Highlights from the Affirmative Action Panel
First published in the March/April 2013 edition of The Bullhorn. The original publication can be found here.
UUP marked the end of Black History Month on February 27th with a panel discussion entitled “Affirmative Action, Diversity and Institutional Racism: Alive and Well?” Panelists included Black Studies Professors Karanja Keita Carroll and Major Coleman (chair); Chanel Ward, Director of the Scholars’ Mentorship Program; Josette Ramnani, a student senator graduating in May; and the chapter’s Affirmative Action Officer, Jerry Persaud, as moderator. After introductions by Persaud and Chapter President Peter Brown, each panelist offered substantial treatments on parts of the discussion topic, presenting their theories and evaluations on the controversial subjects at hand.
Professor Carroll highlighted the flaws that he believes block the effectiveness of affirmative action. He drew upon Audre Lorde, a Caribbean-American writer and activist during the Civil Rights era, and her theory of the “mythical norm,” to demonstrate the deep entrenchment of institutional racism. The “mythical norm” that most of the population falls outside of—middle-class white heterosexual males with no disabilities or maladies—creates a power structure preserving institutional racism. Although the norm applies to multiple categories, race takes center stage in the discussion, as one of the most visually apparent.
Carroll advocated for color-conscious policy. He asserted the current trend towards color-blindness and non-recognition of race allows the current power structure to continue functioning, and for society to continue its “gravitation towards whiteness.” In this way, affirmative action’s main benefit to white females becomes apparent. Carroll concludes that affirmative action started not in the 1960s, but rather in 1641, when house ownership was limited by race and gender. He maintained the same persists in the policy today.
Chanel Ward, currently Director of the Scholars’ Mentorship Program, deconstructed the word “diversity” in order to answer the question raised by the panel title: is diversity alive and well? First, she noted its ambiguity. The term offers no point of reference. SUNY New Paltz might be considered diverse to a student from northern Westchester County, such as myself, but not to someone from an inner-city school, such as panelist Josette Ramnani. “Diversity” never defines who is included or excluded from the term, whether the word refers to all differences or racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Ward noted that this ambiguity also weakens the term’s clarity of action: how can it serve its members? Second, “diversity” is subjective in nature, offering no room for various groups outside of those privileged to track progress towards equality. Third, the term creates a “state of tolerance” and a “limited welcome” rather than a permanent state of equality for all underprivileged groups. Ward concluded her presentation by answering the underlying question: diversity can never be achieved. She offers “environmental equity” instead as a word to elicit action and change.
Josette Ramnani, graduating this May with a major in Political Science and a minor in Black Studies, covered a multitude of issues surrounding “diversity,” particularly in the context of SUNY New Paltz and educational institutions. Although our campus takes pride in its diverse student population, the College’s black population has sharply dropped, from 12% to 6%, in ten years. By showcasing its racial inclusiveness, New Paltz engages in institutional tokenism, using “diversity” as a “code for race, without engaging with race.”
Similarly, Ramnani noted that “diversity” hardly functions outside of predominantly white communities because, just as Ward noted, simply proclaiming “diversity” does not offer progress for students of color and deal with the issues associated with race that hinder social progress for marginalized populations.
Professor Coleman began his presentation by proclaiming, “This is America’s last and greatest century: enjoy it!” Coleman sees inequality across various minority groups, most notably racial, as the crack in US stability. To demonstrate his point, he highlighted three kinds of equality. Absolute equality hardly functions as a marker of progress, as it tracks changes throughout the grand narrative (i.e., from the Civil War until now). Relative equality, measured in relation to peers, remains stagnant, especially in education. For example, while the average amount of education (by year) for whites and blacks is fairly close—around thirteen-to-fourteen years—Latinos average ten years, which does not even equate to a high school education. Strategic equality, measuring between “where you are now and where you need to be to avoid a crisis,” can be determined by Coleman’s submarine example. Any cracks in the submarine, no matter how small, can destroy the underwater vehicle. With the many cracks in equality unsolved, Coleman predicts a crisis that will sink America.
Following the panelists’ presentations, the question and answer session began with strong concerns about applying racial discussions to the campus, the prison system, affirmative action laws and the presidency. Several audience members encouraged the discourse on race and expanding the dialogue past the auditorium, to which several panelists agreed.
Two students raised concerns on how SUNY New Paltz can encourage and improve on enrollments for persons of color. Panelists responded with various suggestions to the school, mainly financial, but also by maintaining a color-conscious approach in selecting faculty, forming representative committees and reaching out to disadvantaged communities.
Richard Kelder, former UUP Chapter President and current professional delegate, asked how the prison system and mass incarceration affects underrepresented populations. Carroll drew upon his extensive volunteer activities at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Wallkill to emphasize the destruction of populations through mass incarceration, transforming people into objects. Persaud cited recent research labeling prisons as the fifth plantation.
A question on affirmative action reform, based on class, received heavy attention from Coleman, who found the reform approach ridiculous when twenty-five percent of the population is poor, and the law cannot even achieve equality within much smaller percentages of racial groups. Additionally, the reform would assume people in the same economic class are equal across races. Persaud noted that with little history of aiding the lowest class, there would be a long century ahead to even attempt to integrate the underclass into the working class.
One student raised concerns about the “African-American” label applied to President Obama, in view of the fact that his mother was white. The panelists were asked how they viewed the term, and they agreed on its non-inclusive nature. Another student wondered if the mere fact of Obama’s presidency marked progress toward racial equality. No one on the panel believed his election demonstrated significant change.
The panelists all thanked UUP for sponsoring this important discussion and expressed the hope that further events could be organized in the future.
Professor Carroll highlighted the flaws that he believes block the effectiveness of affirmative action. He drew upon Audre Lorde, a Caribbean-American writer and activist during the Civil Rights era, and her theory of the “mythical norm,” to demonstrate the deep entrenchment of institutional racism. The “mythical norm” that most of the population falls outside of—middle-class white heterosexual males with no disabilities or maladies—creates a power structure preserving institutional racism. Although the norm applies to multiple categories, race takes center stage in the discussion, as one of the most visually apparent.
Carroll advocated for color-conscious policy. He asserted the current trend towards color-blindness and non-recognition of race allows the current power structure to continue functioning, and for society to continue its “gravitation towards whiteness.” In this way, affirmative action’s main benefit to white females becomes apparent. Carroll concludes that affirmative action started not in the 1960s, but rather in 1641, when house ownership was limited by race and gender. He maintained the same persists in the policy today.
Chanel Ward, currently Director of the Scholars’ Mentorship Program, deconstructed the word “diversity” in order to answer the question raised by the panel title: is diversity alive and well? First, she noted its ambiguity. The term offers no point of reference. SUNY New Paltz might be considered diverse to a student from northern Westchester County, such as myself, but not to someone from an inner-city school, such as panelist Josette Ramnani. “Diversity” never defines who is included or excluded from the term, whether the word refers to all differences or racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Ward noted that this ambiguity also weakens the term’s clarity of action: how can it serve its members? Second, “diversity” is subjective in nature, offering no room for various groups outside of those privileged to track progress towards equality. Third, the term creates a “state of tolerance” and a “limited welcome” rather than a permanent state of equality for all underprivileged groups. Ward concluded her presentation by answering the underlying question: diversity can never be achieved. She offers “environmental equity” instead as a word to elicit action and change.
Josette Ramnani, graduating this May with a major in Political Science and a minor in Black Studies, covered a multitude of issues surrounding “diversity,” particularly in the context of SUNY New Paltz and educational institutions. Although our campus takes pride in its diverse student population, the College’s black population has sharply dropped, from 12% to 6%, in ten years. By showcasing its racial inclusiveness, New Paltz engages in institutional tokenism, using “diversity” as a “code for race, without engaging with race.”
Similarly, Ramnani noted that “diversity” hardly functions outside of predominantly white communities because, just as Ward noted, simply proclaiming “diversity” does not offer progress for students of color and deal with the issues associated with race that hinder social progress for marginalized populations.
Professor Coleman began his presentation by proclaiming, “This is America’s last and greatest century: enjoy it!” Coleman sees inequality across various minority groups, most notably racial, as the crack in US stability. To demonstrate his point, he highlighted three kinds of equality. Absolute equality hardly functions as a marker of progress, as it tracks changes throughout the grand narrative (i.e., from the Civil War until now). Relative equality, measured in relation to peers, remains stagnant, especially in education. For example, while the average amount of education (by year) for whites and blacks is fairly close—around thirteen-to-fourteen years—Latinos average ten years, which does not even equate to a high school education. Strategic equality, measuring between “where you are now and where you need to be to avoid a crisis,” can be determined by Coleman’s submarine example. Any cracks in the submarine, no matter how small, can destroy the underwater vehicle. With the many cracks in equality unsolved, Coleman predicts a crisis that will sink America.
Following the panelists’ presentations, the question and answer session began with strong concerns about applying racial discussions to the campus, the prison system, affirmative action laws and the presidency. Several audience members encouraged the discourse on race and expanding the dialogue past the auditorium, to which several panelists agreed.
Two students raised concerns on how SUNY New Paltz can encourage and improve on enrollments for persons of color. Panelists responded with various suggestions to the school, mainly financial, but also by maintaining a color-conscious approach in selecting faculty, forming representative committees and reaching out to disadvantaged communities.
Richard Kelder, former UUP Chapter President and current professional delegate, asked how the prison system and mass incarceration affects underrepresented populations. Carroll drew upon his extensive volunteer activities at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Wallkill to emphasize the destruction of populations through mass incarceration, transforming people into objects. Persaud cited recent research labeling prisons as the fifth plantation.
A question on affirmative action reform, based on class, received heavy attention from Coleman, who found the reform approach ridiculous when twenty-five percent of the population is poor, and the law cannot even achieve equality within much smaller percentages of racial groups. Additionally, the reform would assume people in the same economic class are equal across races. Persaud noted that with little history of aiding the lowest class, there would be a long century ahead to even attempt to integrate the underclass into the working class.
One student raised concerns about the “African-American” label applied to President Obama, in view of the fact that his mother was white. The panelists were asked how they viewed the term, and they agreed on its non-inclusive nature. Another student wondered if the mere fact of Obama’s presidency marked progress toward racial equality. No one on the panel believed his election demonstrated significant change.
The panelists all thanked UUP for sponsoring this important discussion and expressed the hope that further events could be organized in the future.
