Campus Racism 20th Century Style

The most dramatic social change in the United States during the 20^th century was the racial desegregation of public facilities.  The struggle of Africans in America to obtain social “equality” took place in the second most important institution to Black people --- schools.  It is no mere coincidence that the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision focused on educational systems, rather than employment or housing.  Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston both knew that education would be the first domino in a series that would ultimately force all of America’s segregated facilities to open their doors to African Americans.

But this struggle did not come easily.  Little Rock in 1957 led the way to a series of violent clashes that ultimately resulted in the elimination of de jure segregation from the United States.  The movement for desegregation moved to the higher education level with violence occurring at the Universities of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.  White Alabamians in particular resonated with glee for receiving support from none other than their own governor, George Corley Wallace, with his standing in the door of the University of Alabama defying federal troops to prevent the matriculation of African-American students in Tuscaloosa.  Like K-12 education institutions, however, institutions of higher education slowly opened their doors and admitted African-American students with resistance at first, but ultimately with “diversity plans” that would assure their presence on once lily-white campuses.  What is important to understand is that students are replacing administrators, who were the primary resisters to campus diversity during the 20th century.

Campus Racism:  21^st Century Style

The latter part of the 20^th century, however, saw dramatic increases of violence toward students of color reminiscent of the 1960s; intimidation, harassment and violence resulted in several national stories on this issue.  With the birth of the Internet, spreading hatred to anyone was as close as the click of a mouse and anonymity was guaranteed.  The most dramatic incident of violence took place during the 2000-01 school year in University Park, PA at Penn State University, where for nearly two years, harassing e-mail to African-American students spread faster than a computer virus threatening them with death.  All but ignored by the campus administration, matters took a dramatic turn when a body of an African-American male was found just 20 miles from the campus, shot in the head as predicted by a note found only a few days before.  LaKeisha Wolf, then president of Penn State’s Black Caucus, whose life was threatened, was escorted across campus with bodyguards and wore a bulletproof vest.  Serious consideration was given to having metal detectors at commencement last spring since the writer of the e-mail (never caught) threatened to kill persons there.

These incidents reflect what educator Richard Richardson describes as the three levels of campus diversity in the United States.  Level I are those universities that resist the implementation of diversity at most levels.  They were common prior to the Civil Rights era; indeed most American universities fell into this category.  Their current manifestations include Bob Jones University and even the Citadel’s resistance to female cadets just a few years ago.  Level II universities are where the vast majority of campuses now fall.  They usually have programs of diversity that are “tacked on” to already existing efforts at diversity, but fail in placing people of color in true positions of authority.  I received a telephone call a few months ago from a person describing herself as a “Director of Diversity” at a small college.  She had a bachelor’s degree, no experience, low salary, no secretary and a budget of $5,000 per year.  She was frustrated in that the administration was providing her with minimal support for her programs and was not considering any type of expansion of her office or duties.  She had no administrative power and was added as an administrative appendage to the college’s organizational chart.  I helped her with drawing up a reasonable vision for the office --- something that she had done quite well --- told her to present it to her bosses and if they refused to implement it, she should resign.  She is now employed in a similar position at a university that is far more committed to diversity than the one she left.

Level II universities are unwilling to make changes to administrative structures that inhibit true diversity.  The college maintains the status quo relative to diversity, but provides “programs” for accommodating their increasing numbers of students of color who will be in the majority on these campuses by 2050.

Level III universities are those campuses where diversity is woven into the fabric of the institution seamlessly.  At the board, administrative, faculty and student body levels, diversity is simply a way of life.  There may exist an “Office of Minority Affairs,” but the entire campus sees such activities as part of the work they do.  Level III institutions are rare but are reflected on campuses such as UCLA, the University of Texas at El Paso and a few others.  They represent the future of the American university as campuses continue to understand the importance of diversity.

I believe that the 21^st century will see an increase of violence against students of color on campuses as they move from being Level II to Level III.  What occurred at Pennsylvania State University recently will be repeated with increasing frequency at institutions that wish to maintain the status quo.  Student Affairs officers, who historically focused on alcohol and athletics, will have to expand their vision to include effective responses to incidents of racial violence.  There should be increasing efforts to hold workshops that will deal with such incidents and all levels of campus leaders need to be involved.

The Justice Department compilation of 1998 data shows that hate crimes against African Americans is the largest category in its data pool with 2,958 incidents of hate crimes being directed toward African Americans; about twice as many as reported by the next largest category, hate crimes against people because of sexual orientation (1,317).  Estimates are that approximately 10% of all hate crimes occur on campuses, which would account for nearly 300 incidents against African Americans on campuses that are reported.  The last phrase is important since it is clear that many hate crimes go unreported by the victim.  Students may ignore harassing phone calls or e-mail (hate speech) until it reaches crisis proportions on the campus.  It is up to campus officials to create mechanisms for encouraging the reporting and prosecution of perpetrators of these crimes.

Educators and Others Who Resist Change

John McWhorter of the University of California, Berkeley has become the new poster child for African Americans who criticize “affirmative action” and other things as demeaning and detrimental to African Americans.  He joins Shelby Steele and Ward Connerly --- part of the California group of conservatives who have bemoaned what they perceive as preferential treatment that ultimately leads to the rumors of inferiority first discussed by Howard and Hammond in 1987.  What these critics of affirmative action fail to consider is the intractability of racism (white supremacy) in their social analyses.  They assume that “overcoming the odds” can be done by anyone regardless of race.  This theory assumes that after overcoming, the African American will somehow be transformed into an “acceptable Negro” ready for any or all aspects of America’s bountiful opportunities.  This extraordinarily naïve view of history, particularly in higher education, creates unnecessary fuel for the engine of resistance to diversity.  Persons who share the view that “enough is enough” when it comes to diversity, point to these three (among an increasing host of others) as examples of highly qualified African Americans who ignored affirmative action as a crutch and “made it on their own.” Such half-truths serve to encourage students whose conservatism moves into active resistance and harassment of African-American students on campuses around the country.  To be sure, there is nothing wrong with opposition to affirmative action and diversity, if it is done in a reasonable and civil manner --- something the right always accuses the left of not doing.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and students who see themselves duty bound to discourage the racial diversification of their campuses need to take a lesson from their own playbook on the issue of non-violent protest.

Conclusion

The American university will change dramatically during the next 50 years.  Distance learning will become a reality and quite common in the form of virtual universities already flexing their wings.  International study will be common on most campuses, as will exchanges between faculty and students on a broader scale.  Campuses will see great changes as the lines between technology and education blur. At the end of the day, it will be the measure of how well an institution educates its students for future service to this country and the world, which really matters.