Diversity on campus: Figment of Whitman’s imagination

This is not a politically correct article. This article is a step towards removing the veil of political correctness to hopefully arrive at the TRUTH.

In last week’s issue, Gillian Frew wrote a news story titled “Happiness aside, Whitman lacks diversity.” This news story brought to our attention the limited view of diversity and its effects.

Having diversity on campus is obviously an important value at Whitman College. According to our college’s Web site, College Trustees gathered at their 2005 November meeting to endorse a statement—compiled by overseers, alumni, students, faculty and staff—on the value of diversity at Whitman. George Bridges posted a 300-word diversity statement online. Students and faculty even collectively received Mellon Grants to begin projects at Whitman for diversity initiatives.

So what does “diversity” mean to the Bridges administration and our school?

According to whitman.edu, diversity is the culmination of different people in categories of “race, color, sex, gender, religion, age, marital status, national origin, disability [and] veteran’s status.”

In Frew’s article, it is apparent that the school is on the verge of embarrassment for not having “scored”—as Frew so put it—high enough in the ranks of racial diversity. We, sadly, have not gathered enough of “the other” breed.

In “Orientalism,” Edward Said argues how Western culture constructs the Orient without their consent, and by doing so, the West loses true Oriental culture, mind and the identity of its people. Said writes, “My contention is that without examining Orientalism as a discourse one cannot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage—and even produce—the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically and imaginatively” (Introduction).

In the same way, Whitman and most other colleges have not examined diversity as a discourse—meaning they have lost the true meaning of diversity as they repeatedly use it in their means of advertisement and in various discussion groups. Because it does not examine diversity as a discourse, Whitman does not understand the enormity of the “systematic discipline” of gathering prospective students who qualify as “diverse”—mainly those of skin colors and ethnicities other than Anglo-Saxon.

This leads us to Said’s usage of the word “imaginative.” We, as people, have constructed races so methodically that we have developed stereotypes and structures of thinking that are imaginative. In this, we have lost the individual identity and characterize those who are not white as “diverse” and distinct in experiences and ideologies.

The Whitman administration repeatedly emphasizes race. Sociology Professor Ann Finan said in Frew’s article, “I do wish that my students had more exposure to people different from themselves, especially racially and ethnically.” This implies that races and ethnicities bring something different or “exotic” that the white person needs to know to fulfill their life experiences. Is this ignorant or racist because it presupposes that different races think alike?

This “exotic” mode of thought creates the following assumptions: 1) white people aren’t exposed enough to “the other,” 2) “the other” has something unique that the white person is not and 3) those who are “exotic” carry similar reasons for being “exotic.” Again, think of this in the context of the United States.

The human experience is unique for everyone. To judge by skin and culture rather than the content of one’s character will always separate people rather than bring them together on a common ground of one race: the human race.

The diversity policies at Whitman do not reflect this concept. Although Whitman cares about the welfare of all past, present and future students, there are other intentions. We then ask ourselves: Do the members of the Bridges administration truly care about minority students? Yes, they do. Are they pushing for diversity purely because they care about minorities? No, they are not.

The truth is diversity has a lot to do with prestige. In the United States, some of the top colleges and universities (e.g. Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, Howard, Michigan, Duke) are also the leaders of the revolution of minorities. As these top-notch institutions lead the way in “diversity” policies, other schools, such as ourselves, often emulate these policies (and politics) to creep their way up the ladder of prestige.

Kevin Dyerly, Whitman’s director of admissions, said in Frew’s article, “It’s always nice to be recognized by a third party as an institution that, among other things, creates a close-knit community where relationships are valued and differences are embraced.” What “differences” is he talking about?

Diversity has become propaganda. We see this primarily on the Whitman Web site as our college continually reiterates again, and again, and yet again the importance of diversity, which is largely based on skin color, ethnicity and economic background.

We’re not writing against diversity; diversity is a good value. Unfortunately, it has become a meter for colleges and universities to see how many of their peers are reaching out to the “poor, helpless” minorities.

As Whitman reaches out to minorities across the nation to include them in their diversity statistics, they often forget the pressure and responsibility placed on the minority students within the academic and social realms.

Making the initial adjustments to college is already hard. As white students struggle with classes and college life, minority students—who are Whitman’s physical embodiments of how Whit[e]man isn’t racist—struggle with the burden of needing to bring something “exotic” to the table. As they struggle with being constantly singled out and looked to as “the other” perspective, they find comfort from their frustration in each other.

This creates segregation, which leads to our next question: Are we truly engaging in diversity? As “diverse” students gather in groups that sit exclusively together in Prentiss and Jewett (look around, you see those minority tables), the interaction between races is not achieved. Those who are already racist are thankful for this and those who aren’t find it bizarre. Why can’t those minorities just congregate with everyone?

Minorities aren’t the only ones who bring something different; everyone brings something different. Individuals think differently. That is diversity. We need to stop assuming that our differences are on the outside, when in truth, they lie on the inside. Our skin, our race, our ethnicity do not automatically determine the outcome of our lives and our opinions.

Now ask yourself: Is everybody similar here? If so, why? Is it the color of our skin? Yes, could be. Is it the granola atmosphere? Hmm, makes sense. Or is it the fact that intellectually we are so uniform? Even further, have diversity initiatives caused more racism at Whitman? Less? Are we creating a new racism of our age? Ask yourself and then let’s start talking about diversity.

More to come next week. Please respond and say if you wouldn’t mind being quoted in our next article. Remember, this is the beginning of a discussion, and we hope to discover new solutions and further expose problems. Please comment freely.

About Becky Avila and Veronica Prout