Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2003/10/08/the_new_academia_whiteness_studies.php
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
One day after the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action, Dartmouth College released a report on its October 2002 "Race Matters in the University of the 21st Century" conference. While the Supreme Court's decision may have institutionalized race in college admissions, the report from Dartmouth reaches far beyond this, instead describing the gruesome future of race in the curriculum.
According to the report, the conference was held to "stimulat[e] national discussion and debate on issues of race and ethnicity in the academy" and ultimately "develop a set of national recommendations" for all colleges and universities. Cornell West was the befitting keynote speaker.
Ideas from the burgeoning field of whiteness studies undergirded the entire conference and report. Whenever possible, members of the committee demonized "whiteness," although the report does not offer a concrete definition. Instead, whiteness is the "residual—and sometimes invisible—heritage of America's racial mythologies." These mythologies stem from the "legacy of whiteness and a white-centered theory of American and world history [that] continue[s] to play a role in the values of virtually every American intellectual institution." For the duration of the report, these same overtures are made:
Perhaps especially in academic life, whiteness is not a system that overtly discriminates against people of color or privileges whites. Instead, it is more a system of assumptions that, claiming to be universals, are in fact a surviving relic of America's racist past.
Following from these assumptions, the conference's report outlines eight major recommendations, divided into three main areas: "diversity plans, curriculum reform, and faculty hiring and tenure procedures." For those who thought "diversity" and its ilk had gone too far, think again.
According to the report, most departments are in desperate need of concrete action plans for incorporating "diversity" into every aspect of academic life. One of the greatest reasons for this is, of course, that "the perception remains that the scholarship [in minority studies fields] is second-rate." Therefore, everyone must be taught via action plans that the scholarship emanating from these departments is first-rate. If followed properly, these machinations will make "European studies...historical background and area studies...radiating centers from which the various disciplines are reinvigorated." The action plans are also meant to spread the responsibility of diversity to all faculty members—whatever that means.
Not surprisingly, the envisioned seachange requires substantial curriculum reforms. The report recommends that "race, ethnicity, and cultural diversity [should] make up an important part of every undergraduate's education." Thus, diversity courses should not just be "optional electives" and should not be confined to "specialized ethnic studies departments." These courses must pervade the entire curriculum so that "whiteness [is] no longer...the unacknowledged criterion of the university curriculum." Once again, a definition of what constitutes a "white" curriculum is conspicuously absent. One can only imagine the new academics are meant to subsume the Western canon. This is, of course, fitting because "American history is still taught primarily as the history of a white nation in which race and ethnicity are allowed only supporting roles and walk-on parts," and "Whiteness has...continued to be a grey eminence of the academy—not in power itself but always whispering in the ears of power."
The conference also stressed the need for tenure reform that would more accurately reflect the contributions minority faculty make, especially in the diversity category. For example, the Committee demands that "Diversity work should be valued as an important part of a faculty member's responsibilities" and should constitute a large portion of a professor's "tenure portfolio." One panelist proclaimed to the audience, "We don't want standards to be lowered for tenure. But as minority faculty members, we have a different work load." The implications are fairly obvious; the bar for tenure should be lowered for minority faculty, and white professors must rigidly adhere to the focus on diversity, lest they jeopardize their chances for tenure. Ultimately, "the criteria for tenure stems from white male views" so it must be entirely overturned.
The subject of mentoring minority faculty came up as well, with the report claiming these chosen professors should have more institutional support. Of course, some took offense to this, and one panelist even said that "The ones who need to be mentored are the white faculty," while another explained that "we [the minority faculty] are going to have to train the white faculty." At Race Matters, these types of outburst were the norm, not the exception.
All in all, the conference's recommendations represent a major shift in higher education. The rationale behind such an overhaul of Western tradition is scant at best. Instead, the committee assumes its rather outlandish claims are well established: "Unwittingly, the white-dominated, corporatized structure [of university administrations] tends to reinforce the dominance of whiteness and white privilege in academic decision-making." Sadly, this sentiment represents the opinions of not only these few select panelists, but also those in charge of many colleges. For example, Dartmouth President James Wright said at convocation last year that he was upset that whites "did not recognize whiteness as culturally meaningful" and did not understand "the privilege that they enjoyed, as whites, in a racialized, hierarchical environment." These pieties are tossed around with the gravity of Biblical scripture, and the trend looks to continue; this winter at Dartmouth there will be an experimental class titled "Race Matters," whose main evidence will be—surprise surprise—video-tape testimony from the Race Matters conference.
For those bold enough to suffer through the fifty-page report, the outlook is bleak. Almost fifteen years ago, Dinesh D'Souza exposed in his Illiberal Education the destruction minority studies programs were bringing upon the university and the Western canon. Since then, minority studies programs have become institutionalized, and Academia is once more targeting Western civilization. This time, however, the foundation is already in place.