Activism Isn’t Enough Any More
As my first semester ends at the University of Arizona, I have just begun to understand the depth of the perils faced by directors of ethnic studies programs. Unlike more traditional departments, these programs emerged from the civil rights unrest of the 1960s and reflect, more often than not, the rhetoric of that era. It was a time when ethnic and racial authenticity were the criteria for entrance into these programs, and scholarly accomplishment meant little. Unfortunately, this legacy has created a fundamental contradiction as new scholars emerge with sterling credentials and academic legitimacy. People like Henry Louis Gates at Harvard, Ronald Takaki at UC Berkeley and Renato Rosaldo at Stanford are significant scholars involved in academic centers devoted to ethnic and racial issues. But at other such centers, many of those in charge chafe at the mention of scholarship having more weight than activist authenticity.
What may appear to be a minor difference of emphasis manifests in potential problems that threaten the academic success of ethnic studies programs. When I became director of the Mexican American Studies & Research Center here, the curriculum and lack of full-time faculty meant there was little structure or accountability to either the students or the administration. Last spring, an internal review of the center had recommended its elimination due to lack of productivity. My own review of student records found that more than 40% of the majors in this program could not pass the minimum writing requirements for the upper division, and these students were graduating without remediation or recommendations for writing intervention. It was clear that the center had failed to provide the basic skills in critical thinking and writing necessary for a successful application in a graduate program or on the job.
Mexican American studies is similar to other interdisciplinary studies, such as African American studies or programs in public health. But in a political sense, ethnic studies programs are very different, being products of civil unrest. Any changes in ethnic studies have political implications for the distribution of power within and outside the university. It is in this sense that any changes must be viewed not only as academic, but also as symbolic. And it is here that the academic credibility of ethnic studies becomes severely compromised.
Critics of ethnic studies programs are correct when they assert that curricula do not reflect the intellectual rigor of established disciplines. This is because of lack of expertise and scholarship in the area during the 1960s and into the 1970s. By the 1980s, however, emerging scholarship in racial and ethnic issues developed the foundation for a strong interdisciplinary field. By the 1990s, academic concerns over the issues of multiculturalism, diversity and race relations had created a dynamic dialogue across traditional disciplines and ethnic studies programs. This was captured symbolically when Harvard University established a highly visible African American studies program with Gates and other top scholars in the field.
It is not surprising that administrators across the country have begun to review their ethnic studies programs. Yet often, as here at the University of Arizona, the path to transform a program from mediocrity to excellence requires challenging the status quo of political brokers from the past so that the program could meet the demands of an elite institution. One need only reflect on the divisive struggle over Rodolfo Acua’s fight for a tenured position at UC Santa Barbara to recognize the high stakes involved.
If ethnic studies is to achieve credibility in academia as well as in society, leaders must shift away from the rhetoric of the 1960s to the substantive merit of the scholarship. Minorities are not victims of the system but masters of their own destiny. We must develop a scholarship and understanding of the issues that face minority populations so that we can provide students and faculty with requisite skills to work together.
The battle for the soul of ethnic studies is between those who want to maintain isolation, cultural nationalism and the litmus test of authenticity based on political values and others who view diversity of opinion, diversity of scholars and academic rigor as keys to success. In the context of many ethnic studies programs, this latter point of view is seen as threatening because it implies that “outsiders” may gain entry to the insiders’ politically gained spots.
Yet if ethnic studies programs do not open their intellectual doors, the promise of intellectual equality becomes merely an illusion in the academy and we will continue to tokenize our scholars. Moreover, we will push away the critical dialogue that has been necessary in shaping every new discipline.
