Racist fliers appeared on the University of Michigan campus Monday. The fliers criticized interracial dating and urged "European Americans" to stop "living in fear." The Black Student Union posted photos of the fliers to Twitter, asking the university to respond.
The university issued a statement denouncing the fliers.
The statement said in part, "Messages of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination have no place at the University of Michigan. Targeted attacks against groups of people serve only to tear apart our university community. While we continue to defend any individual’s right to free speech on our campus, these types of attacks directed toward any individual or group, based on a belief or characteristic, are inconsistent with the university’s values of respect, civility and equality. We also have a responsibility to create a learning environment that is free of harassment. These are core values and guiding principles that will help us as we strive to live up to our highest ideals."
Blackface photos, tweets about lynching, swastikas and slurs roil campuses. Students rally against those incidents, which experts say aren't new but are finally getting attention. National anthem protests spread.
National Association for College Admission Counseling President Phillip Trout issued an apology Friday after saying “all lives matter” at the organization’s opening general session the day before.
“As the NACAC president, I wish to offer my sincere apology for the words I used yesterday afternoon at our opening general session,” Trout said in a message distributed Friday afternoon. “I am sorry to know that I have offended and hurt so many people.
“What I did is not right,” Trout continued. “I have asked for the support of my colleagues on the NACAC board to allow us to spend additional time addressing issues of race and human relations.
“With your help and advice, we will work hard toward making our association a center of inclusion and personal dignity for all counseling and admission professionals,” Trout concluded.
Trout had asked for a moment of silence Thursday to show support and consideration of those suffering discrimination and hurt. The request came as NACAC opened its national conference in Columbus, Ohio, as a national debate on race, discrimination and police tactics plays out across the country and on college campuses.
The phrase “all lives matter" has drawn objection in the past from those who see it as an affront to or minimization of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Trout, a college counselor at Minnetonka High School in Minnesota, is set to complete his time as NACAC president Saturday with the annual conference’s end. Nancy Beane, a college counselor at the Westminster Schools in Georgia, will be taking over the role.
The late, great sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote eloquently of what he called “the sociological imagination,” which involved the ability to connect our own biographies to the wider currents of history, to understand the various social and cultural components of who we become. That was a major corrective to the highly individualistic worldview of Americans -- our strong tendency to view ourselves in a historical vacuum, as if our goals, beliefs and attitudes are not powerfully shaped by the social groups of which we are a part.
His invitation to a broader, more sophisticated view of ourselves was extended midway through the last century, at a time when Americans had a compelling need to come to terms with recent chaos and violence on a world scale, along with major ongoing evils in our own society -- racism prominently among them.
While we can consider some of the more extreme ills of racism a thing of our national past, others are very much still with us. Some forms of racial inequality have, in fact, been growing worse in recent years -- for example, the level of racial segregation in many of our public school systems, which is linked to the growing inequality of income and wealth in our society. Such inequality plays out at our colleges and universities in a number of ways, including admissions statistics, the daily experiences of students on our campuses and graduation rates.
As we think about which aspects of racism higher education institutions can most effectively address and how the sociological imagination fits into such a project, we might begin by noting that the word “racism” is often used rhetorically, particularly by college students, as a cover term for a range of things that differ significantly in their level of seriousness. Consider the following, for example:
Some white college students dress in racially insensitive costumes for Halloween.
The white presidential candidate of a major political party asserts that a Mexican-American judge cannot fulfill the professional and ethical standards of his vocation.
White police officers kill black men in incidents that are unlikely to have occurred if all parties were white.
Lumping these situations together under the general category of racism is hardly helpful in terms of what it will take to address each of them.
Institutions of higher education have sought to address racial inequality in a number of ways, including efforts to diversify their faculties, student bodies and staff. Their strongest suit would seem to be their potential for fostering robust communication across the racial and ethnic boundaries that divide members of what should be a community. For those who have not suffered from racism themselves, that will probably involve the risk of revealing some unattractive opinions or replacing denials of racism with the intention of making the racist unconscious conscious. For those who have suffered, it will involve forbearance and perhaps a taste for irony. It presupposes intellectual curiosity and emotional openness on the part of all.
A major obstacle to that has been a growing tendency toward what we might call “identity fetishism,” or seeing a specific dimension of social identity -- race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity -- as a terminus rather than a point of departure. American colleges and universities thus risk becoming places where the sociological imagination has gone to die.
The “safe space” movement, together with an it-takes-one-to-know-one mind-set, can operate to create barriers where there should be bridges. To be sure, it is good to spend comfortable, supportive times with those who are close fellow travelers through life. And achieving a deep understanding of those whose experience has been different in significant ways is a task to be approached with humility. But moving out from the familiar is a core goal of higher education.
Barriers between racial/ethnic groups in campus social life have had a curricular side as well. Separate departments or programs in African-American, Asian-American or Latin American studies, while offering belated, much-needed perspectives on groups that have long been hidden from historical research and teaching, have had the downside of not forcing a fuller, multiperspective approach to American studies itself. The use of the label “ethnic studies” as a cover term for these more group-specific programs, moreover, has been an unfortunate choice: are some people “ethnic” and others not? Was not the upshot to leave European-Americans an unmarked category of just plain folks? Some have sought to correct that with proposals of white studies programs -- hardly the best solution.
Ethnic studies programs are understandably of special interest to the respective members of the groups themselves; they have thus had something of a self-segregating effect in terms not only of students but also, to some extent, of faculty members -- an effect amplified by a tendency to merge the goals of faculty diversity with those of curricular diversity. The result can be a typecasting of faculty members of particular ethnic-racial groups. While an African-American historian can make distinguished contributions to scholarship and teaching in the field of African-American history, another can certainly make distinguished contributions to the field of medieval European history.
And, speaking of faculty, a general question is where have they been in the increasing diversity-related troubles we see playing out on our campuses? Some have been constructively engaged. For example, in the aforementioned Halloween costume example, faculty colleagues came to the public defense of a lecturer who found herself in the eye of a student activist storm by suggesting that we should not overreact to such behavior -- an episode that attracted an extraordinary amount of news media attention. Others have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution -- for example, by making ill-considered, even trollish statements in online media. Fortunately, that will sometimes be an occasion for pushback from their colleagues.
For the most part, however, faculty members have simply been missing in action when it comes to dealing with campus upheavals around race and racism. Students seem to be stepping into a leadership vacuum that pits them directly against administrators.
As we know, faculty members have more than enough problems of their own these days, what with increasing adjunctification and presidents who come to their jobs without understanding the business they are in -- to name just a couple of the most obvious misfortunes. But intellectual leadership is an essential faculty responsibility.
For openers, faculty members can bring the intellectual capital of their respective fields to bear on current debates. Those of us who are anthropologists, for example, have chosen a vocation based on moving beyond the stance that it takes one to know one. Though requiring a self-critical perspective on how well one can know an “other,” it centers on a quest to understand as much about others as we possibly can. Moreover, what we might call the anthropological imagination also presumes that an outsider’s perspective offers its own advantages; at the same time, a detour through another world is a path toward better understanding dimensions of our own, which would otherwise remain below our self-conscious reflection.
Beyond our own particular disciplines, departments and programs, faculty members are also part of a wider academic community with a shared dedication to core educational values. Those of us who believe that diversity is not just about social justice, as important as that is, but is also tied to the intrinsic goals of a liberal -- and liberating -- education have our work cut out for us. Outlines of that work can be found, for example, in the contributions of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, especially through its LEAP initiative (Liberal Arts and America’s Promise). Essential learning outcomes associated with that initiative include cross-cultural sophistication and civic responsibility.
In brief, we need to help make our colleges and universities ideal places for cultivating the sociological imagination. That means exploring with our students not only where we have come from but also where we might be going.
Judith Shapiro is president of the Teagle Foundation and president and professor of anthropology emerita of Barnard College.
The American Historical Association weighed in Tuesday on a heated debate over a proposed textbook on Hispanic Americans for Texas public schools. Critics say it’s racist and unscholarly, and the association expressed its own “deep concern” over the book’s content in a letter to the Texas State Board of Education. “This textbook does not adequately reflect the scholarship of historians who have worked in the field of Mexican-American history, or measure up to the broad standards of history as a discipline,” the association wrote to the board, which approves books for use in Texas public schools. The historical association urged the Texas board to reject the book as unsuitable, based on the findings of a recent customary review committee convened by one of the board's members.
Among other criticisms, the committee said that lack of “critical dialogue with current scholarship,” resulted in “a polemic attempting to masquerade as a textbook.” The book, Mexican-American Heritage, was the only one submitted based on the board’s call for a book on Hispanic Americans. It’s been controversial since excerpts were published earlier this year. Among them are assertions that leaders of the Chicano movement wanted to “destroy this society,” and a passage that describes Mexicans as lazy.
“Industrialists were very driven, competitive men who were always on the clock and continually concerned about efficiency,” the book says. “They were used to their workers putting in a full day's work, quietly and obediently, and respecting rules, authority and property. In contrast, Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day's work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow,’ when it came to high-gear production. It was also traditional to skip work on Mondays, and drinking on the job could be a problem.”
There’s also this: “Pressure exists that those of Mexican origin are not ‘Mexican enough’ or do not have enough sympathy and respect for their roots if they venture beyond the Spanish-speaking world. This belief, along with the idea that Latin culture must be held up as superior and separate from American culture, holds many back today.”
The book’s publisher, Momentum Instruction -- which is run by a former Texas education board member -- has stood behind it, saying the stereotypes were included to expose students to historical biases, not to reinforce them. Some parts are being rewritten. The Responsible Ethnic Studies Textbook Coalition has disagreed, saying the book perpetuates stereotypes.
The historical association in its letter also said it worried that no professional historians were involved in the writing of the book.
Most of Texas’s approximately 1,000 school districts use board-approved books, and because the state is so populous, its choices have an outsize impact on the national market. A number of Texas textbooks have proved controversial in recent years, including one that referred to enslaved people as “workers.” The board votes on the Hispanic heritage book in November. Some members already have spoken out against it.