I admittedly have only attended two institutions of higher learning. Nevertheless, in my experience, McIntosh’s “invisible knapsack of white privilege” could not be further from the truth. My alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, is less than 50 percent white and has built diversity studies into the core of their curriculum.
Graduates of Penn must complete seven sector and six foundational policy requirements to graduate. One can complete the sector requirements with traditional history, literature, math and science courses. The foundational requirements, on the other hand, require students to take a course in cross-cultural analysis and another in the cultural diversity of the United States. Courses such as “Homelessness & Urban Inequality,” “Psychoeducational Interactions with Black Males,” and “Intro to Queer Studies” fulfill these requirements.
Penn isn’t special. Similar requirements exist at universities across the country. After all, Penn is only ranked as the 21st most diverse institution amongst the top 100 American universities.
HBCUs make up 30 percent of the ten least diverse American universities. Predominantly white public schools in the racially homogenous states of South Dakota, North Dakota, New Hampshire and Maine make up another 40 percent. The least diverse, Yeshiva University, is a Jewish school. So where are all these academic courses and institutions providing sole attention to whites?
I will concede that courses in English literature and many history courses are focused on the exploits of whites. I know, it’s shocking that a course focused on English literature would be dominated by white authors from a time when England was almost 100% white and the only English speaking country on the planet. European history is naturally dominated by whites because Europe is predominantly Caucasian. Similarly, courses in Chinese literature or African literature naturally focus on black and Asian authors.
Penn isn’t special. Similar requirements exist at universities across the country. After all, Penn is only ranked as the 21st most diverse institution amongst the top 100 American universities.
HBCUs make up 30 percent of the ten least diverse American universities. Predominantly white public schools in the racially homogenous states of South Dakota, North Dakota, New Hampshire and Maine make up another 40 percent. The least diverse, Yeshiva University, is a Jewish school. So where are all these academic courses and institutions providing sole attention to whites?
I will concede that courses in English literature and many history courses are focused on the exploits of whites. I know, it’s shocking that a course focused on English literature would be dominated by white authors from a time when England was almost 100% white and the only English speaking country on the planet. European history is naturally dominated by whites because Europe is predominantly Caucasian. Similarly, courses in Chinese literature or African literature naturally focus on black and Asian authors.
Schools such as Stanford have bowed to pressure from black activists like Jesse Jackson and cancelled its Western Civilization courses. Apparently Stanford’s administration subscribes to the statement “Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go.”
If we shouldn’t study Western Civilization because of slavery and the mistreatment of minorities, is there any history that should be studied? We will not have many historical subjects left to study if we exclude societies that enslaved and victimized others, because slavery and mistreatment of minorities was practiced almost universally during much of world history.
Specialized courses still exist in the subjects once broadly covered in Western Civilization classes. However, thumbing through Stanford’s History Department course catalog, more courses focus on progressive subjects like “Transhistory: Gender Diversity from Medieval to Modern,” “Sugar and Slavery, Race and Revolution: The Caribbean 1450-1888,” and “Gay Autobiography” than traditional ones such as “Renaissance to Revolution: Early Modern Europe.”
The one group notably omitted from the history offerings at Stanford is the white, male, American worker. A course on the works of Howard Zinn focuses on holocaust denial and the Obama “birther” conspiracy, but inexplicably excludes any mention of workers. You can even take a course on the history of East Asian cinema, or another focusing on female divinities in China.
It’s not that East Asian Cinema, transgender history and Caribbean slavery aren’t important subjects in history, it’s that they are included, at the exclusion of a course on the white, American worker. Placing an emphasis on cross-cultural understanding has not helped students appreciate views they disagree with. A 2017 poll by the Brookings Institute found that 51% of American college students believe that it is acceptable for student groups to disrupt disagreeable speech by shouting the speaker down. According to the same poll, 53% of college students support prohibiting certain speech and viewpoints that are offensive to certain groups of students, rather than fostering an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints.
Most troubling of all, 19% of American college students believe that it is acceptable for student groups to use violence to prevent speakers who they oppose from speaking. Let that soak in for a minute. Nearly 1 in 5 American college students believe that it is acceptable to use physical violence against a speaker because a student group finds the speaker offensive. Are we in the United States, the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany?
If we shouldn’t study Western Civilization because of slavery and the mistreatment of minorities, is there any history that should be studied? We will not have many historical subjects left to study if we exclude societies that enslaved and victimized others, because slavery and mistreatment of minorities was practiced almost universally during much of world history.
Specialized courses still exist in the subjects once broadly covered in Western Civilization classes. However, thumbing through Stanford’s History Department course catalog, more courses focus on progressive subjects like “Transhistory: Gender Diversity from Medieval to Modern,” “Sugar and Slavery, Race and Revolution: The Caribbean 1450-1888,” and “Gay Autobiography” than traditional ones such as “Renaissance to Revolution: Early Modern Europe.”
The one group notably omitted from the history offerings at Stanford is the white, male, American worker. A course on the works of Howard Zinn focuses on holocaust denial and the Obama “birther” conspiracy, but inexplicably excludes any mention of workers. You can even take a course on the history of East Asian cinema, or another focusing on female divinities in China.
It’s not that East Asian Cinema, transgender history and Caribbean slavery aren’t important subjects in history, it’s that they are included, at the exclusion of a course on the white, American worker. Placing an emphasis on cross-cultural understanding has not helped students appreciate views they disagree with. A 2017 poll by the Brookings Institute found that 51% of American college students believe that it is acceptable for student groups to disrupt disagreeable speech by shouting the speaker down. According to the same poll, 53% of college students support prohibiting certain speech and viewpoints that are offensive to certain groups of students, rather than fostering an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints.
Most troubling of all, 19% of American college students believe that it is acceptable for student groups to use violence to prevent speakers who they oppose from speaking. Let that soak in for a minute. Nearly 1 in 5 American college students believe that it is acceptable to use physical violence against a speaker because a student group finds the speaker offensive. Are we in the United States, the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany?
Modern universities offer more than just diverse student bodies and course offerings, they offer university sponsored organizations and “safe spaces” dedicated to minority groups. These groups provide counseling and community for individuals who might feel out of place on a university campus. They often cater to racial groups such as African-Americans and other minorities, like the LGBT community.
These groups perform an important service on college campuses. However, they can alienate those who are not apart of the designated group. Moreover, equivalent groups often do not exist for other groups that might also feel out of place on a college campus, like first generation rural students.
Who is going to feel most out of place at Colombia: The African-American guy from Harlem, the gay guy from the Upper East Side, or the farm boy from Montana? Yet only the farm boy will be without a safe space for counseling and community.
Not only do whites not possess any unique access to institutions or courses focused on their race, they are actually marginalized by certain organizations. Further, they even face a disadvantage during the application process in the form of affirmative action. According to college counselor Ann Lee, black applicants receive an average “bonus” of 230 points over white applicants on their SAT score in college admission programs that employ affirmative action, while Hispanics receive a “bonus” of 185 points.
I am not trying to say “woe is me, I’m a white guy.” I will admit that I received advantages in life that the average American will not. However, I believe that has less to do with the color of my skin than with socioeconomic status. I had a two-parent home and a support system that emphasized education. I went to a private elementary school, had private tutors every week in high school, and even got sent to nerd camp for a couple summers on the east coast.
Diversity is important, and I do think there is some validity to the argument that white Americans accrue certain benefits based on the color of their skin. The fact that discrimination still lingers in some walks of life is deplorable and must be eradicated. However, there is no sense in creating white privilege where it does not already exist. A white student will have no easier time finding a school or course that focuses solely on his race than a black one.
These groups perform an important service on college campuses. However, they can alienate those who are not apart of the designated group. Moreover, equivalent groups often do not exist for other groups that might also feel out of place on a college campus, like first generation rural students.
Who is going to feel most out of place at Colombia: The African-American guy from Harlem, the gay guy from the Upper East Side, or the farm boy from Montana? Yet only the farm boy will be without a safe space for counseling and community.
Not only do whites not possess any unique access to institutions or courses focused on their race, they are actually marginalized by certain organizations. Further, they even face a disadvantage during the application process in the form of affirmative action. According to college counselor Ann Lee, black applicants receive an average “bonus” of 230 points over white applicants on their SAT score in college admission programs that employ affirmative action, while Hispanics receive a “bonus” of 185 points.
I am not trying to say “woe is me, I’m a white guy.” I will admit that I received advantages in life that the average American will not. However, I believe that has less to do with the color of my skin than with socioeconomic status. I had a two-parent home and a support system that emphasized education. I went to a private elementary school, had private tutors every week in high school, and even got sent to nerd camp for a couple summers on the east coast.
Diversity is important, and I do think there is some validity to the argument that white Americans accrue certain benefits based on the color of their skin. The fact that discrimination still lingers in some walks of life is deplorable and must be eradicated. However, there is no sense in creating white privilege where it does not already exist. A white student will have no easier time finding a school or course that focuses solely on his race than a black one.
I believe this is a symptom of racial scholars and racial activists provoking racial unrest by misidentifying racial discrimination. This triggers feelings of alienation and discomfort amongst members of groups that might have otherwise coexisted more harmoniously. In my opinion, focusing on “white privilege” is counterproductive, and it actually increases the privilege of whites. I will expand on this issue in my next blog post.
To access an interesting post on obesity and race in the context of a HBCU click here.
To access an interesting post on obesity and race in the context of a HBCU click here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have three observations:
ReplyDeleteFirst, after exploring the Stanford course catalog I noticed that the university has still retained a number of core survey history courses. They aren't titled "Western Civilization" but from the course descriptions it seems many of them talk about Western civilization from a broader and more culturally-inclusive "world history" viewpoint. Many of the courses you mentioned (trans-history... damn that's gotta be interesting!) look like they are special seminar courses, which tend to be on off-the-wall topics from what I saw when I was an undergrad at UCSD. So... take from that what you will.
Second, I think the most obvious counterargument to your point that there are no dedicated white schools is that whites have historically had (and still have!) better access to higher education and better schools, and also have higher retention and graduation rates that black and hispanic students. One might say, In effect, almost every highly ranked college and university could be called a "HWCU" (historically white college or university). Whites (speaking in general terms) do not have problems with representation in higher-education.
While minority enrollment at colleges and universities has increased across the United States, this hasn't happened in a vacuum. Largely these improvements have been the result of affirmative action, and removing affirmative action programs has been shown to hurt enrollment of minorities, many of whom do not have access to the same educational opportunities, extracurriculars, and support systems that white high schoolers leverage to get into college: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when-you-ban-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/.
As another aside, whites are not excluded from enrollment at HBCUs. One must wonder whether the lack of diversity comes down to who is applying, rather than who is admitted.
Third, I agree that socioeconomic status should be a consideration within affirmative action programs and policies. However, I think it's also worth mentioning that race and white socioeconomic status are often intimately entwined. It's not a coincidence that the median net worth of American whites is 10 times that of blacks (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/28/black-and-hispanic-families-are-making-more-money-but-they-still-lag-far-behind-whites/?utm_term=.28e749193682). That is a long-standing legacy of slavery and institutional racism in banking, real estate, employment, and education (not to mention the criminal justice system). I don't know anything about you or your family, but I can confidently say that many upper-middle class white families in the U.S. can attribute some of their financial success to being white. The American socioeconomic system was set up to allow generations of whites access to good education, good jobs, real estate, and lines of credit that allowed them to accumulate wealth that they were able to invest and pass on to their kids. The black community was systematically excluded from these opportunities for long enough that they are still catching up for lost ground. It's an intergenerational trauma that is still healing. That is what affirmative action policies, reparations, etc. are trying to address.
I acknowledge that it can be more difficult for white student to get into institutions of higher learning when compared to their more racially and ethnically diverse peers. However white families have historically had more job opportunities and opportunities for upward social mobility without a college education compared to African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics. The fact that college admission policies consider this fact during the admission process and incorporated into designing their academic environments is commendable.
ReplyDeleteIn recent years many of the advantages enjoyed by whites have vanished. Job opportunities are not being given to whites as frequently and upward social mobility has become very difficult particularly in rural communities. I think the solution is to consider geography and socioeconomic status in the college admission process. In this way we can give opportunities to the neediest members of our country in a non-racial/non-ethnically based way.