I read with concern Stephen Sherman's March 13 Viewpoint titled "What's the point of bias intervention anyway?" Sherman asserts that activism at Tufts is pointless, ineffective, insular and self-gratifying. I want to address Sherman's disturbing sense of complacency.
Sherman is critical of activism that accomplishes too little, saying he has seen nothing accomplished in his two years at Tufts. This argument is specious.
Over 100 years of activism were necessary to gain even the most basic civil rights for African Americans. Fifty years of labor battles were necessary to gain an eight-hour work day, a 40-hour work week and a minimum wage. And if Sherman were more aware of campus activism, he would know that during his time here (in Oct. 2005), in response to student activism, Tufts added a "gender identity and expression" clause to its nondiscrimination policy. Change does occur, but it takes time.
On the other hand, Sherman is also critical of activism that accomplishes too much, saying that bias awareness can lead to increased racial tension. What looks like increased tension to some appears to others as increased awareness of tension that already exists.
While incarcerated in the Birmingham jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote: "I must confess that I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth." Tension is likely to increase for privileged groups when groups who have been historical targets of discrimination attempt to gain equity and demand change. This tension may force privileged groups to confront the issues instead of ignoring them.
Sherman does go on to bring up some valid points about activism. He argues that a) activism needs to have a clear purpose, b) activism needs to be effective and accomplish something, c) activism needs to raise awareness around an issue by attracting outsiders and attempting to change viewpoints, not just "preaching to the choir," and d) activism should be exciting.
I agree with all of these sentiments. The best sort of activism is purposeful and effective, and spreads ideas and messages in exciting ways. Sherman points to Bias Awareness Week as an example of activism which does not meet these goals.
On the contrary, Bias Awareness Week exemplifies them. First, it had a clear purpose: to educate the Tufts community about bias. Second, it was effective in raising awareness. I attended a lecture by critical race theorists Professors Charles R. Lawrence III and Mari Matsuda and gained a more complex understanding of affirmative action policies. I was further informed by attending a film and discussion about denial of health care to transgender people, and a reading by Grace Paley about her experiences in the women's movement. Third, all three events attracted people with a wide range of views, judging by audience questions and comments. Finally, by attending these events, I increased my critical consciousness, which pushes me to do activism - and that is exciting.
Despite my praise of Bias Awareness Week, I take Sherman's point that roundtable discussions and open mic sessions alone will not create change. If we look at successful movements in the last century, it is clear that a variety of tactics need to be employed. Any campaign or movement can find it difficult to get past the initial awareness-raising; often enthusiasm, momentum and support for the cause seem to fall away when more work is required.
As Sherman pointed out, it is easier to wear a T-shirt that supports a cause than it is to fundraise or to organize public assemblies, teach-ins, sit-ins, walkouts, boycotts, strikes, slowdowns, nonviolent refusals to cooperate, mass petitions, picket lines, etc. However, I believe that while wearing a T-shirt with a witty phrase does not change the world, it and other forms of awareness-raising are better than doing nothing.
Doing nothing is just what Sherman suggests. Sherman questions activists who fight for on-campus rights, asking: "But wait. What rights? Does a campus like Tufts really need a group like this?" This question implies that Tufts is somehow exempt from the effects of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. Recent events on campus have indicated that that is not the case.
Sherman seems not to understand why intolerant speech like the Primary Source carol is worthy of outrage, instead blaming the victims for not being able to take a joke. He says, "Here at Tufts, people's feelings get hurt quite easily," and by implication, quite needlessly. The carol is upsetting because it represents a system of discrimination that is still in place today, not because it was a thoughtless act on the part of an individual. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination are not simply the combined result of individual acts; they are the result of institutional forces - forces which are still in effect.
Sherman asks, "So, where at Tufts is all the racism and intolerance that Bias Awareness Week is so courageously fighting?" Systemic racism, sexism and classism can be harder to see than individual acts, but let's take a quick look at the big picture. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, African Americans are 12.3 percent of the U.S. population, but according to the 2006-2007 Tufts Fact Book, African Americans make up just 6.8 percent of full-time undergraduates in the College of Arts & Sciences.
In the School of Engineering, women make up only 28.8 percent of full-time undergraduates, and African Americans make up only 3.2 percent. The U.S. Census Bureau found that in 1999, the median household income in America was $41,994. According to the 2006-2007 Tufts Fact Book, only 26 percent of undergraduate need-based financial aid recipients have a family income below $45,000 - the other 74 percent of need-based recipients have family incomes above the national median.
My point is not that Tufts is to blame for these statistics, but merely that inequality exists at Tufts, just as it does in the larger society. Many factors contribute to these statistics, such as curriculum tracking in K-12 schools, the concentration of poverty in urban areas, in combination with public policies that promote urban decline and limited job opportunities (which in turn limit individual aspirations). Thus, defining racism and discrimination solely in terms of individual prejudice ignores the big picture.
I am proud to both work and learn here at Tufts. At the same time, I recognize that Tufts is not exempt from the problems of American society. As Professors Lawrence and Matsuda pointed out, there are many different indicators that can be used to monitor progress towards the goal of equity. The truth is that by all indications, equity has not yet been achieved. Activism is still necessary today because change is still necessary today.
