A case for cultural competency training

At the Council of the Princeton University Community meeting on Monday, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83led a conversation on the measures that the University can take to curb the racism experienced by students of color on a daily basis. Several students challenged Eisgruber to make a statement on the set of student proposals, which include required cultural competency training for all faculty; additional distribution requirements on identity and diversity; and conversion of African American Studies, African Studies, Latino Studies and Latin American Studies into majors. Eisgruber’s main response was that such measures should not pass without a decision made by the faculty. He was concerned that these might impinge on the faculty’s right to academic freedom, a key consideration given our University’s emphasis on intellectual thought.

I won’t speak to the suggested changes to the Princeton curriculum, but I argue that cultural competency training and the University's values as a liberal arts institution are by no means mutually exclusive. As defined by the National Education Association, “Cultural competence is having an awareness of one’s own cultural identity and views about difference and the ability to learn and build on the varying cultural and community norms of students and their families. It is the ability to understand the within-group differences that make each student unique while celebrating the between-group variations that make our country a tapestry. This understanding informs and expands teaching practices in the culturally competent educator’s classroom.” Cultural competency training would probably take the form of an orientation program or session. Hospitals and education organizations constantly draw on trainings of this nature in order to provide effective services.

Eisgruber framed the call for required cultural competency training as an attempt to mandate civility in intellectual discourse. This would censor faculty from making potentially offensive arguments or claims. However, it isn’t clear that cultural competency conflicts. By definition, cultural competence relates to human-human interactions, such as teaching, as opposed to the material being taught. Students and faculty can still engage with racist texts and stereotyped theories—what matters is how faculty interact with students while engaging with this material. Cultural competence does not delegitimize material; instead, it emphasizes communication.

Cultural competency training —as well as the other proposals for legitimizing diverse perspectives —is, in addition to being a means to support students of color, also a means to improve student education as a whole. In that sense, it is completely in alignment with the University’s academic values. Cultural competency stems from a philosophy of cross-cultural communication and diverse ways of knowing. As an example: Young, white Teach For America teachers teaching low-income minority students in New Orleans often have trouble teaching because they fail to recognize their students’ cultural backgrounds as legitimate. The way that knowledge is delivered is flawed — it becomes a static object for teachers, the power-holders, to impart onto their students. A better teaching style recognizes the diverse resources among students themselves and elevates students to scholars who theorize.

This doesn’t ruin the professor’s authority or respect. Rather, cultural competency emphasizes students’ legitimate stake in questioning and engaging with the material. Cultural competency can be labeled “civility,” but it really is about improved communication and critical thought. Thus, it clearly satisfies the University’s values because it improves the quality of undergraduate teaching and education.

One professor in the audience voiced concerns about the effectiveness of such training. She stated that she had attended an LGBT competency training earlier this year that provided her with no useful knowledge on how to better communicate with her students of such identities. To be sure, cultural competency trainings must be rigorous and immediately practical. Such training definitely exists: Professionals in health care, primary and secondary educationand social workconstantly draw upon this training when working with individuals of different backgrounds. Thus, concerns about effectiveness should inform, not impede, the planning of cultural competency training.

Finally, Eisgruber shied away from creating a “litmus test” for how committed faculty are to supporting students of color. Namely, if the training had an opt-out option, students might end up labeling faculty who opt out as culturally insensitive. This speaks to two necessities. First, the training should be mandatory, as diversity training is for any residential college adviser. Second, training should be so effective and worthwhile that the only legitimate reason to object to it is to, indeed, be culturally insensitive.

Most importantly, as advocates emphasize, students of color at the University experience an ingrained, institutional racism that perpetrators are unable to recognize. Therefore, we should err on the side of too much change rather than not enough. Required cultural competency training represents a step in the right direction, and I’m glad that Eisgruber and his cabinet have agreed to take on cultural competency training. But as everyone at the CPUC meeting agreed, such a proposal is far from enough. Both professors and, even more so, students need to stay open and engage with those of different backgrounds. The institution should work with student organizations to support this by creating spaces where students from all different backgrounds can interact and learn from each other. We have the Fields Center, the Women’s Center and the LGBT Center; we have hosted events and panels. But it’s not enough. The conversations that happen in these spaces need to go beyond —to the general University community.