In this issue's “Books Worth Reading,” Mary Taylor Huber notes, “You cannot walk on campus or read the higher education press these days without coming face to face with issues concerning diversity and equity…everywhere, people are trying to come to terms with legacies of discrimination. And stubborn disparities in admission, retention, and graduation rates remain.”
The recent flare-ups on campus echo past cycles of campus protest even as there are shifts in language and focus. What would have been a discussion of multiculturalism in the past is now a discussion of unwelcoming environments and microaggressions. Some of the demands and responses—about diversity hiring and training, separate (now “safe”) spaces—echo past discussions, while others—for renaming buildings or schools and seeking dismissals—create new areas of controversy.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to frame these issues as conflicts of principle with the implicit demand that one choose a side. On the one hand, protesters put forward demands that racist symbols and legacies and current practices (and people) be changed. On the other, individuals worry that “political correctness” is undercutting rights and restricting the free speech of those who question the protesters demands and tactics.
Both sides have legitimate issues that can and should be addressed. For example, in the New York Review of Books, David Cole points out that “protesters are using their speech rights to communicate their experiences and demand equal justice. That's exactly how free speech should work. And the core of what they are fighting about is critically important, even necessary: an inclusive community that treats them as equals.” (see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/the-trouble-at-yale/).
At the same time, Cole suggests that “it is a mistake to suppress speech in the name of equality” and that some demands to change names of buildings or institutions are “misguided.” They “will do little to or nothing to advance racial justice…It substitutes cheap symbolism for concrete measures needed to achieve real progress.”
The first lesson here is that these issues are not likely to be settled at the level of principle. We must preserve free speech while pursuing racial justice. That means protecting both the protesters and those who disagree. It also means that, though students' demands are not always well targeted or reasonable, they cannot be dismissed as asking for “coddling” or reviving “political correctness.” Rather these demands are asking institutions to address the ongoing and very real instances of racism and environments that are not fully inclusive.
Perhaps the more important lesson to be drawn from the current controversies is the need to focus, as Cole suggests, on “concrete measures needed to achieve real progress.” The articles in this issue provide examples of such measures and more general guidance for creating inclusive educational communities. These lessons provide reasons for optimism, even as they point out some significant challenges.
A place to start is the article by Kevin J. Gin, Ana M. Martínez-Alemán, and colleagues at Boston College on anonymous acts of racial aggression on social media sites such as Yik Yak. It shows that overt racial hostility is still too common. It is not asking for “coddling” to demand that institutions act to combat this kind of racism and other factors that create a hostile environment.
Equally important, Gin and colleagues describe ways that students and administrators, often working together, can be proactive in using social media for antiracist activities that complement other campus efforts. It is critical that administrators and faculty be visibly (including diversity in their ranks) and vocally involved in these activities.
Another lesson provided by articles in this issue is to use academic work, the lessons if you will, within programs and curriculum to create an inclusive environment. If students are actively engaged in dealing with topics that are meaningful to them, they are less likely to see the environment as hostile and more likely to have a sense of voice and agency in dealing with whatever problems arise.
A good example of this approach is Chico State University's first-year programs described by Thia Wolf, William M. Loker, and their colleagues. The Town Hall Meeting and the Chico Great Debate encourage students to address political issues that are pertinent to them (e.g., juvenile criminal justice) and involve them in the community. CSU's student body is largely first generation and disadvantaged students, and these programs increase persistence, especially for these populations.
Similarly, Ellen Holmes Pearson, Jeffrey McClurken, and Claire Bailey describe a Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges program of digitally based courses that use and create community resources. Students actively engage with both their local communities but also with digital communities of students and scholars. Although the students and issues are different in the COPCLAC digital consortium from those at CSU Chico, the dynamic of engaged, relevant student work is the same.
Good programs like these invite the question of how to do such work across an institution and, indeed, across institutions. The article by Debra Bragg, Heather McCambly, and Brian Durham describes Pathways to Results (PTR), a program in community colleges in Illinois that guides and supports students down intentional educational pathways. It promotes “pedagogy, curriculum, and cocurricular environments congruent with students' identities, particularly racial identities” and emphasizes the need to understand and build on the experiences of disadvantaged students. “[W]hat could change if these students were involved in campus dialogues and initiatives that spoke clearly about the intent of their programming in the context of race, class, or other central facets of identity?”
One of the elements in PTR is a focus on developing and using evidence to improve programs and outcomes. Paul E. Lingenfelter's Perspectives piece, previewing his book, suggests that there must be constant attention in both practice and policy to evidence. “Evidence-based practice,” Lingenfelter points out, does not mean looking for “scalable silver bullets.” Rather, “The challenge for educational practitioners then is to learn “what works, when, for whom and under what sets of circumstances” (Yeager, et al, 2014).
Broader guidance for change, especially for disadvantaged groups, is provided in the books discussed in Mary Taylor Huber's review. These books illustrate well the need to mix common approaches and principles with sensitivity to local conditions and specific populations. Daryl Smith's book provides a broad framework for diversity involving “good educational practice…familiar to readers of Change” but also “responsive to the ways in which diverse ‘students experience their education, their institution, and their own place in the process of learning.” Alicia Dowd and Estela Bensimon's book provides a tighter focus on racial and other inequities to identify policies and practices that contribute to gaps in outcomes. Though somewhat different is approach, both books provide valuable conceptual frameworks combined with specific examples and practical advice.
The implementation of these kinds of programs of course depends upon faculty members. In the articles about faculty in this issue one finds reasons for both optimism and pessimism. Elizabeth Minnich, Laura Gardner, and Brenda Sorkin discuss “present teaching,” the term they coin for their observations about the art of teaching, which is strongly student-focused. At the same time, Paul J. Yakoboski's survey focusing on adjuncts suggests that the new majority of faculty members may have difficulty being positioned for the kind of close-in teaching Minnich and colleagues describe, even as they are still committed to their profession.
Campus controversies, especially about “legacies of discrimination” are not going away. But we have a wealth of good thinking, sound ideas, and practical examples—lessons—for substantive, educationally sound responses to these issues. Above all, though, the lessons in this issue suggest the imperative to act. Administrators, faculty, and students need to confront overt racism; programs must engage student interest, especially for disadvantaged populations; practitioners must be constantly addressing issues of equity and identity by combining general approaches with “evidence-based practice.” The current turmoil on campuses provides an opportunity to create more just and equitable institutions. The articles in this issue show ways we can seize this opportunity.