Archives 1997
Race relations issues overshadowed by furor over affirmative action
By Joan Morgan
Jul 12, 2007, 04:36

When you discuss race relations in higher education, the issues of diversity and affirmative action inevitably become a part of the dialogue. Unfortunately, those two topics often get confused as the same issue.

At the recent airing of "Race Relations in Higher Education -- A Prescription for Empowerment and Progress," a videoconference presented live via satellite by Black Issues in Higher Education, panelists agreed with that assessment. However, according to moderator Kojo Nnamdi, they were more intent on getting past the language and rhetoric and focusing on what can be done to ensure that America's institutions of higher education remain accessible to all.

Panelists included: attorney Christopher Edley Jr., professor of law at Harvard University and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton on Racial Issues; attorney Sumi Cho, professor of law at DePaul University; Dr. Juan Francisco Lara, assistant vice chancellor of the University of California-Irvine; Dr. Katya Gibel Azoulay, assistant professor of Anthropology and chair of the Africana Studies department at Grinnell College; Dr. Stanley Fish, professor of English at Duke University; and Dr. Raymond A. Winbush, Benjamin Hooks professor of Social justice at Fisk University.

Race relations in higher education is currently one of the nation's major concerns. This point was stressed when Nnamdi noted that "as we speak," those very issues were being discussed by President Bill Clinton and his advisory committee on race at the University of Maryland.

One reason the discussion has become complicated is because the issues of diversity, proposition 209, and affirmative action have all been lumped together, members of the panel said.

"When we look at race in America, it has been framed in terms of the ... guilt that White Americans feel over what happened to African Americans," said Lara. "[That is] much different, it seems to me, than the issue of immigration."

Additionally, Duke's Fish pointed out that the terms "affirmative action" and "diversity" have been defined by the opposition and given negative connotations.

DePaul's Cho agreed and said, "I think we've got to begin thinking about what strategies long term we can begin to develope to contest the right."

Edley reminded the audience that diversity is not intended to remedy past racial injustice. Instead, it is advocated for the good of our institutions.

"By being inclusive, we create an excellent institution. The group of folk you assemble on a campus or in a classroom bring to that discussion all the richness of America's many varied experiences," Edley said.

"And moreover," he continued, "someone being trained to go to work in America of the twenty-first century who hasn't learned to deal with difference effectively simply is ill prepared to be a leader in any substantial community."

Winbush, who thinks the problem should be labeled "racism," said, "There is a group of people who want to dismantle affirmative action regardless of how noble we are as academics. I tell my students at Fisk University that the era of affirmative action is all but over. And that's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic.

"We tried the noble approach ten years ago when progressive scholars around the country said we need to have diversity because it's the right thing to do," he continued. "But now we have Rush Limbaugh lecturing [and] telling the American people the exact opposite."

Although Edley considers himself a realist, he is worried that affirmative action will be declared dead before its time.

"It's still good law in forty-seven states and most institutions want to find ways of holding on to it," he said.

In Fish's analysis, the political right altered the linguistics of the political left. Terms such as "equal opportunity" now mean that, according to Fish, "the right of any of us to do anything he or she wants is to be treasured above any outcome however, socially valued. And that argument has made its way into environmental law, affirmative action, et cetera. And it's a powerful argument for those who have gotten ahold of it. The response has been a halting one."

Cho, who said that politics and language are inextricably linked, suggested that the problem with discussions on race started with the Bakke decision.

"We sort of struck a Faustian bargain where we became defensive and said we would no longer look at history as a reason for affirmative action," she said.

Edley pointed out that this is where the concept of diversity comes in. According to his interpretation, the courts have said that the country cannot pay attention to race, but diversity has been left open.

UC-Irvine's Lara said that too much time is being wasted on the meanings of terms and too little on outcomes.

"We don't have time to worry about getting people to care," he said. "Let's work with schools and students if we want to see African American and Latino graduates. Why not group and track those student who can get into colleges."

Azoulay agreed, saying, "I want to see how many you have hired in the last year."

When asked if the President's initiatives are going to work, Edley offered, "They will work if leaders take it up and try to implement things from the town talks."

The panel concluded the discussion by suggesting that: communities rely more on themselves rather than the government to ensure college graduation rates; campuses form lobbying groups to work with legislators; institutions use creative programming to increase minority numbers; and advocates create a vocabulary that has positive connotations for affirmative action.