Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

From the Archives: Defining goals, meaning of the ethnic studies movement

By Kristin Brennan '96, as published in the "Daily Princetonian" on May 1, 1996

Editor's note: In light of recent campus events and discussion around diversity and distribution requirements, the Daily Princetonian revisits a similar debate from two decades ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

The anniversary meeting of the Nassau Hall sit-in for ethnic studies dispelled some fears that I had had about the organizers' intentions, and convinced me that the organizers are indeed committed to a definition of 'diversity' that does not mean 'separate' or 'ghettoized.' My greatest concern about the ethnic studies movement, on this campus and elsewhere, is that it has the potential to be either a powerful instrument for inclusion or a powerful instrument for division. While I support the ideals expressed by the organizers of the meeting, I would like to express caution about the way we choose to realize those ideals.

The ethnic studies movement throughout this nation is driven by a hodge-podge of motivations. The ideal that I support, that a relevant and rigorous academic experience must challenge us to explore accepted notions and paradigms, in history, anthropology, sociology, literature and in every other discipline, and ultimately that it must challenge our perceptions of ourselves and our relationships to the people around us, is the primary motivation of the organizers of last Monday's meeting, according to their statements.

Thus far, many of the courses promoted by the Task Force on Diversity appear to fit that ideal well. Courses are being created across the curriculum, in a variety of departments, and titles like 'The Psychology of Stereotyping and Prejudice' (a new Freshman Seminar) and the suggestion at last Monday's meeting that an American Studies course about "the diverse cultures and peoples of America" be formed indicate a real effort to incorporate many differentidentities, besides those of Asian-Americans and Latinos, under the umbrella of Ethnic Studies. American Studies, in particular, appears to be an appropriate place to make changes. It is inappropriate for a department that calls itself 'American Studies' to fail to challenge vigorously what 'American' means, and a perusal of the course offerings of the American Studies department over the last few years suggests that while the department is making an effort to address that issue, still more exploration is in order.

However, while I was largely reassured by the inclusiveness of the ethnic studies demonstrators' positions, I have concerns about the direction that our ethnic studies program could take if we do not think it through carefully.

My first concern is that the word 'ethnic' has been appropriated to mean 'belonging to a minority considered disadvantaged.' One student, speaking about his Asian-American seminar, remarked that he appreciated that it was filled by "not only Asian-Americans . . . not only ethnic students . . . but also by white students." In today's world of confusing definitions, I would like to point out that while I understand the distinction that this student was trying to make, and I appreciate the spirit behind it, those white students are 'ethnic' students too. No one is without an ethnicity. Most Americans have many. And that is part of the beauty of ethnic studies; by definition, it includes everyone. I would hope that any center or program for ethnic studies would encourage the examination of the experiences of all ethnic groups, even 'white' ones.

I asked Professor David Carrasco what the ultimate goals of the Task Force on Diversity were, and whether in particular the end desired by the task force was a center or program which would provide resources and encouragement for the diffusion of ethnic studies throughout many departments, or whether the aim was to create separate Latino Studies and Asian-American Studies departments.

ADVERTISEMENT

He replied that the Task Force has not yet articulated either goal. I hope that the Task Force settles upon the former, because it is my belief that the creation of a department for each ethnicity will ultimately reinforce the 'ghettoization' that the organizers of last Monday's meeting seek to avoid. It is also my belief that, eventually, it will become an unwieldy proposition to keep creating new departments.

The question of where ethnic studies fits is, as Professor Carrasco said to me, a "radical question." I sympathize with the need of each person to perceive his own identity as valid, and as validated by the university community. And it is my understanding that our African-American Studies department, in addition to offering excellent courses, played and continues to play a large role in heightening the level of comfort that some African-American students feel on campus.

And yet, after we have created Latino and Asian-American departments, what of the next marginalized group? What of Native Americans? What of Indian-Americans, who are not usually included, despite their origins in Asia, in the definition 'Asian-American?' Princeton has quite extensive financial resources, but it seems realistic to assume, with Princeton as with any other body, that those resources are ultimately limited and that Princeton cannot have everything that we wish it had. This is true in regard to faculty as well as departments. Faculty are the most important resource in the creation of new courses, and it may well be argued that Princeton has been making the wrong choices in regard to its use of its limited resources.

However, I disagree with the implication of Jon Goldman '96's complaint at last Monday's meeting that he could not find a faculty member here who was able to support his thesis about the Mohawk Indians, the implication being that there is necessarily something deeply wrong with that. Princeton is seeking to hire its first microbiologist. Presumably before this time, biology majors interested in this topic had to resort to creative measures to carry out their thesis research, as Mr. Goldman and many other students, including my roommate and I did.

Subscribe
Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

I think it is important that we operate, not under the assumption that there is no money and that nothing can be done, but under the assumption that there is limited money and that the absence of faculty in our areas of interest, in some cases, is a trade-off associated with a university population of 6,000 students.

Princeton has the opportunity to create a model of ethnic studies that is more inclusive and less divisive than the definition in use elsewhere, and I think it is in the best long-term interests of Princeton and of the nation that we think very carefully about the form that our definition of 'ethnic studies' takes.