Recently, Lehigh invited Paul Gorski an interesting academic concerned with the issues of social equity and justice that face our schools today. Be satisfied that this was not another counselor’s lecture on the importance of equality or cultural awareness. Rather, students and faculty were treated to an aggressive, no nonsense style that cut nicely through the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds the pursuit of social justice. Mr. Gorski delivered sound killing arguments to a few educational traditions that are outmoded and detrimental to the cause of social justice.

Events celebrating diversity or cultural competence initiatives attempt to educate majority populations about the existence and distinctness of minority populations celebrating diversity. The trouble, as Mr. Gorski points out, is that institutions use these events to cover their obligation of promoting diversity and equality while sweeping its own bias under the rug in a celebration of what are ultimately pithy and stereotypical minimalizations of ethnic minorities. The result is a classic example of treating the symptom not the problem.

Mr. Gorski also notes an approach he describes as the human relations approach, which seeks to bridge cultural and sociological barriers with structured opportunities for learning and dialogue. A common example of this might be to gather groups of different minority and majority ethnicities, differing genders, or different orientations together to confront the issues faced by the disadvantaged group. Though this approach represents an improvement over the more superficial methods mentioned earlier, it does not address the more deep-seated issue of institutional bias.

Mr. Gorski then moved to talk about a differing model of diversity development, which can be characterized as institutional awareness and activism. Where the other options present us with bottom up approaches of students or employees being educated to diffuse bigotry, this approach sees the best opportunity for progress to come from top down direction of the institution. Mr. Gorski outlined three main points which build on this second plan:

1. Institutional commitment to creating an anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. agenda and atmosphere.
2. Continual assessment of circumstances, instead of the passing interest shown by most institutions.
3. Full guaranteed access to cultural, social, political opportunities for all students.

These goals, while apparently imperative as read, are generally enacted half-heartedly by institutions which find that these goals come into conflict with their own goals and interests. Institutions have a number of reasons for resisting these goals which vary in terms of their validity but should all be understood to be blocking the progress of social justice.

From a standpoint of fundamental right and authority, an institution gets into trouble by taking a stance of hostility towards bigots in creating a non-discriminatory campus. The institution finds itself toeing the very rule of openness and equality that it claims as motivation for such enforcement. While it can be generally agreed that there can be no sympathy for discrimination, the institution still is sluggish to act in a way that may be self-contradicting. As the university would be treating people differently based on their beliefs it finds itself walking into a catch-22. This is most notable in the case of gay rights where the freedoms of religion and expression come into conflict. However, it is also a concern with any social justice concern where there is some justification for the actions or opinions of both parties.

To prosecute these directives to the extent prescribed by Mr. Gorski the University will also be willfully creating conflict over an issue where before there was the appearance of health and good feelings. Even though there may be ethnic or gender based tensions, as long as there is no complaint or scene the University assumes a ‘don’t fix what isn’t broken’ policy. Although such action is a blatant ignorance of the actual situation for minority groups on campus, to the university’s credit, such a policy does reduce the risk of increasing tension or discomfort through misbegotten action which could be detrimental to both minority and majority populations.

These policies also can conflict with the university’s stated goals. The second point Mr. Gorski outlined was brought up in reference to the importance of creating a more socially just campus as a constant strategic objective. The issue is that this ultimately consumes administrative resources that could be otherwise put toward improving the institution for all students in much the same way as prosecuting policy to make the campus anti-bigoted would consume university resources. When faced with such a decision of committing resources to the campus as a whole or to the equality issues of the minority it’s not surprising that the universities stop treatment of bigotry as soon as the symptoms disappear.

This brings us into what is probably the biggest problem for an institution when it comes to prosecuting social justice with the effectiveness of which Mr. Gorski speaks. Mr. Gorski admirably addresses this problem head on saying, “Achieving social justice cannot be democratic.” The problem of social justice in modern society is mostly about the awarding of rights and power to minority populations who do not have the political power under a fully democratic system to gain such rights. Mr. Gorski’s argument, in defiance of every establishmentarian, is based in the idea that though some popular action will come about to right the most egregious wrongs of our society, those that do not present themselves publically but instead are apparent to only the minority they subjugate will go untreated. Mr. Gorski supports this assertion with the statistic that “in 1919, the year before women were awarded the right to vote, a survey found that 34^% of the American Population and 42^% of women supported women’s suffrage.” This statistic faces us with significant moral implications: that despite their best interest a minority population would willingly refuse a right such as voting indicates that the challenge of social justice may be nearly as much a matter of changing the minds of the minority as the majority.

Gorski’s position here is also troubling as non-democratic decision making, though more efficient and often more enlightened, often fails to account for the more nuanced preferences of the population which it seeks to serve. Gorski speaks often of the necessity of making people and institutions uncomfortable for the sake of change on these issues. He is right that the question left unanswered is when such initiatives should be pursued. But how many people must hold a belief to constitute a defendable minority? How offended must one person or group be before their rights are officially trespassed? Traditionally these questions are answered by the provisionally democratic administration. But if they are not to approach these issues democratically, then how should they fairly judge such matters? The questions are not easily answered, but should not be reason to dismiss Mr. Gorski’s position, as they do not reflect wrongness on his part. These questions instead should challenge us to consider the issue in a new light, for further democratic discussion, as we know no better way.

This year, for Martin Luther King Day, the University put together several days of lectures and talks to consider the diversity issues of the campus and to coincide with the inauguration of President Obama. On the twenty-first of January, there was a luncheon summit with nine professors representing nearly every relevant academic department talking about their research in terms of black issues and Martin Luther King. The core of the discussion centered on the matter of opposing injustice, though it repeatedly touched on the theme of this week’s events. Perhaps the most interesting perspective on the concept of Remaining Awake came from Ziad Munson, adjunct professor of Sociology and Anthropology: “For me, being awake is making sure that we – this generation and the next generation – are well educated. We have to look at K-12 and that needs to be revised, because, at that level, if we continue to do a terrible job, then we might not see our position improve.”

(more…)