If the sons and daughters of former slaves, and former slave owners could see us now, what would their reactions be? Would they look upon our black, brown, white, and yellow faces and feel that we are a breed of humans totally unlike themselves? Or, would they look upon our institutions and us in fond familiarity, because even over the past hundred or so years, not much has changed?
These are the questions I would first ask myself, before I sat down to berate a race of people, emphasize the ails in affirmative action, and make over-generalized comments about a topic I have not even taken the time to fully examine. See, from these simple questions, one's answers will reveal whether Tufts University, or the nation for that matter, has truly changed since the Emancipation Proclamation.
Here is where some will groan and say, "Oh no, not that slavery thing again," but I say YES, that slavery thing again. It is exactly that slavery thing, that racism thing, that inferior/superior thing, that keeps people from seemingly diverse populations printing articles such as the one that appeared in the Nov. 22, issue of ThePrimary Source, written by Matt Senko.
It is the ignorance surrounding that slavery thing that has students at Tufts University thinking they have overcome some great racial boundary, like the Civil Rights movement, and earned some great understanding, like racial tolerance, when in actuality half of the student body cannot clearly identify covert/intentional racism (for an example see the Nov. 22 issue of The Primary Source).
Ignorance surrounding race in America allows people to print half-researched, highly opinionated pieces on minorities and affirmative action, without considering the preexisting effects of institutionalized racism, which influence the practice of affirmative action. I am sorry to break it to you, and this is where you may want to sit down, but our parents had the civil rights movement, La Raza, and the American Indian Movement to learn from.
We are not even adequately taught those histories in school; yet, we constantly try to appropriate knowledge we do not comprehend. For those who are truly concerned about diversity at this university, perhaps we should look into diversifying the curriculum.
Simply because a civil rights law was passed, and there are more happy brown, and yellow faces walking on the same side of the street as white people, eating at the same lunch counters, and even attending the same universities, does not mean that our work is complete. This may come as a bit of a shock, but numbers are not exactly reflective of attitudes.
So there are more blacks in higher education, (I am using the term blacks in reference to all persons of the African Diaspora) but does that mean white students are learning about black culture, because how much social interaction do whites and blacks on this campus have outside of the classroom setting? The same sentiments can be applied for the other minority groups that I'm sure the article meant to include, but did not mention specifically. Numbers are a start, but they do not make a population diverse, because the human interaction needs to exist as well.
You cannot throw a whole group of different color people together and call it diversity. Diversity is something that comes when cultures are shared and respected. Thus, I believe the article should not have been so preoccupied with admitting more white students and fewer black students, but more so with diversifying the curriculum, of the black, white, Asian, Latino, and Native Americans, already on campus.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Senko in that, "It is a racist assumption suggesting that people of different colors are inferior to whites and need the help of admissions officers," but it is also racial blindness not to acknowledge the fact that blacks, both qualified and unqualified, get turned away from schools, and jobs everyday. In making his case, Mr. Senko forgot to acknowledge the very real presence of institutionalized racism in our society.
Mr. Senko also neglected to mention the role of gender in his affirmative action argument, as affirmative action was originally intended to benefit women, not minority groups. I am not against pointing out the flaws in affirmative action, because there are some. What I am against is the negligence in which the topic was approached. There was no consideration for black students on campus, and how we may have felt about being the only identified beneficiaries of affirmative action. There was also no proof from the administration to back claims that affirmative action is practiced at Tufts. Finally, there certainly wasn't a logical, well-researched solution to the issue of campus diversity.
As an African-American woman learning at Tufts, I feel that I am here because of my abilities as a student, and that the admissions board saw a characteristic in my records that set me apart from other applicants. This was not the first article to degrade and insult my presence at Tufts, and it probably will not be the last, but I hope my honest opinions, as stated here affect some form of change.
Since the Source article ended with a reference to Dr. King's "I Have A Dream," I think it only appropriate that I end on the same note. I too have a dream, and my dream is that the writers on the student news publications, as well as my fellow classmates, take these four years as an opportunity to get to know someone they may not have encountered on a daily basis back home, as well as take classes that challenge their thinking on race relations; that we do not assume that because we are not as separate as we used to be, that we are fully equal.
I too have a dream that we will have more respect for one another's past histories, so that we can have intelligent conversations about race, affirmative action, and institutionalized racism - and most importantly, that we demand better education in those areas.
Jamila M. Moore is a junior majoring in English, American studies, and Africa & New World.
