(Editor's note: Featured speaker Stanley Sue, a UC Davis psychology and psychiatry professor and director of the Asian American studies program, delivered his speech "Ethnic and Racial Issues: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?" to an almost full house Sept. 26 in Freeborn Hall. Sue's speech is printed here.)
The noted journalist Theodore H.White concluded that three issues have always plagued American society: bread and butter, war and peace, and black and white. This last issue concerns race and ethnic relations.
Why have ethnic and racial conflicts persisted for centuries, when during this period time we have made unprecedented technological advances and solved many perplexing problems? We have evolved a Constitution and democratic society that attempt to hold the high ideals of freedom and justice for all. We have sent human beings to the moon, connected the world through the Internet system, and mapped the human genome. Yet, our society, as well as those throughout the world, continues to grapple with ethnic and racial prejudice and discrimination, slurs, violence, ethnic cleansing and disparities in privilege and quality of life.
Conflicts of polarities
It is my belief that underlying ethnic and racial issues are fundamental conflicts of polarities.
By polarity, I am referring to the clash of two or more laws, principles, ideals or cherished values-each with some validity. That is, we experience polarities or value conflicts in which each side has some truth or validity.
Our inability to recognize and deal with polarities is a major factor in our failure to adequately address ethnic and racial matters. Let me begin by giving a personal example of a polarity. Several years ago my brother and I attended the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, which boasts a membership of about 160,000. At the convention hotel, we went into an elevator.
Three other psychologists - we knew this from the registration badges on their coats - also came into the elevator. Upon seeing me, one of them smiled broadly, enthusiastically stuck out his hand, and said, "Congratulations. I voted for you." It immediately occurred to me that the psychologist had mistaken me for Richard Suinn. Dr. Suinn had just been elected to the presidency of the association. Suinn looks nothing like me in face or body. But he is, as I am, a Chinese American.
How should I respond to the fellow psychologist? On the one hand, I was certain he confused me with Suinn because of our race, and ethnics have been grievously burdened with situations in which people cannot tell us apart because of racial insensitivity or stereotyping. On the other hand, this mistake was not intentional or malicious. Besides, the psychologist had wisely voted for the right person.
- did not think that it would serve any purpose in embarrassing him. In response to the psychologist, I shook his hand and said, "Thank you. I'll do my best." This personal example reveals a polarity involving this person.
In daily life, we encounter very serious polarities that cause conflicts not only between individuals but also within ourselves. Scholars such as Julian Rappaport and Joe McGrath believe that many social issues consist of paradoxes in which two or more positive or cherished values are pitted against one another.
For example, freedom of expression and speech is a strong principle advocated by many Americans, especially for those of us in academic institutions. Yet, a large segment of the population also values protection from exposure to unwanted or allegedly harmful materials. Should one, for instance, have the right under the principle of freedom of speech to expose others to pornographic materials or to express racial slurs? It is not uncommon to find individuals endorsing both principles in the abstract. The contradiction or polarity is most apparent when these two equally valid or morally justifiable positions are applied in a concrete situation.
Efforts to find solutions to polarities often obscure the inherent and fundamental nature of the contradiction and lead to the favoring of one principle at the expense of the other. An alternative approach is to engage in divergent reasoning whereby polarities are identified and a number of diverse actions are prescribed. These solutions may require change over time since single, overall solutions may not always fit a changing context.
My belief is that many educational programs and practices reflect conflicts in which the clashes of values and the fruitlessness of single solutions have not been clearly recognized. Moreover, in trying to resolve issues, one side has been dominant, often to the detriment of ethnic minority groups. Let me begin by providing some examples and then identifying the polarity involved. Because of time constraints, I shall discuss only two polarities out of the five that I have identified in our educational system. It should be noted that the value conflicts are presented as dichotomies for the sake of discussion. In actuality, individuals may hold each value to differing degrees along a continuum.
Polarity 1: Generalization versus individual differences
An example: A fourth-grade teacher had just returned from a human relations workshop where she had been exposed to the necessity of incorporating "ethnicity" into her instructional planning. Since she had a Japanese-American student in her class, she asked the child to be prepared to demonstrate to the class how the child danced at home. When the child danced in typical American fashion on the following Monday, the teacher interrupted and said, "No! No! I asked you to show the class the kinds of dances you danced at home." When the child indicated that she had done just that, the teacher said, "I wanted you to show the class how you people danced at the Bon Odori" (A Japanese festival at which people perform Japanese folk dances).
In this example, the teacher had assumed that the Japanese child knew how to perform a Japanese folk dance. However, the student was quite assimilated and had no experience with Japanese dances.
The clash involved in the generalization versus individual difference polarity is over one's values regarding between and within group differences.
The teacher in the above case sought to appreciate ethnic differences (i.e., Japanese dance differently from Americans). Since the student was Japanese-American, the teacher believed that the student must know how to perform the ethnic dance. The generalization approach largely ignores individual differences and assumes that members of a group are homogeneous. Carried to an extreme, the generalization approach has an apparent stereotypic quality to it.
On the other hand, the individual difference approach focuses on variations within a group. Members of an ethnic population are quite heterogeneous. Some are acculturated, speak no ethnic language, live in ethnically mixed neighborhoods, and are quite different from nonacculturated members of their group who maintain a more traditional orientation. Proponents of individual differences argue that trying to characterize members of an ethnic group may promote stereotypes. In the case of the Japanese-American student described previously, individual differences advocates state that one cannot assume that she is typically or traditionally Japanese in behavior and values simply by knowing her ethnicity.
Although correct in asserting ethnic group heterogeneity, carried to its extreme, the individual differences notion tends to deny commonalities due to culture. It is focused upon individuals and their uniqueness.
The strengthening of one principle (generalization or individual difference) has the effect of weakening the other. What must be realized, however, is that each may be appropriate in a given context, for a given purpose.
Discussions of cultures imply that generalizations and abstractions will be made. Knowledge of cultures provides a background for understanding different groups. However, given the context, it is then appropriate to examine the heterogeneity within groups.
For example, Native Americans come from many different tribes with distinct languages, values and rituals of their own. Chinese- and Mexican-Americans are composed of immigrants as well as individuals who may be sixth- or seventh-generation Americans.
Currently, in the call for patriotism and unity as Americans against terrorism, let us not commit crimes or blindly develop a "we" versus "they" mentality under the guise of patriotism. For example, in Sacramento, some individuals apparently want to show their patriotism by displaying American flags - flags that they stole from others. Is this patriotism? In our search for terrorists, let us not define the enemy indiscriminately by ignoring individual differences.
The FBI is now investigating numerous hate crimes against Muslims, Arab Americans and Sikhs. The crimes include arsons, assaults and murders. In Phoenix, a suspect was arrested for the murder of a Sikh gas-station owner who wore a turban. The suspect allegedly told the police after the shooting, "I'm an American. Arrest me. Let those terrorists run wild."
Some individuals have still not learned, or do not want to learn, that wearing a turban or being a Muslim does not imply that one is a terrorist. Some of you may recall the tragic consequences of overgeneralizing who the enemy was in World War II, when more than 110,000 loyal Americans of Japanese descent were unjustly incarcerated because of the war with Japan.
Polarity 2: Equal opportunity
versus equality of outcomes
An example: In discussing his stance on ethnic issues, a high school principal recently said, "I believe in equality and do not discriminate against any group. In our hiring of teachers, we are color and ethnic blind. We depend upon applicants' merit and qualifications." An administrator at a small college said, "We are very active in affirmative action efforts to recruit students and faculty from different ethnic groups. We will not be satisfied until the ethnic composition of the college reflects that in our community."
The statements by the two administrators illustrate a well-known polarity of values over the appropriate action to take in addressing ethnic minority group underrepresentation.
The first position focuses on establishing a process that ensures that all members of society have the same opportunity. Individuals should be treated equally with respect to education, employment, housing, etc. In contrast, the college administrator is attempting to achieve equality of outcomes (i.e., seeing that there is proportionate representation of ethnics). Through affirmative action procedures, he is attempting to directly influence outcomes. Such procedures may include efforts to increase the pool of ethnic applicants, selection procedures that take into account ethnicity and different criteria for selecting different groups.
Proponents of equal opportunity want to eliminate discrimination. The goal is to abolish racial or ethnic bias among teachers, intentional patterns of ethnic group segregation in education, and discriminatory admissions or selection procedures so that an ethnic or colorblind system is operating.
However, even if the goal is accomplished, there is no reason to believe that educational outcomes will be equal for all groups. Equal outcomes may not be attainable because of between-group differences in motivation, aptitude, interests and backgrounds, and there are other reasons. Because of the long history of ethnic relations in the United States and the cultural interaction patterns that have emerged, some ethnic groups will continue to be a step behind.
Realizing these problems, those favoring equality of outcomes have argued for affirmative action and special programs (e.g., compensatory education, bilingual education, educational reforms, multicultural education) in order to narrow the gap between ethnics and whites. In their view, color-blind procedures that are applied to groups already showing disparate educational performances, can only serve to maintain differential achievements.
The dilemma here is quite apparent. Advocates of equal educational opportunities and nondiscrimination run the risk of perpetuating unequal outcomes; those who argue for equal outcomes (e.g., seeing that minority groups are as likely to graduate, enroll or otherwise benefit from education) may have to discriminate by treating some groups differently because of social, cultural and historical factors. In effect, discrimination occurs whether a color blind or an affirmative action system exits.
Therefore, the polarity is not so much over discrimination. Discrimination will occur in both systems. Rather, the critical question is: What kind of society do we want? If we want our society to encourage the full participation and development of human potential, we must make some extraordinary efforts.
There is growing evidence that full participation and diversity are beneficial. At the University of Michigan, psychologist Pat Gurin has examined the possible effects of multicultural diversity. Her analysis reveals that students who had the most experience with diverse peers - through classes, informal relationships, multicultural events and intergroup dialogues - expressed a stronger sense of commonality with students of diverse backgrounds. She found that when young people are placed in racially and ethnically diverse classrooms and are exposed to classes that deal with cultural differences, they blossom intellectually when long-held beliefs and ideas are challenged. In addition, these students develop the ability to understand the ideas and feelings of others, which in later life makes them more likely to live in racially diverse communities, maintain friendships with people of different races and able to function more effectively in an increasingly diverse workplace. These issues are especially critical for the university, because 90 percent of its white students and 50 percent of its African American students grow up in racially separate communities. Furthermore, William Bowen and Derek Bok have shown that students who entered selective universities under affirmative action are doing well and successful. I, too, wish that affirmative action was not necessary, but, given the disparities that currently exist in our society, this and other courses of action to increase diversity must be considered. Parenthetically, it should be noted that a meritocracy has never been the sole strategy used in our society. For example, widely used seniority systems in employment give preferential treatment to those who have worked the longest and not necessarily to those with the most merit.
In conclusion, to address polarities, we must recognize that each value or principle may have some degree of validity. I am not saying, incidentally, that we cannot take action because of conflicting validities. Rather, we must take into account the validities of the polarity before we act. Second, one position may become so dominant that we become blind to the valid elements in the weaker principle and to effective solutions. Third, the dominant position, more often than not, has reflected the majority group at the expense of ethnic minority groups.
Attack creates polarity
In closing, I want to note that there is a polarity that appears to be emerging from the terrorist attack - namely, how America is perceived. I found these views circulated via the internet.
Seumas Milne, Thursday Sept. 13, 2001, The Guardian "…after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it…. Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power."
Contrast that view with that of Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
"The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around."
(Of course, we are not really facing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks alone. According to CNN on Sept. 13, among the nations that have offered condolences and help are: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada, Russia, Belgium, Spain, Israel, China, Slovenia, Pakistan and Romania.)
Yes, we must seek out and punish terrorists and prevent terrorism, but let us not confuse ethnocentrism with patriotism. Especially during a time of crisis, we must exercise greatness.
Greatness will not come from national or individual weaponry and power - we are already the most powerful and best-armed nation in the world. It will come from our vision and vigor in dealing with polarities.
Let us join to find new approaches that can meet our aspirations - namely, to promote a true sense of diversity and commitment to our Principles of Community.