We’ve Progressed Enough to Move Beyond Identity Politics
A recent decision by the Los Angeles school board to eliminate ethnic and identity-based commissions in favor of a single human relations panel has given rise to another debate about race and ethnicity in our city. The controversy also presents an opportunity to examine the extent to which the politics of identity drive public policy decisions.
Identity politics has been useful, often critical, in mobilizing groups that historically have been ignored. Much of the civil rights movement involved the effective use of ethnic-specific organizing efforts. However, we are seeing a trend in which identity politics is inhibiting our ability to build relationships of trust, depriving us of experiences across racial and cultural lines and diminishing our chances to create mutually beneficial relationships.
No one can convincingly argue that prejudice, bigotry and discrimination have disappeared. But we must recognize that there have been important advances that have made it possible for new voices and leadership to emerge in almost every facet of American life. Much of this leadership reflects the experiences of people who were long ignored and who will insist that the sacrifices and contributions of all Americans, black, brown and white, straight or gay, male or female, be taught in our public schools.
The decision to eliminate seven commissions originally designed to respond to separate constituent groups--many of which were based on race or ethnicity--has understandingly produced a strong reaction among those who worked hard to provide guidance and advice to the school district. But while this school board has been the source of controversy and criticism, it has made the right decision, one that moves the district toward creating a human relations model that will demand cooperation, collaboration and consensus among all “interests.”
The voices of opposition were clear: a single entity could not be representative or responsive to unique or particular priorities. This argument is disturbing if for no other reason than it suggests that we do not have the capacity to hear one another, to move beyond self-interest and to support strategies that ensure all students in Los Angeles’ public schools receive the tools to function successfully in an increasingly complex society.
Moreover, there has been little in the way of self-criticism from those championing separate identity commissions. This is a cause for concern in light of the intergroup tension and conflict that continue to be an unfortunate part of campus life at all too many Los Angeles schools.
When will we recognize that it is in our collective interests to understand that unity around a set of principles and values at the core of our collective mission may be far more productive than taking positions based solely on race, ethnicity or identity?
To suggest that we consider moving toward a paradigm of core values and principles is not the same as a simplistic call for a “color-blind” society. Race and ethnic divides continue to present significant challenges to our nation. However, the effectiveness of identity politics must be questioned at this point. It is a strategy that can be both destructive and shortsighted. For instance, we now know that the categories of “race” have little or no scientific validity and were created long ago to construct, preserve and protect a debilitating racial hierarchy of the world’s population. People of conscience who raise questions or hold other views about identity politics must be able to do so without being attacked as “sell-outs,” “opportunists” or worse.
In the case of the Los Angeles school board plan, we must begin with some facts and understand the history of this region. First, as of the last count, the school district was 69.5% Latino, 13.8% black, 10.9% white, slightly more than 6% Asian and Asian Pacific Islander backgrounds, with the remainder of American Indian and “other” ethnicities. Children from a host of racial, cultural and other backgrounds need the basic skills that will allow the construction of a social ethic of sharing, not a belief in “differences” and separation. Second, we already know that generic approaches in a school district such as ours will not succeed. Finally, the new commission must include people who understand the particular challenges of such a diverse student population. We need people with cultural, linguistic and administrative competency throughout the district, but it is especially important on this commission. All of this requires the dedication of real resources. At the least, current levels of funding must remain intact.
A failure to move beyond identity politics will hamper the building of trust and will continue to deliver leadership perceived to serve a limited constituent base. A refusal to set aside the politics of race will assist in the creation of deeper racial and ethnic divides.
There is no doubt that preserving and honoring one’s racial, ethnic and cultural identity will remain a strong value for many. But it takes much work to create the common ground. Blind adherence to the politics of identity will not get us there.
