I think some of the goals are important, but it strikes me as a little old-fashioned, a little ivory tower. Especially now there’s increased focus from the federal government on applied research and a hunger for technology-led innovation and economic development.”
  • “Katia Noyes made a point of highlighting the fact that increases in technology usage can actually increase health disparities in health care. I just wanted to mention that with an eye to eliminating health inequities.”
  • “I’m also all for multidisciplinary team science that brings social scientists to that health equity stage because they’re the experts in human behavior. A lot of times, we make things possible through the medical ‘sciencey’ side, but it doesn’t end up rolling out into everyday care.”
  • “I think the research enterprise of the institution is what sets us apart from a small liberal arts college . . . but you have to put your money where your mouth is. When you talk about how it’s funding research, it’s funding faculty, and it’s funding their research budgets.”
  • “There’s a natural inclination to do budget reductions. There were a select few of AAU institutions that actually did the reverse. They did a one-time draw on their endowment and made investments in their research . . . [and] have reaped enormous benefits for those institutions . . . where we’re making cuts to fund the research enterprise. I think we can make those strategic one-time investments to move this university forward.”

The faculty focus group on Leading Through Research and Scholarship brought more than 30 participants to the discussion, which, like the staff discussion, began with comments about the pathway description. Some participants felt that the connection between research and education needed to be more explicit, while others pointed to the need to include ideas around community engagement and equity, diversity, and inclusion.

There was considerable conversation about the role of humanist research and how it is both supported and not supported by multidisciplinary approaches. Some of the conversation focused on the financial elements of research, with one participant asserting that royalty revenues and the commercialization of the institution’s research have declined, resulting in fewer funding streams to support new research. There was some debate over approaches to funding, with some participants arguing for equal opportunities, while others asserted that “treating everyone equally is going to lead to a race to the bottom.”

Another element of the conversation was about the importance of graduate students and postdocs and argued that the University needs to be more competitive with stipends and health care. Several participants discussed the need to enhance and build the University’s research infrastructure and considered that to be a foundational element to improving recruitment, aiding retention, securing funding, and producing quality work.

Some participants discussed how an improved infrastructure could further engage undergraduate students in research, while others pointed to obstacles and delays to conducting their research, which they attributed to insufficient resources and staffing.

  • “I think of the connection between research and education as being something that we do particularly well as an institution, at least in the undergraduate side. I would have put that as a top-level thing as part of our research mission.”
  • “I think for me, if we think about what the research goals are, we want to enhance equity across all different domains whether it’s race, socioeconomic status, disability.”
  • “Traditionally, we’ve been a leader in commercialization and royalty revenue. In fact, I think at some point we were in the top 10 nationwide for that. Then a number of really key patents of things dropped off and that side of the revenue has vanished.”
  • “Something that’s become, I think, increasingly important is both the wellness, but also the economic, financial stability of our graduate students, especially the doctoral students.”
  • “Specific areas like aging as a focus is certainly something that would be important. But if you want to build interdisciplinary programs, you have to be able to build in either core resources or you have to be able to foster the interactions between groups.”
  • “We live here, we have to be dealing with the issues of the community. We have an opportunity to do that because of size and scope and beginning to establish more productive relationships through the efforts of the university to establish the office for health equity research and such. Now’s the time to do that.”

2. Reimagining Education

A tireless exploration of practice-based innovation that enhances effective pedagogy, challenges systemic barriers, and invigorates learning throughout the community. View a list of contacts for schools and departments.

Focus group sessions were held with students, faculty, and staff to discuss how well the University is fulfilling its educational mission and to identify opportunities for moving that mission forward in an increasingly complex and competitive environment.

For students, much of the attention was placed on connecting with resources and programs to support their academic and personal experiences. A consistent theme was that there seemed to be a lack of awareness of the support resources, and that the University needed to find new ways to engage students with programs and initiatives that are available to them.

The students considered the faculty the University’s greatest resource and there was considerable discussion about increased support to the academic arm of the institution. As with the other groups, attention to diversity and technology as an impetus for educational reform were also reflected in the conversation.

  • “I recently was talking to another alum, and we were reflecting about the school and everything. We found that when we got into the school, especially as freshmen, we didn’t know how many resources the school offers. Later we realized that there are so many opportunities that we weren’t aware of as freshmen, or as students, and we missed it. We realized how good they were after we graduated.”
  • “The thing is meeting the market skills. I believe, as an engineer at least, I’m talking about myself and my undergrad. I was taught well to be a good researcher, but my skills did not fit the market very well.”

Nearly 50 participants joined the staff focus group. The discussion focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the University’s educational offerings. In terms of strengths, the staff pointed to the robust support programs and services that are offered, particularly to undergraduate students, and to the emphasis the University places on student success. Areas of improvement included better services for first-generation and marginalized students, greater attention to diverse perspectives, and considerable policy development and resource investments in online and digital learning spaces.

While there was some discussion about the importance of a residential higher education experience, much of the conversation focused on the need for enhanced and improved online and physical spaces for interactive learning. Outdated classrooms, large class sizes, and the need for a comprehensive hybrid model of education factored heavily into the conversation. The discussion also focused on greater efforts toward equity, diversity, and inclusion and the larger purpose of higher education.

  • “The students have asked us to be anti-racist. They want us to be inclusive in different ways. How can we move into really doing those things in a proactive way instead of reactive way? We want to be ever better—not ever benchmarking—and doing just as much as everybody else does. We want to get out in front of that, and I think the only way to do that is to really push the envelope on making things anti-racist, inclusive of LGBTQ folks, international students, all sorts of different stuff.”
  • “I understand that there’s a desire to honor, almost the purity of a traditional higher education liberal arts degree—that it teaches critical thinking multi-disciplinary thinking, all these things that really do create just generally good citizens to go out into the world and represent humanity and the University. But from the students’ perspectives, the cost of higher education has risen so much, and it’s such an investment, that the value proposition needs to be there for the students they need to understand how their tuition dollars are funneling into job readiness outcomes.”
  • “One of the things I’ll say is that I think our ed tech is in front of our support at this point. We don’t have enough support staff, and we don’t have enough instructional designers, and we don’t have enough faculty developers who work on classroom teaching. We are starting to run into challenges where the technology is outpacing some of our policy areas and some of our deliberate decisions about how we’re going to teach.”

The faculty focus group spent a considerable amount of time discussing how Rochester’s cluster system often reifies, rather than mitigates, a system siloed by specialties and divided by degrees. From limited academic offerings and inadequate advising capacities to the ownership of clusters by department, the faculty addressed elements of the Rochester curriculum that seemed to compromise a student’s ability to create their own course of study.

Also factoring into the conversation was the debate between the marketability of a college degree and higher education’s mission to create informed citizens and critical thinkers.

Others connected the potential of technology in a reimagination of an educational enterprise that relied less on geography and physical presence and more on areas of study and interest to bring learners together. Part of the reimagination seemed to be an open question about where students, instructors, and researchers need to be physically located.

One participant asked about the scope of change the University is willing to undertake. “As the French say, to make change is like breaking eggs to make an omelet,” one participant said. “The question is, how many eggs are going to be broken?” The group seemed to agree that faculty support, faculty education, and faculty training will be essential components of any productive path forward.

  • “As chair and as somebody who’s still does the audit for the graduating seniors, all I did, it seemed, was sign exemptions to clusters because we didn’t have the courses available to fulfill the stated requirements. I think there’s a way that we could be much more creative in how we work across schools—online and in person—to allow students to really get that choice that we’re talking about. I think we need to think beyond the Rochester curriculum.”
  • “Regarding the silos, and in particular in graduate education and the Medical Center, the cluster system was put in place originally in order to wrest control over the graduate programs from the departments. What ended up evolving over the next 20 years is that every cluster essentially became aligned with a department. Now they’re just that. They’re called clusters, but essentially each one is run by a department, and there are still these silos going on.”
  • “I think the greatest strength at the university is our faculty. But I think the concern I have is faculty support. I worry about whether the university has enough resources in this space.
  • It’s not one single thing. I think there’s a bunch of things that would be helpful, like a broader faculty development program. Some could be the exploration of educational technology—you know, innovation kinds of projects that we’ve tried to do that allow us to pilot things before the university makes larger investments. I think we just need to make sure that we’re providing faculty with all of the support they need.”
  • “[The moderator] was asking about how we build both online and onsite experiences for students and move the university forward. In relation to these topics, one question I would raise is about where faculty must be located. I think there is a tension here. It’s hard to imagine U of R with no faculty in Rochester, but it’s also hard to imagine a modern University that can only draw on a talent pool of people who want to live in Rochester. Many modern companies have realized that you can’t get the best people in the world if you only search in one city. Where will the University of the future land in this regard? I don’t have an answer, but my intuition is that there needs to be openness and an individualized approach to where in the world faculty live.”

3. Building Healthier Lives

A multidisciplinary focus on health and wellness that marshals the University’s knowledge and expertise to improve lives around the world and here at home. View a list of contacts for schools and departments.

Nearly 70 staff members participated in the focus group to discuss building healthier lives. Much of the conversation centered on an employment perspective, with work-life balance, flexible hours, and options for working from home factoring into the discussion.

Some participants called for a “whole person” approach to employment, which they said afforded more attention to mental, social, and physical health. Other participants pointed to more specific concerns, such as childcare and home office ergonomics.

There were several comments about the need for a university-wide standard for remote work and flexible hours, with some participants saying that the lack of a standard creates inequities in the workplace. Inequities were also discussed in terms of differences between departments, job levels, and responsibilities. Participants also remarked on the increased need for communication when employees are working remotely, and suggested hybrid and remote work training for managers and supervisors.

Comments around University health programs ranged from better communications about the available services, to the notion that employees are so overworked that they don’t have time to access the programs available to them. Several employees addressed what was labeled “toxic Meliora,” which they said changed the definition of the University’s motto from “ever better” to “never good enough” or “ever more.”

  • “We’ve seen differences, particularly, at the management level where some are really skilled at dealing with a hybrid or a flexible situation for their employees, and others, maybe not so much… There’s definitely an opportunity to build skills, particularly, among managers and supervisors to get some better consistency across the organization.”
  • “I work with people who were just so overworked that they’re constantly working on a weekend and every waking hour. If you’re overworked, that’s going to impact your ability to even utilize the services that we have, let alone have good mental health.”
  • “For the last couple of years, our students have termed Meliora as ‘toxic Meliora’ where it’s not ever better anymore, it’s my best is never good enough, and so constantly striving for better and better, which is really just creating a whole set of issues around mental health and wellness and well-being.”

The faculty focus group about building healthier lives discussed wellness as an issue of equity, with particular focus on institutional support to address health and wellness disparities. More than 20 participants addressed issues of physical and psychological health and pointed to the ways everyday encounters can either support or inhibit wellness.

For some, it was about ensuring healthy food choices across the institution, for others, the conversation focused on exercise and physical activity. However, there was considerable skepticism about the University’s health and wellness programming, with participants arguing that those programs address the symptoms of poor health and wellness, rather than what they considered to be the systemic causes.

One faculty member argued, “I just find it striking that here we are this deep into a conversation about wellness, and I’m still seeing new lectures on yoga when the most stressed-out people aren’t even able to go to many of these lectures. It’s beyond incomprehensible.” Another participant pointed to the lack of childcare and their perception that the culture at the University is one of constant work, inflexible hours for staff, and poor work/life balance, all of which they said contribute to stress and burnout.

Several faculty members also pointed to the need for community and a sense of belonging, which they said was important to wellness, but has lessened over time. Others expressed a need for a chief wellness officer, and there was discussion that not every school and unit, especially those that are geographically separate from River Campus and the Medical Center, feel connected to the services and programs offered by the University.

  • “We’ve certainly talked about the critically important aspect of DEI and our feeling [that we’re] all in this together. We also talked about how the feeling of wellness, the experience of wellness, can’t be at the boundaries of the university. It’s got to blend with the community. We aren’t going to be, in my view, well until we’re part of a well community and we are all contributing something to that wellness.”
  • “I think the one thing that COVID has done has helped us rethink the way we see work… Two years ago, no manager would’ve said, ‘I’ll let my employees work remotely.’ At the same time, we still haven’t addressed issues around childcare, and we haven’t addressed issues around how we balance how people live their lives.”
  • “I think we need to work on retaining all of the wellness enhancing aspects that opportunities to work from home have brought. [But] I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, ‘I feel so happy to be in the room with my colleagues. I feel so happy to be back in-person for some meetings.’ Just recognizing that there’s also an isolation piece to [working remotely]. I think the way we reconcile that tension is to really lean into the value of individual choice about all of the stuff we can offer.”
  • “People will talk about putting your oxygen mask on first before helping the person next to you, in terms of you’ve got to take care of yourself if you want to take care of other people. In an organization, that is the idea for guiding wellness interventions. [That] demonstrates a real lack of understanding of the metaphor in terms of what actually happens when the oxygen masks fall down. The first thing that actually happens is that the pilot points the plane at the ground and tries to drop altitude as quickly as possible because… if you want to keep everybody on the plane alive, it’s up to the pilot to make a structural decision, which is to get the plane to an altitude where everybody can live.”

4. Connecting with the Community

Pursuing the University of Rochester mission through productive collaborations and partnerships with local, national, and international partners, agencies, and organizations. View a list of contacts for schools and departments.

Over 80 participants joined the staff focus group to discuss the ways the University can better connect with its many neighbors, organizations, and community stakeholders. The conversation began with several participants urging a broad definition of community, which they said included our international students, faculty, and staff.

Other top-of-mind issues included the importance of the University establishing trust with its many communities, which the participants said came through openness, transparency, and accountability. The discussion then turned to the importance of visibility and communication. For some, that meant more meaningful connections with our various community members, for others, it involved better marketing for the University in local, national, and international settings. Many of the participants discussed how the local communities feel disconnected from the University and are likely not familiar with its mission.

A considerable portion of the discussion focused on the need for the University to have a centralized structure that manages, coordinates, and measures our community engagement efforts. The group also discussed the importance of focusing on poverty as a community engagement initiative, with many pointing to health, education, equity, and opportunity as issues that intersect with poverty.

  • “One thing we were talking about [was] making sure we include international students in our thinking of community. I had also pointed out that a part I would like to not see forgotten is not just people in businesses and the needs that are in the community now, but those that might come in the future.”
  • “I think one of the key elements when we talk about trust is how do we engage the international students and the fabric of our community and how do we give them agency at the same time to build that trust in addition to transparency and accountability?”
  • “We’ve talked for years about brand ambassadors, and things like that, and how word of mouth is the best recommendation you can get from anyone. We need people in the region to be proud of the place, of the institution.”
  • “I would lean on economic development. I think it’s an area that a lot of folks in the community are hungry for and it creates opportunities. Objectives would be maybe increasing engagement with minority-owned businesses or small and local businesses in the community where we can.”
  • “I think that regional poverty, or specifically the city, would be a good focus that could address a lot of things.”
  • “I think [poverty] makes sense as a focus. It’s hard to imagine us in an aspirational way, or as becoming the best possible community we can be, with child poverty rates at 50 percent in the city. It’s a problem bigger than the university, but as the biggest employer, folks definitely look at us to lead. I think there’s lots of ways we can work on it, too.”

For the nearly 20 participants in the faculty focus group, the issues of community were more local; however, they shared similar ideas with the staff focus group about the importance of a central and coordinated approach to the University’s community engagement initiatives. The discussion began with one participant commenting on what they thought was an unwelcoming and inaccessible entrance to the River Campus.

The conversation then turned to the need to consider the interdependency the University has with its surrounding communities. One participant suggested that the name of the pathway, “Connecting with the Community,” implies a unidirectional approach to community relations, rather than one of mutual dependence. Another member of the focus group suggested the notion of a “citizen lab,” where researchers, students, and staff could coordinate and communicate their community engagement initiatives. Others discussed the need to learn from our community partners, and there was considerable discussion about how the University was not meeting its commitments to the Carnegie distinction.

Other comments from the group included the importance of connecting students with community-engaged learning and the sense of urgency that they believed the University should place on its community relations. The conversation closed with a suggestion that we consider online communities, with questions about the University’s social media channels as platforms for connections and community building.

  • “There needs to be a public plaza, archway gateway entrance to the River Campus, to welcome people onto campus, with people to tell them where to go to get to community events.”
  • “There’s a lot of opportunities that individual faculty and staff are involved in, and we just are not aware of what each other are doing.”
  • “We talked about two things, first that just as engage community members, how much our interactions with one another have gone down these last two years and become even more potentially siloed as a result of our increasing remote work and other pieces.”
  • “Although it’s supposedly a central tenant for our university, we’re not acting that way. We made promises in the Carnegie application, that we did win literally three years ago, that we have not even begun to address. One of those was centralized community engagement and reaching out to the community in a more concerted way and in a more respectful way.”
  • “We need to not only think about ways that we could engage with the community, but ways that we can learn from the community as well, by bringing their voices into what we do.”
  • “I just wanted to expand on my citizen lab comment in the chat, which is a reimagining of the office of community engagement. I’m thinking that a citizen lab that also was open to community members where we led with the pillar of consulting before we put our proposals out there for funding.”
  • “While I think it’s important that we be humble, I also think it’s important that we be bold. I often worry that I don’t see that in our university. I don’t see the boldness. I would say be bold in our mission.”

The student focus group only had two participants, but the conversation was useful and instructive. One participant, and E5 student, discussed how they were also involved with pursuing social entrepreneurship at the Ain Center. The student spoke directly about their work in the local Rochester community.

The students’ comments reflected much of what was discussed in the faculty and staff discussion groups, including the need for centralized community engagement initiatives, the importance of building trust and relationships with local communities, and the interdependent nature of the University’s relationships with its many neighbors and local partners. The students argued explicitly that equity, diversity, and inclusion issues be at the center of the University’s community relations.

  • “I definitely think it’s with the mindset that you are co-creating and that the community partners are the experts in their field.”
  • “I am only a student who is here for only a certain number of months throughout the school year. I’m a temporary resident of Rochester, but I still understand that students have an impact here.”
  • “I think personally, the university, it’s the largest employer in all of Rochester, but then I feel that there is definitely a bad reputation surrounding the university, perhaps in the ways in which we engage with the community.”
  • “I definitely think that there is probably a need for a whole university-wide center for community engagement. An interdepartmental, multi-departmental center, where everyone is aligned that community engagement is a value and a priority of the university.”
  • “I still think that racial equity and racial justice is definitely something that should still be a primary tenant of community engagement and with whomever the university works with.”
  • “I also do think maybe you could set up a system where, let’s say, for three years, you’re going to focus on poverty, and then three years are going to focus on social justice.”

5. Cultivating an Inclusive Climate

Building strategic partnerships, offering programming, and defining measurable outcomes that foster an equitable, respectful, and welcoming culture at the University of Rochester. View a list of contacts for schools and departments.

More than 70 staff members participated in the focus group discussion about cultivating an inclusive and equitable climate at the University of Rochester. Several participants spoke about the need for greater accountability at the institution and pointed to what they perceived to be inequitable accountability for faculty and staff.

Much of the conversation focused on the faculty-staff hierarchy in higher education, with one participant remarking that “staff are second-class citizens as compared to faculty.” While many participants focused on organizational disparities, others pointed to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and argued that a legal standard for discrimination is a lower bar than the values that the University should embrace.

There was also considerable discussion about what the staff considered to be performative, rather than genuine efforts toward greater equity and inclusion. Participants discussed the need for restorative practices and resources for staff, with several staff referring to their own experiences of racism, transphobia, and homophobia. Others spoke about what they considered to be pay inequities at the University, and there were comments about the negative impact of moving many staff from salaried positions to hourly ones. Some participants said they felt overworked, while others said they felt underrepresented and frustrated by what they considered to be a lack of action around cultivating an inclusive climate at the University.

  • “We have all these values and stuff, but you don’t uphold the values. . . . When we look at that through a legal lens, that’s a high bar and we’re not holding people accountable for our vision and values. We don’t hold students accountable for it through the conduct system or through another system.”
  • “I’m working right now on something about faculty professionalism. I’m not allowed to use—like the language I’m allowed to use is so specific and so contrived because when it comes to faculty members, it’s about professionalism. With the rest of us, it’s about behavior and conduct, and it just feels really performative.”
  • “Our version of inclusion is, ‘Let’s make sure we’re celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month,’ versus actually highlighting and listening to individual stories and backgrounds and intersectionality—and creating a sense of belonging on our campus.”
  • “I’m mostly worried about us as people around the screen here, that there is capacity in our work lives to engage in all of this really important work.” That is not like, ‘Yes, yes, yes, but do that alongside all of the other gazillion things that you are also doing.’”
  • “I see over and over and over again, these wonderful, young staff members who are educated, they’ve got advanced degrees in many cases, and they can’t get out of a damn pay grade 52 job because there’s no opportunity.”

The faculty focus group about cultivating an inclusive climate drew 14 participants to the discussion, which opened with remarks about increased attention to equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and the importance of the Office of Equity and Inclusion as a central resource for the University community.

However, the conversation quickly turned to what one participant referred to as a “moral crisis” of faculty and curricular diversity. Another participant discussed the “implicit curriculum” and suggested that a curricular equity audit could be transformative in the ways the University approaches teaching and learning.

Like the staff focus group, there was also discussion about the hierarchical nature of the institution and the class system it seems to create, particularly around contingent, clinical, adjunct, and tenured faculty. Several of the participants called for greater transparency in policies and decision making, while others focused on the perception of the university in the wider community. Budget restrictions were also top of mind for the participants.

Some pointed to difficulties hiring top talent, others focused on the lack of grants and other funding to do equity, diversity, and inclusion work. One participant shared their frustration by saying there is a “disconnect” between what is being communicated and what is being done to effect change and create greater inclusion. Accessibility issues were also discussed, with one participant sharing a personal story about wheelchair inaccessibility on River Campus.

  • “There’s a moral crisis in the university because our faculty representation is really problematic, and the courses that we offer are also morally problematic. Hiring a director of the Frederick Douglass Institute was great, but not having a black studies program is hugely problematic.”
  • “We are just such a hierarchical culture. It’s just so part of what we are, and there’s always people who are higher than others. I don’t know how to level this playing field in an academic institution, but it’s very clear that people are valued in every way more than other people in our institution.”
  • “Everyone has a lot of lip service toward diversity and inclusion, but when it comes to making the tactical change and actually spending the money and making the personnel changes and the structural changes that need to be made, there’s a disconnect.”
  • “This campus is not accessible to people with physical disabilities. . . . We have pretty good services for people with hearing disabilities, but I don’t think we’ve really prioritized vision. We still have dormitories on the River Campus that don’t have elevators that haven’t been retrofitted.”
  • “I’ve heard of equity audits for curriculums and equity audits for courses. . . . I think about how we translate that into the classroom and our teaching—and not just subjects—but obviously, everything. . . . Personally, I think that would be something transformative to think about and include.”

Point of contacts for schools and units

View a list of names and affiliations for each pathway. (Names are listed alphabetically by last name)

  • Baldo, Jonathan – Eastman School of Music
  • Bohmann, Dirk – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Choppin, Jeff – Warner School of Education
  • Di Monte, Lauren – Libraries
  • Froula, Dustin – Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  • Gatewood, Jane – Global Engagement
  • Goettler, Ron- Simon Business School
  • Kopycka-Kedzierawski, Dorota – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Levenkron, Ruth – Global Engagement
  • Marten, Jessica – Memorial Art Gallery
  • Marvin , Betsy – Eastman School of Music
  • Norton , Sally – School of Nursing
  • Tarduno, John – School of Arts & Science and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • van Wijngaarden, Edwin – Graduate Education
  • Zand, Martin – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Blunt, Nile – Memorial Art Gallery
  • Borasi, Raffaella – Warner School of Education
  • Caton, Jack – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Cronk, Lindsay – Libraries
  • Di Monte, Lauren – Libraries
  • Funkenbusch, Paul – The College and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Lambert, David – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Libby, Rick – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Lovett, Mitch – Simon Business School
  • Roberts, Rachel – Eastman School of Music
  • Rotondo, Lydia – School of Nursing
  • Sia, Elaine – School of Arts & Science and The College
  • Snell, Alden – Eastman School of Music
  • Stewart, Ty – Global Engagement
  • Testani , Joe – Graduate Education
  • Vamivakas, Nick – School of Arts & Science and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Wei, Mingsheng – Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  • Wong, Cynthia – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Cera, Karen – Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  • Clay, Wendy – Simon Business School
  • Dalecki, Diane – Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Daniele, Liz – Graduate Education
  • Eliav, Eli – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Ercoli, Carlo – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Fox, Donna – Eastman School of Music
  • Legg, Kaitlin – The College
  • McCormick, Gaelen – Eastman School of Music
  • Rubenstein, Bonnie – Warner School of Education
  • Russin, Jeff – Global Engagement
  • Singh, Renu – School of Nursing
  • Taubman, Mark – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Toth, Sheree – School of Arts & Sciences
  • Barone, Holly – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Bocko, Mark – Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Briscoe, Gretchen – Graduate Education
  • Cerosaletti, Glenn – The College
  • Cronk, Lindsay – Libraries
  • DeMott, Amy – School of Nursing
  • Dubler, Josh – School of Arts & Science
  • Josh Farrelman – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Gajendra, Sangeeta – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Gatewood, Jane – Global Engagement
  • Giordano, Patti – Memorial Art Gallery
  • Kellogg , Mark – Eastman School of Music
  • Kodzas, Petar – Eastman School of Music
  • Larson, Joanne – Warner School of Education
  • Newton, Jim – Simon Business School
  • Stein, Jim – Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  • Ardizzone, Matthew – Eastman School of Music
  • Binstock, Jonathan – Memorial Art Gallery
  • Ciesinski, Katherine – Eastman School of Music
  • Cook, Randy – Libraries
  • Doyley, Marvin – Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Koloythas, Antonia – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Lewin, Rebekah – Simon Business School
  • Luehmann, April – Warner School of Education
  • Matson, Ellen – School of Arts & Science and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Morgan, Adrienne – School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Olivares, Beth – School of Arts & Science and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
  • Ren, Yanfang – Eastman Institute for Oral Health
  • Rigatti, Amy – Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  • Shankar, Ravi – Global Engagement
  • Sturge-Apple, Melissa – Graduate Education
  • Wharton, Mitchell – School of Nursing
Return to the top of the page