How Universities Encourage Racial Division


By James Huffman

In response to the campus protests, much has been written and spoken about how universities can best serve the interests of their students of color. Those who sympathize with the protesters argue that students of color, in particular, should be nurtured and protected from uncomfortable experiences that distract from their education.

Others insist that true education depends on students experiencing discomfort so they are better prepared to cope with the discomforts they will inevitably face in the future. No doubt there are good points to be considered on both sides of the question. Every campus has its boors and jerks whose bad behaviors might warrant chastisement from university officials, although peer disapproval is almost always a more effective remedy.

Whether and when offensive speech should be prohibited are more difficult questions. The boundary between gratuitous verbal assault and the free expression essential to the academy is not always easily drawn, although a few institutions have followed the example of the University of Chicago in making clear that their default position is free speech.

Sadly, Americans seem to lose any capacity for reasoned discussion when alleged personal assaults are said to stem from racial animus. Disagreements deteriorate into verbal and often physical violence, with an almost conclusive presumption of racism whenever racism is alleged. In this climate, college administrators see only two options. They can resign, as did the University of Missouri president and the dean of students at Claremont McKenna (after writing an email to which students of color took offense). Or they can accede to protesters’ demands for safe spaces, sensitivity training, trigger warnings, expanded diversity offices, and rapid response to allegations of discrimination and hurt.

But there is a third way. Colleges and universities should examine how their own policies and programs encourage racial division.

At the time of the University of Missouri protests, a story in the New York Times reported that students of color at the university felt isolated and disrespected. They, particularly the black students, tend to hang out together. According to a student quoted in the Times story, an area in the student center where blacks sit is called “the black hole.” There is little real integration, say both white and black students. Visit the cafeteria of almost any campus with even a small population of black students and you will see the equivalent of the University of Missouri’s black hole.

Do students of color hang out together because they feel disrespected and discriminated against—because they are excluded? Or is it a matter of choice rooted in racial pride, perceived cultural difference, and a desire to preserve and protect that difference from the dominant white culture? While the protesters would surely assert their right to racial self-segregation for reasons of pride, solidarity and culture, they do not hesitate to claim that disrespect and discrimination by other students and school officials prevent their full and equal participation in the university.

To be clear, no one is claiming that students of color are being denied access to higher education—the sort of discrimination James Meredith experienced a half century ago at the University of Mississippi. Rather, today’s discrimination is said to take the form of “micro-aggressions”—subtle actions and loaded language that slowly eat away at self-confidence and the sense of belonging.

Are colleges and universities responsible for the isolation and exclusion the protesters claim to experience, and for the de facto segregation that exists on most campuses? In significant ways they are, but not, for the most part, for the reasons said to justify the protests at the University of Missouri and elsewhere. There is little campus administrators can do, beyond declarations of disapproval, to prevent offensive comments, or even explicitly racist statements and actions of usually anonymous individuals. If the past two decades of sensitivity training haven’t solved that problem, there is little reason to think more of the same will help.

The core of the problem is that the vast majority of our colleges and universities have made race and racial differences central to almost everything they do. And to make matters worse, those who accredit our universities make attention to race in admissions and programming a condition of accreditation.

Central to the mission of the University of Missouri is diversity, described on the school’s website as “not an end to itself” but “a means for students, faculty and staff to experience firsthand the increasing multicultural world that we live in.” And what are the means for achieving diversity and the measure of success? The means is the admissions process and the measure of success is the degree to which the races of those admitted reflect the racial makeup of the state and nation. Whatever the university may claim to the contrary, race is a key factor in admissions, as it is at almost every other college and university in the country.

Once the racially balanced student body arrives at the University of Missouri, minority students have a wide array of options provided especially for them. For example, black students can enroll in black studies with a minor in multicultural studies. They can apply for many different “diversity-related scholarships.” They can join one of seven “historically black fraternities or sororities.”

They can hang out at the Black Culture Center and join the African Students Association, the Mizzou Black Men’s Initiative, the Mizzou Black Women’s Initiative, the Association of Black Graduate and Professional Students, the Legion of Black Collegians, the Black Business Students Association and the Black Law Students Association, just to name a few. Meanwhile their fellow white students can enroll in any number of diversity and sensitivity training courses all under the watchful eye of the vice-chancellor for inclusion.

Can there be any surprise that students of color feel as if they are treated differently from white students when their admission to the university is very likely to have been influenced by their race? When they, and only they, are often invited to campus a week early, purportedly to bond with their fellow students of color and to give them a head start on college? When one of their first experiences on campus is some sort of gathering with other students of color? When they are directed to the campus office of diversity or minority affairs as a place for counseling? When they are invited to join the Black or Hispanic or Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian student union? When they learn they can major in Black, etc. studies?

No factor, not even athletic prowess, is more significant to college admissions than race. Diversity is a core mission for the vast majority of institutions and students of color know that means them. Students of color know themselves to be what we now call, in a terrible corruption of the language, “diverse” individuals. Special programming for minority students cannot help but convey, in a micro-aggression-like manner, that campus officials believe students of color need extra help to succeed. School sanctioned programs and groups that cater to students of color, even students of particular colors, segregate students on the basis of race. Separate minority counseling services reinforce the idea that students of color are different, that counselors of a different race cannot possibly understand a minority student’s issues and concerns. Some universities even provide separate (dare one say segregated) housing for students of particular races.

All of this focus on race cannot help but influence the thinking of white students. Even before going to college, most white students have been taught in secondary and even primary school that minority kids are different and that as white students they need to be sensitive to those differences. When they apply to colleges, white students know that they have a disadvantage in the admissions process. Once they arrive on campus, they witness university-sponsored and endorsed programming directed at students of color. Now they are learning that they need to shelve their “white privilege,” notwithstanding that many of their minority classmates may have come from economic or family circumstances far better than theirs.

Whatever privilege students may have before they arrive at college, the reality of American higher education today is that students of color have been privileged by their institutions in ways that invite segregation and differential treatment, whether done in the name of reparations for past discrimination, as affirmative action to overcome societally imposed disadvantages, or in the belief that celebrating and encouraging differences improves education for everyone. There should be no surprise that students of color often self-segregate and are seen as different by their fellow students.

The concept of white privilege is a logical outgrowth of the concept of institutional racism. In reaction to the now quaint notion that intent to discriminate must be proven to establish illegal race discrimination, lawyers and race scholars came up with the concept of institutional racism. The idea is that racism is so deeply rooted in American society that it persists even amongst institutions that have made genuine efforts to correct for any intentional past discrimination. Thus, the theory holds, the University of Missouri and all of its privileged white students are guilty, by definition, of racial discrimination today, albeit in subtle ways.

But there is nothing subtle about the most pervasive form of racial discrimination prevailing at most American colleges and universities today. It is done in the name of lifting up those who have been discriminated against in the past. But there should be little wonder that the intended beneficiaries of this allegedly benign discrimination feel themselves isolated and treated differently. By design, universities have isolated them and treated them differently.

Reprinted with permission from the Hoover Institution site, “Defining Ideas.”

James Huffman is dean emeritus of Lewis and Clark Law School.


4 thoughts on “How Universities Encourage Racial Division

  1. Here in Wonderland everything is upside-down.

    Once upon a time, we used to seek to prepare our youth for the rigors & responsibilities of adulthood by testing, stretching, challenging, & pushing. “Grow-Up!”, we’d say, as we kicked them out the door. “Figure it out” We tried to teach them RESPONSIBILITY. We tried to help them understand that actions drive consequences…and that these consequences shaped & formed the lives they would lead (right or wrong, good or bad).

    And as these things were learned, we would celebrate this ritualistic passage.. We recognized not only that it did occur but that it must occur if each succeeding generation were to develop the courage, the vision, the dedication, and the hard-working integrity to live responsibly, to deal calmly, maturely, and effectively with the pain and challenges that life inevitably provides.

    But that was then.

    Now — Here in Wonderland we no longer prepare, we protect. We seek to shield our children from the rigors and responsibilities which define adulthood (those things are painful). Stretching, challenging, pushing – those are bad for they cause our swaddled many to feel uncomfortable, ill-at-ease, micro-aggressed, and disrespected. And when they cry (loudly with much media reinforcement) that they should never be forced out of the safety & feelgood security of the well-feathered nest, we no longer push & deny — we grovel and apologize. “Sorry,” we say, “you felt micro-aggressed… sorry someone asked you a question you didn’t like, used a word you didn’t care for, a term you have redefined, in a tone or with a ‘look’ you found disturbing.” “Sorry that the world treats you so indifferently because, of course, you are so very DIFFERENT, so very SPECIAL, and so wonderfully DIVERSE!”

    And of course they agree. They already know that. They’ve been told that since forever (and have the trophies and ribbons and accolades (though not necessarily the GPA) to prove it).

    And so we need & do demand Safe Spaces, Plush Zones, where puppies and kittens play — where never a discouraging word is heard …. and where we can associate only with people like me, while we major in “people like me”, using dollars provided for “people like me”, while attending special programs created for “people like me” and graduate having learned??? Whew! I feel warm and fuzzier already. And there, in that special No-Offense Zone, sanctified by the College, we can sit and watch all those Nasty Others be righteously forced to attend Mandatory Training & Sensitivity Sessions on how Special “people like me” really are (and how we need to be specially treated, of course).

    Here, Behind the Looking Glass, we do not come together, we fly viciously apart. There is no center to hold; nor do we wish to find one. We do not seek to recognize and celebrate our common humanity & common culture – we glory instead in all that which alienates & separates. No wonder, as Dean Huffman notes, that our students feel isolated – it is the logical end of all our heepish means.

  2. It should also be pointed out that the privilege will continue for the graduates of color when applying for a job with either a federal, state or municipal government.

  3. The author of this article makes good points. Frankly, I don’t think public universities should be allowed to grant entry or give out scholarships based on race, religion, or gender. Private groups can sponsor all they want. The only thing that universities should consider is family income in granting special status – as giving the poor a helping hand up benefits all races.

  4. The self-segregating was going on back in the 80s when I was in college and law school. People, of all races, whose most ardent desire is to be “activists” and busy themselves enacting Marx’s 11th thesis find this phenomenon conveniently to hand and do not hesitate to use it as fodder for their activism. That they act in bad faith is conclusively proven by the fact that, despite the fact of actual separateness as noted in this piece, many of the recent lists of demands by various black college student organizations have included the creation of still more segregated facilities, this time using the pseudonym “safe spaces.”

    The fundamental problem, alluded to here, is that there *is* a cultural difference between blacks and whites; a profound difference. Whatever else they may want, black students want first and always to be *black.* There is really nothing at all wrong with this. Despite what we profess, we all value our difference more highly than our commonality. But preservation of difference is, within the currently acceptable bounds of the ruling left-liberal discourse, not merely problematic but positively immoral. However, left-liberals actually live their lives according to different principles from those on which they base their discourse, principles they have in common with the rest of us (painful as that might be for them to contemplate), and it is that fact that gives rise to the political confusion and rancor.

    It is not necessary that we “celebrate” difference as we are constantly exhorted to do even while being instructed that difference is violence. It is enough that we simply live it. Lived difference is pluralism, after all. That black students would want to (and they do want to, which must always be kept in mind) associate mostly with one another should not be held up as evidence of a wrong or a problem.

    So the entire racial situation right now on college campuses is one massive contradiction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *