Last fall I took a political science seminar on “Race and Politics” with professor David Canon, whose work has given the intellectual case for black majority districts its fullest expression. The course itself was marvelous. But it might have benefited from some diversity. There were no Hispanic or black students in the course — not a single person to interpret the material through their personal experiences dealing with institutionalized racism. One student had the courage to suggest that by only offering the course through the honors program, where minority recruitment is very low, the political science department guarantees this lily-white demographic.
It is absurd that on this campus, it is possible for a “Race and Politics” seminar to enroll not a single minority student. Yes, ethnic studies classes exist with less disparate enrollment. But for me, the racial makeup of that fall seminar symbolized how far we have to go on the diversity issue. With the generally unsuccessful results of Plan 2008, the University of Wisconsin’s just-expired 10-year diversity initiative, campus is waking up to UW’s failure to optimize the college experience of minority students. While Plan 2008 indeed increased minority enrollment by 64 percent, these numbers could only have skyrocketed given 1998 levels.
The simplest, and best, solution for our lack of diversity and “achievement gap” is to impose rigorous affirmative action quotas for black and Hispanic enrollment, supplemented with improved undergraduate advising for minorities. But the university’s hands are tied here, since the Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Gratz v. Bollinger ruled quotas and point-based systems for minority admissions were unconstitutional. We can consider race in admissions, but we can’t take action to guarantee minorities seats. (Try following that logic.) By requiring admissions offices to depend upon a bottlenecked applicant pool itself representative of institutionalized racism at the secondary-school level, the Supreme Court violates the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Since universities have been denied their constitutional right to quota-based affirmative action in admissions, it is not a surprise to see our administration floundering to achieve diversity through more indirect means. If we’re not to the mountaintop yet, this does not reflect a lack of will. It simply means the Supreme Court has stripped American universities of their climbing axes and boots.
Where do we go from here, then? Damon Williams, vice provost and chief diversity officer at UW, is a good choice for leading the effort against racial disparities on campus. Williams’ approach, a five-year plan less structured and more intuitive than Plan 2008, is on the right track. I have some hope the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, by increasing need-based financial aid, will by extension increase minority enrollment. And though I can already anticipate the cynical sneers and jeers, I’m optimistic about the social justice center proposed as an addendum to this initiative. But we still have a long, long way to go.
Part of the problem is student apathy. Students will always care about diversity in the same way they care about recycling and organic food and helping the homeless. We care, but not enough to think constructively about the problem or identify it as an existential challenge. It is very difficult for students, most of us white and middle-class and planning our careers, to admit some things can be worthwhile for their own sake — that even if it feels like a footnote, experiencing racial and ethnic diversity is a precondition for living an educated life at all. We need to start caring. This might begin with a better sense of outrage about how difficult our lawmakers have made it to solve this problem. Without a major paradigm shift, we’ll be here five years from now spinning another minor diversity improvement as a brilliant victory for diversity.
Eric Schmidt ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and legal studies.