Kaleidoscope:
An SCO Journal of Graduate Student Research
Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 2002, pp.
59-65
Considering the
Organizational Ethics
of Minority Studies Programs In An Academic Setting
Diana L. Tucker
_____
Diana Tucker is an Assistant Professor of Communication
Arts at
in
Relations.
She is also the advisor for the student run Public Relations Club at
University, called Accent PR. She also does freelance
public relations work for The Ohio
State University Department of Athletics.
_____
According
to Susan Faludi in her 1991 best-selling book, Backlash,
Women account for a mere 10 percent of the tenured
faculty
at all four-year institutions.
Five times more women with
Ph.D.'s are unemployed than men. Only twelve women's
studies chairs exist nationwide. A
census taken of roughly
fifteen hundred articles published
annually in journals of
history, literature, education,
philosophy, and anthropology
found that only 7.4 percent of
them dealt with women or
women's issues. (293)
Statistics
such as these might communicate to some that it is time to put more money and
effort into women's studies departments on college campuses. Many
administrators and faculty alike would say that funneling money into women's
studies would demonstrate a true commitment to women's issues on the
university's behalf; and voilà, they would have
solved the problem. I would agree that on a short-term basis they would have
solved the problem. However, I believe that such a solution would not change
patriarchal attitudes of students, administrators, faculty, or staff. With in a
year or two the same problems would resurface due to a backlash toward women's
studies programs that were getting a lot of money but not yet producing a lot
of material evidence to support their receiving that money.
Women's studies and feminist studies (which
normally, but do not necessarily, go hand in hand) have received a considerable
amount of backlash since their debut on college campuses in the 1970's (
Many academic institutions'
solutions to end racism and sexism stop with the creation of a minority studies
program. Rarely do academic institutions make classes in minority studies a
requirement for all students. Thus, the program preaches only to the choir. And
while those who already believe in the cause will gain important knowledge and
tools for empowerment, those who may need the enlightenment more will rarely
seek to take classes in these minority studies departments. Thus, the cycle of
hate continues. Personally, I do not think it is ethical for schools to stop at
the creation of (or with providing more financial backing to) minority studies
programs when problems of racism and sexism occur on a campus.
Most academic institutions have
mission statements that in some way illustrate their commitment to the
betterment of students. For instance, Southern Illinois University's Graduate
Catalog explains, "the University's objective is to provide a
comprehensive educational program meeting as many individual student needs as
possible" (1). This statement communicates to me that the University has
its students' best interests in mind. Our University wants to satisfy student's
needs, which, if we recall Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs, includes self-actualization needs. Kreps
explains that "self-actualization includes learning more about yourself
and the world around you, becoming more competent at activities you perform,
and generally feeling as though you are growing as an individual" (158).
If we deprive students of becoming more self-actualized, we keep them from
becoming more fully human (cited in Kreps 78).
Critical pedagogist, Paulo Freire,
explains that to be fully human one must have respect for all human life, and
one must live in peace and allow others the right to live similarly (39-40). If
minority studies programs are only reaching the converted, then only those
converts will reach self-actualization. If our mission is to improve the
quality of life for all students, and we do not require all students to reflect
and think critically about their own actions and prejudices, then we keep those
students from becoming more fully human.
Here
is the ethical dilemma: Are our academic institutions unwittingly perpetuating
harmful biases because we segregate minority studies programs? In order to
investigate this issue further I will first examine the present organizational
structure of institutions' academic programs and suggest a move toward a more
humanistic or cultural model of organization. Finally, I will provide my own
possible solutions indicating the pros and cons of each idea.
One of the problems I see in
the organization of current academic institutions is that administrators say
they pay attention to individual student's needs (e.g., SIUC's
mission), but they are really more concerned with the number of students
attending the school. In this way, the students themselves are just monetary
bodies, and are replaceable. This is a traditional classical view of the
individual in an organization (Kreps 63). This
results in the administration focusing on the number of classes being offered,
but they do not pay attention to the content of the courses. Just like in
scientific management the courses become routine, with the same people teaching
them, requiring the same assignments, and living up to the same reputations.
When classes become so archaic and repetitive, the people who teach them become
easily replaceable as well.
Perhaps classical or systems
theory is applicable to the administration at a university, but when it comes
to students' lives and their course work, administrators must apply a more
humanistic or cultural model. Universities need to show more concern for the
humanity of their teachers and students. Obviously there are already humans and
cultures in place. We do not have to strive to create the structure, but we do
need to transform it. By transforming the culture, we make the university a
site of pro-activity. Kreps explains that when a
system is proactive it gathers "information from the environment about
imminent problems and plans organizational strategies for meeting them"
(99). I believe that changing the present academic structure of many colleges
and universities is a proactive plan for meeting problems of racism, sexism, classism, etc.
As a culture, an academic
institution has a set of cultural norms, values, heroes, rites, rituals, and
networks (Kreps 128). What the institution needs to
do is to focus on tolerance and acceptance of differences as a number one
priority in these areas. While it will be the university that provides the
classes on diversity, the students will be the ones who are constantly in
dialogue in these classes. Constant dialogue will result in the creation of
norms and values that celebrate diversity. We can only truly empower students
to make a difference if they believe they have a stake in the issue. The
administration will need to remain very open to feedback from students about
the classes. They must also act on that feedback to ensure true participative
management. As Peters and Waterman explain, "excellent organizations
emphasize productivity through people" (cited in Kreps
130). In other words, the organization members must really believe they have a
say in their organization and that their voice counts as it would in a social
club or family.
But
it is also important to have a system of socialization for new members of the
university culture. This is where professors and student opinion leaders are
essential. Professors must believe in the mission and enjoy what they are doing
in order to pass on the feeling to students. Curriculum must be co-created and
we must give teachers room to move in that curriculum. Professors are also the
key element to halting gender biased and racist language in students' academic
endeavors. Professors must be the first to use and require inclusive language
and actions in the classroom, while simultaneously putting the practice of
inclusiveness under the microscope for students to dissect. Only through
dialogue and debate will students come to understand the importance of such
practices.
Teachers
and administrators alike need to foster the practice of student opinion leading
as well. Universities should reward students who speak and act out against
injustices. Departments should set up mentoring programs between opinion
leaders and newcomers to the discipline. As students teach each other about
diversity and tolerance, new students will become intrinsically motivated to
practice tolerance themselves because of the social need to fit in and practice
their new cultures' norms. This process is one described by Kreps
as therapeutic communication. He explains "therapeutic communication
encourages the development of interpersonal relationships by providing
communicators with information both about the expectations that others have of
them and about their level of success at meeting those expectations"
(162). By practicing therapeutic communication on college campuses we teach
students to have empathy for, to trust, to be honest with, to validate, and
care for other human beings. These are all aspects that both Kreps (164-165) and Freire
(70-73) believe make us more fully human. By teaching this, we fulfill the
mission we had all along.
Now that I have discussed the
current state of the university and how I believe it should change
organizationally, I would like to turn to possible curricular solutions that
could help in that transformation. A first possibility would be to simply
require students to take the introduction to women's studies or African
American studies or other minority studies course. However, I do not believe
that simply taking one course on diversity and tolerance will change many
students’ attitudes. In addition, if we require students to take only one
course from one minority studies program, they still only receive partial
stories or points of view. If they take only an African American studies course,
they miss out on learning about Hispanic, Asian, or other ethnic and racial
issues pertinent to their college experience. The benefit of this possibility
is that it is easily adaptable to most academic institutions current
organizational structures. The only thing that administrators would need to do
is to write up the requirement in the course catalog and make sure advisors are
aware of the change. Minority studies departments would also benefit from the
new students who are required to take a class from their department. Generally,
the more students a department has in courses, the more likely the
administration will allocate funds to pay for teachers for the courses.
A second possibility would be
geared more for those campuses that do not have any minority studies
departments at the present time. In this case, such institutions might decide
to construct one Minority Studies Department with professors from women's
studies, African American studies, Hispanic American studies, gay and lesbian
studies, etc. Once again, there would be a required introductory course that
all students at the institution would take. This introductory course would have
units on different minority cultures as well as on racism, sexism, and classism. The benefit of this idea comes from its equal
coverage of cultures and issues. However, in just one semester, a teacher would
probably have to spend less than a week on each unit. Students would only
receive surface information, and that would not be enough to even break the
surface of stereotypes and prejudices some students have learned throughout
their life.
What
I believe is the best alternative to our present segregated organizational
system of minority studies programs is an integrative system. As I stated
earlier, I do not believe we should get rid of minority studies programs;
students should have the opportunity to major in such programs if they choose.
However, all too often the more traditional departments (history, philosophy,
business, engineering, English, modern languages, etc.--even speech
communication sometimes), and even more often the "old guard" of
those departments, believe that because the university does have one or many
different minority studies departments then they (the traditional departments)
do not need to concern themselves with matters of racism, classism,
sexism, etc. It is this attitude that perpetuates such isms; and, if this
attitude is prevalent on college campuses, then I believe it is unethical for
administrators to do nothing about it.
Therefore,
I propose that the best solution is for administrators to require faculty to
address such issues in every classroom. If the faculty members are not on
board, the students will be less likely to come aboard themselves. In this
sense, the institution integrates the issue of diversity and tolerance into the
system because all professors in all classes address the problem and how it
affects the course topic, their discipline, future jobs, etc. When we segregate
minority studies and the issues that accompany it, we silence students. We are
telling students that they can only talk about such issues in the minority
studies classroom. Students must be aware that race, ethnic, and sex
differences exist everywhere and we cannot and should not be asked to leave them
at the door. Students need to be aware of their own and others liminality. Liminality is the
betwixt and between existence that multiple stigmatized identities create (Hurtado 386-387). We cannot expect our friends, relatives,
employers, employees, teachers, students, and peers to be the same person all
the time. If we allow for others to change, then it will be easier to allow
ourselves to change. That change will come only through dialogue with others. I
believe it is the teacher's responsibility to challenge the students with
critical questions. By making students think about their own beliefs, how they
got them, and whether or not their beliefs are ethical is a wonderful way to
begin the transformation process from intolerance to tolerance.
Now,
many teachers might say something like: "But I teach physics! What does
race have to do with physics?” A class discussion about who has the jobs and
the scholarships in physics related fields would be quite pertinent in that
class. Students could come up with solutions for making the field more racially
and gender equal. Like educator Judy Logan explains, "If you start with
sexual harassment, you'll get to Susan B. Anthony" (cited in Orenstein
260). If a physics teacher starts with racist and sexist attitudes in the
field, he or she will eventually get to those minorities who broke records and
discovered amazing things.
I
realize that on paper this method may actually be as flexible as the first
suggestion; but, in reality, this plan requires all professors at a university
to be in sync with the diversity issue. This plan means changing professor's
minds and transforming stereotypes. If an academic institution truly has its
student's best interests in mind, it will hire professors who believe in
diversity and teach inclusively.
Not only is this form of
pedagogy integrative, but it is also inclusive. It turns the conventional
student-teacher relationship on its head. It promotes a collective search for
meaning, which can be exciting (hooks 8). And as the entire class, the entire
department, the entire university searches for subjective meaning together, we
learn to exist with each other and to develop not just tolerance, but an
interest in each other's lives.
Works Cited
Belenky, Mary Field, et al. Women's Ways of Knowing. Basic
Books, 1986.
Clark,
VèVè, et al., eds. Antifeminism in the Academy.
Faludi, Susan. Backlash.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (new
revised 20th anniversary edition).
hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress.
Hurtado, Aída. "Strategic
Suspensions." Knowledge, Difference, and Power.
(In Press).
Kreps, Gary L. Organizational Communication (2nd ed.).
Orenstein,
Peggy. School Girls.
Southern
Communications, 1994.
Copyright © 2002 Kaleidoscope/Speech Communication Association/Department of Speech Communication, SIUC. All rights reserved.