“I believe that minority groups should stand together, not divided.”
A simple enough statement—yet, this is one of several such statements put up on posters publicizing Asian Awareness Month that has aroused controversy. What do they mean by “stand together?” And against whom?
March is Asian Awareness Month at Wellesley, and this year’s efforts have generated more debate than usual. Diversity awareness months, whether for ethnic minorities, women, or the LGBTQ community, are usually accepted as a part of Wellesley’s culture. However, this year, the Wellesley Asian Alliance’s spam publicizing Asian Awareness Month has sparked a debate on the nature of diversity —especially after “Cultural Exchange” posters were put up to celebrate “white culture,” seemingly in response to the Asian Alliance’s spam.
Some have criticized both types of spam as unproductive and confrontational, detracting from the message of tolerance and sensitivity that diversity awareness is supposed to send. Others applaud the spam as probing deeper beneath the surface into more uncomfortable issues. The debate exposes the fine line between celebrating one’s own culture and stepping over an amorphous boundary into the realm of criticizing other cultures, whether this is “white” culture or that of other minorities. While it is true that historically, most movements succeeded in large part due to their use of more confrontational tactics— the women’s rights movement and the civil rights movement being the primary examples —choosing to criticize the dominant social structure (in this case, white culture) can often set back organizers’ efforts more than it actually helps further their cause.
Confrontational statements in the name of cultural awareness often become paradoxical in their purpose and justification: just as many of the statements made by the diversity awareness posters refute stereotypes, they also make the assumption that those who are not part of that specific community are responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes through unfounded assumptions, simply because they are part of the “dominant structure.” And what makes them part of the dominant structure? Skin color, which no one has any control over. As offensive as it is for an Asian student to be immediately categorized as a science major who does not speak English as her first language, it is equally offensive to presume that a white student is a representation of “the Man” because she is Caucasian. Both assumptions rest on the profoundly deterministic premise of being defined by skin color instead of by individual actions.
Some may argue that the truth is exactly that: racism is so institutionalized that being born Caucasian automatically endows one with “white privilege,” and living one’s life within the confines of a white-dominated social paradigm and the expectations that come with it make one at least partly responsible for perpetuating the inequalities in the social structure. But doesn’t studying at an elite institution like Wellesley (a marker of success in white-dominant culture) make us all responsible?
As a minority majority campus, Wellesley is approximately 43 percent white, 26 percent Asian, seven percent Latina, six percent African American, and eight percent international (with the remainder being unknown). Being surrounded by fellow students from a variety of backgrounds can expand your horizons, but it can also make you complacent. Celebrating one’s culture means taking pride in its accomplishments and uniqueness, not battling against an oppressor. Being “against” something rather than “for” something more concrete only creates a paradox in which a minority defines itself in terms of the dominant culture, which renders the whole point of diversity moot.
1 comments