The Diversity Myth
Page 6
Despite the obvious parallels between the Stanford of the late 1960s and the Stanford of the late 1980s, the debate over the canon pointed to one key difference—a distinction more telling than any of the similarities: Whereas the Western Civilization program of the 1960s was replaced with nothing at all, the Western Culture program of the 1980s was replaced with Cultures, Ideas, and Values. Whereas the protestors of the 1960s failed to replace the Western tradition with anything of their own, the protestors of the 1980s and 1990s would invent a new system to put in its place. Activists insisted that “new perspectives” were needed. In accordance with these new perspectives, the conception of the academy was revamped. No longer merely an impartial refuge for those pursuing enlightenment, the university would now actively seek to promote particular ideas and values in an effort to transform society. The word for these new perspectives—and for the brave new world towards which Stanford's social engineers hope to lead America—is “multiculturalism.”
Notes
1. Charles Krauthammer, “The Tribalization of America,” The Washington Post, August 6, 1990.
2. Bob Beyers, “Faculty Senate Unanimously Approves New Western Culture Course Emphasizing Contribution Of Women And Minorities,” Stanford University News Service, January 16, 1988. Richard Bernstein, “Stanford Set to Alter Freshman Program In a Dispute on Bias,” The New York Times, January 19, 1988.
3. Bernstein, supra note 2.
4. Stanford's protestors were more radical even than Jesse Jackson. Although press accounts mistakenly attributed the “Hey hey, ho ho” slogan to him, Reverend Jackson actually tried to quiet the mob, reasoning “The issue is not that we don't want Western culture. We're from the West,” but other cultures also should be studied. See Bob Beyers, “Machiavelli Loses Ground at Stanford; Bible Holds Its Own,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 19, 1991.
5. The indictment of Stanford's core curriculum, issued by student leaders such as Amanda Kemp, chair of the Black Student Union (BSU), was really an indictment of Western civilization itself: “[It is] racist, and numbs us…we don't really count.” Under this extended meaning, the protestors were chanting not just to overhaul a year-long survey of our shared heritage, but to redefine the very nature of that heritage—it was “racist.” Even the notion of a shared experience was disputed because Western culture “didn't really count” everybody. The message sent by Western culture (both the course and the civilization), Kemp declared, was “nigger go home.” See Bob Beyers, “Western culture changes proposed: Faculty, students debate evolution toward more coverage of women, minorities,” Stanford Observer, November 1987. See also Bernstein, supra note 2.
6. Bill King, president of the Black Student Union, denounced the existing program as “a disservice to the Stanford community” because it “fails to acknowledge the contributions and impact of women and peoples of color on American and European culture.” And anthropology professor Renato Rosaldo said the requirement was “set up with a list of sacred books, eternal monuments,” with few, if any, women or minority authors. See Eileen Walsh and Bob Beyers, “For Observer Only. Add to Western Culture Story By Eileen,” Stanford University News Service, undated. The press release was an addendum to: Eileen Walsh, “Stanford Undergraduate Dean Recommends Revision Of Western Culture Program,” Stanford University News Service, June 13, 1986. For a similar account of the forum, see also Leslie Kaufman, “Tempers flare at forum,” The Stanford Daily, May 21, 1986.
7. Ezra Bowen, “The Canons Under Fire; Stanford cuts its book list,” Time, April 11, 1988.
8. CIV's founding legislation mandated: “Stanford minority faculty and faculty with expertise in the study of cultures outside the European cluster of cultures shall be actively recruited to teach in program tracks.” Upon first glance, the hiring clause seemed sensible. Since CIV was to expand the range of topics in the freshman requirement to include the study of non-Western cultures, it seemed appropriate to hire teachers with “expertise in the study of cultures outside the European cluster of cultures.” Similarly, since the range of topics was expanded to include the study of issues pertaining to race, class, and gender, it would seem sensible also to add teachers familiar with those issues. But the hiring clause did not stipulate hiring “faculty with expertise in the study of race, gender, or class.” In a sleight of hand, it stipulated, rather, hiring “minority faculty.” See text of the final legislation for the Area One Requirement: Culture, Ideas, and Values (CIV), Campus Report, April 6, 1988. The legislation was adopted by the Faculty Senate on March 31, 1988.
9. Norm Book, “CIV Committee Lacks Balance,” The Stanford Review, February 1989.
10. Sidney Hook, “Civilization and Its Malcontents,” The National Review, October 13, 1989.
11. In accepting cultural relativism and determinism, the protestors denied the existence of universal truths. This belief dates as far back as the monotheism of Mount Sinai and is embedded in the Judeo-Christian core of Western civilization. Since universalism is central to the West, the Western Culture protestors were also rejecting the West itself. See Dennis Prager, “The Evils of Multiculturalism: A Jewish perspective,” Policy Counsel, Spring 1993. Prager argues: “Multiculturalism is simply the latest attempt to undermine the concept from Mount Sinai that there is one God, and there is one moral law for all humanity. It is an attempt to undermine ethical monotheism, which is the basis for our society.”
12. The text of the final legislation for the Area One Requirement required the new CIV classes “to give substantial attention to the issues of race, gender, and class during each academic quarter, with at least one of these issues to be addressed explicitly in at least one major reading each quarter” (emphasis in original). Text of the final legislation for the Area One Requirement, supra note 8.
13. Syllabi of CIV tracks, listing “Common Readings” and “Common Elements,” are printed and released each year by the Program in Cultures, Ideas, and Values.
14. Bob Beyers, “Reports of the Death of Western culture greatly exaggerated, say Kennedy, Rosse,” Campus Report, February 17, 1988.
15. This remained the “core” list through the 1992–93 school year, when Freud was restored. See Syllabi, supra note 13.
16. Bob Beyers, “Four of Stanford's Best Known Scholars to Join Colleagues Teaching in New Cultures, Ideas, and Values Program,” Stanford University News Service, March 13, 1989.
17. Text of the final legislation for the Area One Requirement, supra note 8.
18. Syllabi, supra note 13.
19. Ibid. David Sacks also took the Philosophy CIV track in 1990–91 and observed this first-hand.
20. The course's 1988 outline described the goals of the new track: “First quarter: The Spanish debate over indigenous rights raises issues around race as well as religion; readings on European enlightenment include Wollstonecraft on question of gender, and Flora Tristan on question of class. Race, gender and class are all thematized in Chungara de Barrios’ autobiography and Anzaldua's poetic essays. Second quarter: Race is a central focus of materials on the Haitian revolution, and materials from the twentieth century negritude movement which developed in the post-emancipation context of modern ‘scientific’ racism. Gender is a central issue in Jamaica Kincaid's novel ‘Annie John,’ a mother-daughter story. Roumain's ‘Masters of the Dew’ plays out a class drama around the conflict between traditionalist peasant culture and modern proletarian consciousness. Third quarter: Marx and Weber are essential sources on class; Franz Fanon on race; gender, ethnicity and class are central themes in Rulfo, Menchu, Chavez and Anzaldua.” See “Stanford Slights The Great Books For Not-So-Greats,” The Wall Street Journal, December 22, 1988.
21. Mike Iwan and Norm Book, “CIV involves destruction and deconstruction of the West,” The Stanford Review, November 1988. See also “The Stanford Mind,” The Wall Street Journal, December 22, 1988.
22. “Europe and the Americas,” Course Syllabus, Spring 1992. The syllabus was distributed on the firs
t day of class by Professor Mary Pratt.
23. “Stanford Slights The Great Books For Not-So-Greats,” supra note 20. “The Stanford Mind,” supra note 21. Iwan and Book, supra note 21.
24. “Stanford Slights The Great Books For Not-So-Greats,” supra note 20. “The Stanford Mind,” supra note 21. Iwan and Book, supra note 21.
25. “Stanford Slights The Great Books For Not-So-Greats,” supra note 20. “The Stanford Mind,” supra note 21. Iwan and Book, supra note 21.
26. Aime Cesaire, A Tempest, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Ubu Repertory Theater Publications, 1985).
27. Walsh and Beyers, supra note 6.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Erin Martin, “Protesters rally during meeting,” The Stanford Daily, November 5, 1987.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Bernstein, supra note 2.
34. Dean of undergraduate studies Carolyn Lougee, for instance, earlier had argued that the time had come “to ask whether…the Western Civ course that has served American Universities so well for so long is adequate to the new political exigencies, the new social realities, and the new scholarly understandings.” Of course, the “new political exigencies” she referred to were the protests themselves. Walsh, supra note 6.
35. Martin, supra note 30.
36. As reported by Secretary of Education William Bennett on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, April 19, 1988. For a transcript, see Campus Report, April 27, 1988. For understandable reasons, the professor wished to remain anonymous.
37. The CUS pandered to the protestors outside its window and joined the attack on the core's putative bigotry in its report: “[The Western Culture classes] have also been open to the charge of being socially irresponsible, however unintentionally and inadvertently, for they seem to perpetuate racist and sexist stereotypes that are wounding to some and dangerous to all in a world of such evident diversity.” Many supporters of the Western Culture course feared that they too would be labelled “racist,” “sexist,” or “socially irresponsible” if they spoke up. See Bob Beyers, “Stanford Task Force Unanimously Recommends New Freshman Requirement in Culture, Ideas, and Values (CIV), Starting in 1989,” Stanford University News Service, October 12, 1987.
38. Russell Korobkin, “Approval likely for panel report,” The Stanford Daily, October 9, 1987.
39. “Report of CUS on Area 1 Legislation Proposed by the Provostial Task Force,” as reprinted in “CUS endorses changes in Area One tracks: ‘criticisms valid,’” Campus Report, January 20, 1988.
40. Korobkin, supra note 38.
41. Ibid.
42. Haru Connolly, “BSU rejects Area 1 report,” The Stanford Daily, October 15, 1987. For other BSU demands, see also Bob Beyers, “Students criticize ‘back room dealing’ on course proposal,” Campus Report, April 6, 1988. For instance, BSU leader Amanda Kemp demanded that Provost James Rosse “commit himself to having students as voting members in the Faculty Senate.”
43. Erin Martin, “W. Culture plan set for easy passage,” The Stanford Daily, November 5, 1987.
44. Diane Bisgeier, “New proposal alters today's Area 1 debate,” The Stanford Daily, January 21, 1988.
45. Brooke Harrington and Elizabeth Howton, “Chace plan loses a supporter,” The Stanford Daily, January 25, 1988.
46. Beyers, supra note 14.
47. Chris Shuttlesworth, “Students plan ‘silent vigil’ at Fac Senate,” The Stanford Daily, January 20, 1988. The demonstrators referred to their protest as an “educational activity.” Students formed a line through which faculty members had to cross in order to enter the meeting.
48. Haru Connolly, “W. Culture plan set for approval,” The Stanford Daily, December 7, 1987.
49. Patsy Mickens, “Agenda optimistic about Western Culture changes,” The Stanford Daily, October 2, 1987.
50. Romesh Ratnesar, “Reform nothing new to undergraduate education,” The Stanford Daily, November 1, 1993.
51. See, for instance, David Gates and Tony Clifton, “Say Goodnight, Socrates: Stanford University and the decline of the West,” Newsweek, February 1, 1988.
52. Charles Junkerman and Thomas Wasow, “Process and Product: The Inside Story on the Western Culture Debate,” The Farm Report, Fall 1988.
53. Tom Wasow, “Statement by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies,” Stanford University News Service, Spring 1988.
54. Bob Michitarian, “Kennedy: change Western Culture; Careful thought is needed, he says,” The Stanford Daily, May 20, 1986.
55. Mickens, supra note 49.
56. “Kennedy lauds debate as ‘significant intellectual inquiry,’” Campus Report, January 27, 1988.
57. MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, supra note 36.
58. William Chace, “There Was No Battle to Lose at Stanford,” The Washington Post, May 9, 1988.
2
Multiculturalism: A New Word for a New World
I do not know what a clear meaning of multiculturalism is. Maybe you have one, you have a clear definition. I have yet to encounter one.1
—Stanford President Gerhard Casper,
who succeeded Donald Kennedy in 1992
Multiculturalism” filled the vacuum created by the elimination of the West. By the fall of 1989, it seemed as though almost everybody at Stanford enthusiastically supported “multiculturalism,” or at least was invoking this word in every imaginable context: A Multicultural Educator advised Stanford's residential staff on implementing multicultural programming in the dormitories, specially selected Multicultural Editors helped the Stanford Daily provide more multicultural perspectives, and ethnic theme dorms and focus houses placed multiculturalism at the center of student life. As the Stanford Daily observed, “multiculturalism is evident in various classes, dorm events, ethnic community centers, and other aspects of daily campus life—from top-level curriculum decisions all the way down to what you'll be eating for dinner tonight.”2 These efforts culminated with the establishment of the Office for Multicultural Development (OMD) in 1990, whose prominent location on the same floor as the Office of the University President underlined its importance to campus life.3 Sharon Parker, the new director of the OMD, reported directly to President Kennedy, a status otherwise enjoyed only by vice presidents and deans.4
The curricular activists, while successful, had nevertheless invited the fear of divisiveness: If every culture possessed its own unchallengeable values and standards, some began to wonder, what common ground could possibly be left? In a remarkable sleight of hand, the OMD sought to turn this liability into an asset: The celebration of differences itself would become the new unifying theme, around which the new university would be structured. Proclaiming itself “the lead office for change and the advancement of multiculturalism throughout the University community,”5 the OMD described its overall mission in terms bordering on the messianic:
The Office for Multicultural Development is predicated upon the knowledge that our society is composed of interdependent, multi-racial/multi-ethnic peoples and that our future requires new thinking and new structures which incorporate diversity as a means to harmony, unity and equity. Moreover, diversity is fundamental to the pursuit of excellence and knowledge. In understanding and accepting this reality, Stanford University begins a transformation to ensure that multiculturalism is infused into (not appended to) all aspects of teaching, research, planning, policies, practices, achievement, and institutional life. It is the mission of the Office for Multicultural Development to develop the multicultural model of the future and guide Stanford University through the transformation.6
“Multiculturalism” is the word describing this synthesis of unity and diversity. Rather than creating divisiveness, the “multicultural model of the future” instead would forge diversity into “harmony, unity and equity.” The educational process, once “infused” and enhanced with multiculturalism, would take on a highly moral mission: not only to heal racial division in our society, but, since multiculturalism would in
clude all groups, perhaps to end factiousness altogether.
In his welcoming speech to Stanford's Class of 1993, President Donald Kennedy expanded on this idea. He declared that the university was working “to create a new kind of community: one that realistically embraces the diversity that is part of contemporary America—a model of stimulating, constructive pluralism and of the examined life.”7 And then came the punchline:
It is a bold experiment that must succeed if we are not to fail an important test of institutional leadership…. The tasks we perform here are exactly the ones we will need to accomplish in building communities elsewhere later on.8 (emphasis in original)
Just as the OMD would guide the university through a millenarian “transformation,” Stanford's mission would be rededicated to leading America towards its own utopian goal. Stanford's redefined mission, its “bold experiment,” would be to train students to build new multicultural communities elsewhere upon graduation—or, in other words, to promulgate multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism as Diversity
Like the glasnost and perestroika of the former Soviet Union, the “new thinking” and “new structures” of multiculturalism would seek to effect a comprehensive transformation of the university. But despite the central importance of “multiculturalism” to the new Stanford, the term itself proved remarkably slippery. Consider the OMD's definition of the implementation of multiculturalism as “ensuring University-wide influence of [the] multicultural agenda” through: