In the first part of my examination diversity as it
is used in the US and especially as it applies to colleges and universities, I
tried to give examples of individuals who challenged some of the common
assumptions many of us hold.
While I received some positive comments from some people in
the field of education, most withheld comments of any sort. Instead of hearing
from the other side, there was largely silence from those who hold different
views. Rather than rehearse my views again, I want to quote someone’s views on
the same issue:
“This endeavor to achieve perfect diversity started out with
good intentions: Women, blacks, and gays in this country were the victims of
vicious discrimination for centuries. It was a liberal project derived from the
most basic of liberal principles: the rights and freedoms of the individual to
choose his or her own destiny.
Since the country’s founding, America has fought to make
this utopian vision, enshrined in the Constitution, a reality. And Americans
rose to the challenge: a civil war was fought to abolish slavery; a suffrage
movement expanded voting rights; a civil rights movement ended segregation, if
not racism. We have it hardwired in us to seek out injustice, expose it, and
defend the rights of its victims. We have corrected some injustices through
legislation and education. We are still working to address others.
Yet somehow we have got so caught up in the pursuit of
diversity that we have drifted away from the core of what it was all about, the
core of liberalism: the individual.
Instead of struggling and campaigning for the freedoms and
rights of the individual, some of us seem more focused on the freedoms and
rights of the group.
Some of us seem to have forgotten that, while being female
or gay or black or Muslim can give us a sense of shared experience and
collective identity, we should be fighting harder for the individual than for
any group. The greatest overarching identity that liberalism exalts above all
others is humanity. We should be fighting for the individual not simply because
he or she belongs to this or that minority, but because we are all human.”
These words raise a series of questions: do you agree with
this writer and if not what are the problems with this point of view? My second
question is to ask readers to imagine the person who wrote these words. How
would you describe him or her? Liberal or Conservative? White or a member of
another race?
Let’s say, for example, that the person writing them is a
white male who holds libertarian point of view. Is this someone you would often
listen to on this particular issue? Does the person writing these words affect
how we interpret the words themselves or are we capable of escaping bias by,
for all intents and purposes, wiping out the background of the person who wrote
them? Should we even try to efface the writer’s biography and background when
reading their words? Or does the personal experiences of a writer have
something to do with the way we as readers should react to them? These questions,
often found in literature classes, (see, for example, the famous essay by the
critic Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author”), ask us to think about
whether the author’s personal existence should be a part of our interpretations. Barthes said no. Here, however, I believe
that the writer’s background plays a role in how we should react to the thesis
about how diversity has come to be applied in the US.
The writer of these words is famous, but not for being a
part of the group that holds power over others because of background and
upbringing. Just the opposite is true. If there is a person who embodies
diversity in ways few ever will, it is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you have not heard
of her, she has quite a biography. Back in 2005, Time Magazine named her one of
the 100 most influential people in the world. Why? At the age of 5 she
underwent FGM (female genital mutilation), a practice that is carried out on
millions of children around the world. She was brought up as a Muslim,
originally from Somalia, but who grew up in other African countries and Saudi
Arabia. She then went to the Netherlands and helped Theo Van Gogh make a film
depicting the way women are sometimes treated under strict Islamic law. Van
Gogh was killed and she herself received death threats. She had to go into
hiding and then she came to the US where she now has a green card. Her strong
views about the negative aspects of organized religion have been controversial,
to say the least, even in the US. Her advocacy for women’s rights, her willingness
to put her life on the line, and her willingness to share her story have made
her a best selling author and someone who has the experience to speak about how
her life has been affected by religion. I mention all this as she is, to me at
least among the most “diverse” people I know of. And yet despite her diversity credentials she
advocates far more for the individual than the group when it comes to politics
and policy.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How Will Freedom Handle Diversity?
For those of you who may now be wondering about why I have
profiled Ms. Ali, let me try to make clear how Ms. Ali’s views come into
conflict with the way many colleges attempt to create a diverse class of students.
In the media and among some educators, families and students the role diversity
plays when it comes to the evaluation and selection of students to colleges and
universities in the US relies far on placing individuals into certain groups
rather than starting from the premise that each student has his or her own
story and background. It seems that not a day goes by when someone comments on
the lack of diversity that exists at some schools, especially those that are
deemed in rankings and by pundits as “elite”.
I want to raise some questions about the word/concept of “diversity”
that is at the center of much of the controversy. The word is used in such
fuzzy and broad ways that it does not really seem all that helpful to me when
discussing who will add diversity to incoming classes at colleges and
universities.
I will start with a dictionary definition in order to ground
my comments:
noun
1. the state of being diverse; variety.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the
reports"
2. a range of different things.
"newspapers were obliged to allow a diversity of views
to be printed"
|
According to these definitions diversity depends upon
difference rather than similarity. What makes something diverse then is that
it does not match the other things (or in the case of education, people).
Hirsi’s point is that somehow the definition of diversity as starting from
the individual has been subsumed into diversity as it counts as belonging to
a similar group. Simply put, diversity as many in education now use it
emphasizes similarity rather than individual differences. For Hirsi that
seems at odds with the founding principles of the nation. For me it also
seems at odds with the definition of the word itself.
If all this seems abstract let me quote from an article
that addresses the lack of diversity at elite schools and the solution to the
problem.
What would happen if
all those white students who assert that racism is still a “major problem”
and who approve of affirmative action as one remedy followed their beliefs
and did not apply to selective colleges such as Williams, Wesleyan, Boulder
and U.Va.? How would that alter the demographics of elite campuses?
The admissions
offices at those schools would face a less-competitive white applicant pool
and could boost minority acceptances. Thousands of white students with eight
AP courses, a 4.0+ GPA, and 95th-percentile SAT scores would not join the mix
and raise the averages.
Given their strong
support of racial diversity, the schools would rejoice at not having to
engage in dicey racial engineering, and students themselves would act on
their convictions. If they espouse diversity, they won’t attend colleges with
low African American and Hispanic make-ups. Wesleyan University reports that only 7
percent of the student body is “Black or African American," NYU only 4.3 percent. Dartmouth is 8.75 percent Hispanic/Latino, Duke 6.6 percent. Liberal white students (and liberal white parents) should shun them
until the ratio matches up with the general population.
The author, Mark Bauerlein, a well-known professor at
Emory University, proposes a radical solution to the lack of racial diversity
at certain elite schools. So far as I know his solution has not gathered
support from parents and students. I will not spend time saying why this is
so although it appears pretty clear that asking students not to apply to
great schools is asking a lot.
What I wish to question however, is the assumption he
makes that diversity is defined by race in and of itself and that since this
is so a school should be evaluated based upon its racial composition compared
to general population.
It is this kind of approach that Hirsi has problems with. Bauerlein
assumes that being a member of a certain group automatically adds diversity. I
say this as he wishes for schools to mirror a racial percentage within the
US. In other words students should be selected at least in part based upon a
certain target number (some might use the word quota others the term
‘critical mass”). Group membership
then seems to be more important than individual characteristics.
Am I overstating the case? I do not think so. The way Bauerlein
defines diversity is based on just two groups, African Americans and
Hispanics. What about Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, low income
students, LGBT students, immigrants
from across the world, first generation students,-- The list could be
expanded in many more ways. Should schools select students in each of these
groups based on their percentage in the US population? Would that not add
diversity? Are some kinds of diversity more important to others and if so
which ones and why? I do not pretend
to have answers to these questions.
Mark Bauerlein: The Dumbest Generation
********************************************************************************
|
There is another person who is famous for his stand on
issues related to race, but he is known
for his satirical humor.
"Vice Chair For
Diversity Outreach: Elaine Chu, Diversity Officer
Elaine joined Optimus
Research Group because she has a passion for diversity. With a doctorate in
Diversity Arts from Diversity University, Elaine brings a sophisticated and
forward-thinking perspective on diversity matters. Elaine Chu is Asian."
This description of a fictional person who has filled in all
the right things to become a diverse person will strike some as racist. Should
the writer of this book permitted to make fun of someone with an Asian name in
this way? If the person who wrote these words is Asian would it be ok? (For
those who want to see many satirical videos about Asians see the Fung Bros.’s
site on Youtube) For those who wish to read my view on racism against Asians
please read Part I of my comments about Diversity)
Fung Bros. Video
Baratunde Thurston, in his book, “How to be Black” (from which the above quote is taken) uses
satire and personal narrative to question common assumptions about race,
political correctness, and they way people lump Blacks and others into narrowly
defined niches. He tries to deconstruct the notion that there is a monolithic
Black experience. I highly recommend the book to anyone who thinks grouping
people into percentages and aggregate numbers will assure that these people
will bring a certain kind of shared experience and a standardized version of
diversity. Thurston skewers common wisdom
and stereotypes in ways that will make many uncomfortable. That is his point. He sees the diversity
within the Black community and wants this to be given more coverage in the
media and in all of our minds whether we are part of the group or not.
"Are
you keeping up? We’ve got experimental blackness abounding at this point. But
how do we make it stick? How do we replace the overwhelming media images of
limited blackness with a more expansive concept? It’s already happening. You’ve
got the Afro-punk movement and Black Geeks and the black people who love
nature, and more."
Humor is, and has been, transgressive. It asks us to look at
the world “awry” (a word I take from a
great book by Slavoj Zizek). We may laugh, but underneath the laughter
are important messages. Humor is a way of saying what we often think but are
afraid to say straight. From the fools who served the court, t Mark Twain
to Chris Rock there are those who have
used the power of humor to question the way we live and think. Today, however,
the culture of protecting people from offense has built walls around places
that should welcome biting satire and politically incorrect humor. I am
referring to colleges and universities. Jerry Seinfeld recently said he wouldn’t
go to college campuses anymore because he is afraid he will be condemned for offending
people. Louis CK, Slavoj Zizek and Sigmund Freud, to name just a few, all
comment on the importance of transgressive humor as a way of speaking to power.
Jon Stewart should also be a part of this group too.
But here’s the thing. I am already revising this list in my
head, as I did not include a person of color or a woman. I have been trained to
think that the list is incomplete without including a ‘diverse’ group. White
guys are simply not enough and if I have
not included others then it means I am
still, at some level, a supporter of the patriarchal system. So let me
include Sarah Silverman here and refer back to the author of “How to be Black”.
Because I have just now foregrounded my awareness of being inclusive I will be
condemned by some for caving in and by others for Hegelian' bad faith’ for
adding in names that I did not originally think of off the top of my head. In
other words, I have made no one happy and no one laugh. My hope is that I have, however, raised some questions
about issues that have no easy answers.
*********************************************************************************
If it appears that I have chosen
sides so far for making the case for individuals to be assessed by their own
personal experiences rather than as a part of group I would agree. I do think
that schools and educators have made it ‘easy’ to prove their commitment to
diversity by focusing on stats and numbers instead of looking at individuals. They
have used the vague term ‘critical mass’ to defend their policies and people
like Bauerlien seem to assume this means a percentage that reflects the
population of certain races within the US. Some of the members of the Supreme
Court have questioned what the meaning of “critical mass” means and it now
appears that this term will be at the center of an upcoming case (see below).
Issues like race and low-income
students are far more complicated than a simple blog entry like this can
address. Those who create goals (not quotas) for certain kinds of students are committed
to social justice and have seen or, worse, experienced, how many in society
also treat people as part of groups in ways that are not only unfair in a
negative way but are tragic and need to be acknowledged as fact.
The recent cold-blooded murder
of 9 African Americans holding a prayer session in a church demonstrates beyond
any reasonable doubt that racism and hate exist against not just individuals
but against groups. The shooter did not know the people he murdered. He simply
killed them because of their race. He was not interested in their individual
stories. Given that there are those throughout society who hold racist views
against a group, is it then wrong to try to give those who face discrimination
a boost based on their race?
The answer to this question as
it currently stands under the law may be changing. Just today, June, 29,2015), the Supreme Court has agreed to look at the decision the appellate court reached on the Fisher vs Texas
affirmative action case.
There will be many who will
predict what will happen, but I don’t think there is anyone who knows how it
will turn out, not even the Justices themselves. Prior to this case the Courts said
that UT needed to apply “strict scrutiny” to race based preferences and the bar
for this legal term is very high. There are already some on the Court whose views
are well known—on both sides-- about whether this standard has been applied
legally or not. At a time when race has
become front-page headline news for all the wrong reasons there will be much
discussion going on among the public, those running for higher office, and in the
educational community throughout the coming months until a decision is released.
If the court does say that UT
has not applied “strict scrutiny” this does not mean the end of affirmative
action. It may be they will say that the plans need to be based on the individual
merits of the student rather than any attempt to reach a “critical mass”. In
other words, they may try to find a middle ground between what Hirsi says and what
defenders of affirmative action say. Looking at an individual who is also part
of a group and being able to make a case for that particular student seems a
narrow but pragmatic way to acknowledge the real word we live in. In today’s
polarized society this middle ground may not make anyone a victor, but it may
permit both sides to feel their voices have been heard and that at least some
of what they believe has been affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment