Diversity: What Matters?
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
- the state of being diverse; variety.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
- a range of different things.
"newspapers were obliged to allow a diversity of views to be printed"
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.
