To the Editor:
In a day when most Americans want to end barriers based on race and
ethnicity, Swarthmore seems to be going in the opposite direction.
That's the message I get from the piece "Faces Like Mine" (December
1997) and subsequent e-mail correspondence with certain
administrators and students.
It makes me sad.
One of the wonderful aspects of Swarthmore I remember was that race, place of origin, and the like didn't constitute an "identity" giving rise to specific expectations or entitlements. It would have been outrageous to suggest they did.
The atmosphere encouraged students to develop their own identities, based not only on skin color and antecedents but, more significantly, on interests, skills, values, aspirations, and indefinable qualities such as personality.
By contrast today the College seems preoccupied with putting labels on students according to their "cultures."
The largest division is between "whites" (essentially students with European forebears) and "people of color" (everyone else). Beyond that the gross cultural subcategories into which Swarthmore seems to divide its students include "Asians" (whose culture comprises more than a thousand languages, religions, and sects); "Hispanics" (virtually anyone from a family that speaks or has at some time spoken Spanish); and "blacks" (who include not only descendants of American slaves but also Ethiopian Jews, Haitian voodoo practitioners, and West African farmers).
In turn the College sponsors "exclusive" organizations, also called "support groups," for members of the various cultures. These groups are permitted to bar participation by students who don't belong to their race, ethnicity, or culture. For example, if my daughter who sings well and speaks fluent Spanish had chosen to attend Swarthmore, she would have been prohibited from singing in the gospel choir or participating in the Hispanic student group for a single reason--her grandparents came from Eastern Europe.
In short, enlightened Swarthmore is participating in that most unenlightened of activities: racial and ethnic segregation.
I realize that Swarthmore's impulse is benign. Its administrators understand, as do most of us, that despite all of the good will and progress, there remains in our country much racial and ethnic prejudice as well as the residue of past racism and prejudice.
But the question is: What do we as Americans of different backgrounds do about it? Specifically, what should a small, elite, historically Quaker liberal arts college do about it?
Should the College promote a mental apartheid in which people of color are seen as having racially and linguistically determined identities inherently different from the rest of us?
Moreover, should the College sponsor clubs that discriminate merely because their members or their ancestors have been (in some cases, not all) objects of discrimination in the past? Is a new style of racism and discrimination the proper answer to the old-style racism and discrimination?
I think the answer is no. On a moral level, officially sanctioned racial or ethnic segregation is simply wrong. On a practical level, the dubious lesson of such practices is that, for some reason, "minority students" are privileged to engage in exclusionary, bigoted behavior barred to everyone else.
Others will disagree with me. Obviously the Swarthmore administration disagrees.
But so far in the alumni publications and e-mail correspondence, I've read nothing that approaches even a minimally acceptable level of moral reasoning concerning the College's attitudes. Without a rational, good-faith discussion, the College, the students, and the rest of us are doomed to be prisoners of our own inflated senses of grievance or guilt or both.
Pete Beck '57
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
My wife, Linda, and I enjoyed the article "Faces Like Mine." It
pleases us that Swarthmore is working on an issue that much of
society seems to want to ignore, wish away, deny, or call resolved.
America has come a long way in the last 30 years in the way it deals
with discrimination relating to race and sex. It still has a long way
to go in these areas, particularly as increasingly sophisticated
language and theory is being used to reverse some of the protections
for those who could not benefit from our long (350-plus years) of
affirmative action for white men, particularly those of Western
European origin.
One of the most exciting qualities about our country is that Americans, as a people, come from every continent and every tribe around the world. This is our past, present, and future reality--it is our strength. We are all typical Americans, just as we are all typical human inhabitants of this planet. The task before all of us, which requires constant work, is to build on and give full meaning to this reality so that those who want to "divide and conquer," and risk the Balkanization of our society for political gain, cannot do so.
From what you describe, Swarthmore College and its students understand the necessity for the development of support and service groups that provide a safe environment for those who have faced a lifetime of various degrees and types of prejudice and discrimination--an environment where they can share and strengthen their own senses of value and pride so they can function better in our larger society.
Some say such groups reinforce discrimination, isolation, and prejudice and do little if anything to bring people from diverse backgrounds together. I believe we all require a safe place of support, where we can share our concerns and hopes, refresh ourselves, and gain strength so we can venture forth with others from similar support systems to work together for better, more inclusive communities. Groups that recognize that their members are part and parcel of the greater society, and that share responsibility for helping develop a greater inclusive community, are very different conceptually, morally, ethically, and religiously than groups that have developed to claim superiority, denigrate others, and deny the real diversity of Americans as a people--and America as a nation.
Thanks for reporting the good work being done at Swarthmore.
Eugene S. Farley Jr. '50
Madison, Wis.
efarley@fammed.wisc.edu
To the Editor:
Swarthmore College is a community devoted to excellence through
diversity. As a result of the rapid rate at which we are becoming
more diverse, it is necessary to provide a support system in which
minority students can feel comfortable. The climate that a Swarthmore
education demands is one in which every community member feels safe
and secure. Support groups foster an understanding that allows
minorities to participate in the larger arena of campus life.
Although at times support groups can create an exclusive atmosphere
in that they are affiliated with specific ethnicities, religions, or
sexual orientations, they are more than justified through their
various outreach activities and the opportunities for dialogue that
they create. Student Council fully reaffirms its commitment to
support groups and diversity on campus. In addition Student Council
will work with support groups and the student body at large to
collectively strive toward a more diverse, understanding, and safe
campus.
Student Council
Swarthmore College
The above statement was submitted as a letter to the editor by the Student Council. It was adopted by a vote of the Student Council.
To the Editor:
Although the idea of support groups for minority students can feel
uncomfortably exclusive and reminiscent of segregation, it may be
helpful to think of the formation of support groups as one step in an
evolutionary process. A good example of such evolution comes from the
early history of the Religious Society of Friends.
In some of the older Quaker meetinghouses in the Philadelphia area, one can still find large wooden partitions hanging from the ceiling, which, when pulled down, divide the worship room neatly in half. In earlier days, Meeting for Worship was held with shutters up, but when time came for Meeting for Business, the divider was pulled down so that men could have their business discussion on one side and women on the other. Each sex had its own clerk and its own proceedings, and there was a door through which notes could be passed to keep one group informed of the progress of the other.
This practice of separation by gender was established as a way of empowering women to speak their minds and develop their own leadership. It was the Friends' way of responding to the fact that no group--even one with the highest of ideals--is exempt from the influence of the surrounding culture. The cultural reality at that time was that women had no legal rights, whereas men exerted power and control in secular matters. Although from its inception the Religious Society of Friends believed that spiritual authority was given in like manner to women and men (there have always been both men and women who ministered in worship), the practice of separate Meetings for Business helped women extend this spiritual authority to other areas of shared life. As a happy consequence, Friends doubled their leadership, perhaps resulting in the likes of Lucretia Mott, who became a powerful influence in the founding of Swarthmore College.
We no longer pull down the wooden dividers in our historic meetinghouses, but they served an important purpose in the evolution of the Religious Society of Friends and in the rights of women. They might serve yet today as symbolic reminders that fostering group identity can still help the powerless find their voice.
Pauline Allen
Wallingford, Pa.
Pauline Allen is a member of the Religious Society of Friends and serves as the Protestant religious adviser at the College.
To the Editor:
Regarding "Faces Like Mine," some time ago, my wife, Merrillan Murray
'53, and I spent nine weeks in Japan shooting our film, A Journey in
Japan. We were, naturally, struck by what seemed to us as the
remarkable uniformity of the faces in Japan. But the real surprise
was the pleasure we experienced on returning to the great and
wonderful diversity of our American population. We had not been aware
how much we had missed the variety of our citizens.
Woody Thomas '51
Spencerport, N.Y.
merriwood@aol.com
To the Editor:
As an alumnus and a member of the College faculty, I feel obliged to
respond to the claim in the introduction to "Faces Like Mine" that
"the faculty is recognizing that to educate leaders for the next
century, Swarthmore needs to help its students redefine and
renegotiate the relationship of white, Western culture to the new
international ... landscape."
"White" Western culture? With all due respect to the author of the phrase, and to anyone else who thinks so, Western culture is not white.
Somewhere in his vast oeuvre, W.E.B. Du Bois pointed out that though white people might shun him, neither Shakespeare nor Tennyson did when he curled up next to them late at night. Equally important, Du Bois' masterpiece, Black Reconstruction in America, is not white, nor his commissioned study, The Philadelphia Negro, the first true empirical community study in American social science. Negro spirituals and American jazz are not white. Many of the most fundamental and best-known opinions of the Supreme Court, for good or for ill, were brought, won, or lost by black and Asian American plaintiffs and lawyers. The literature of Gabriel Garcia Marquez is not white. On the other side of the Atlantic, the art of Paul Gauguin is not white. Saint Augustine was not white, and neither was his theology. And so on. Western culture--its appreciation and production--aren't defined by skin color and genes.
There is more to this matter than getting facts straight. There was a time when it was widely believed--among whites--that Western culture is fundamentally white and defined by skin color and genes. Here in the United States, that meant a belief in the biological natural superiority of white people. When the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901 disenfranchised black Alabamians, the delegates spent days proclaiming the racial purity of Western civilization. During World War II, American black citizens were placed in one set of railroad cars, and Nazi military prisoners were placed in another, nicer set of cars when they were traveling through the South.
In short, it would be profoundly illiberal of this College if it were to be in the business of recycling a concept that is as barbaric as it is false.
I was struck, as well, by what the cover story did not say as well as by what it did say. Does the phrase "race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation" quite exhaust the subject of identity and diversity? Income inequality in the United States has grown sharply and rapidly since the 1980s. For many Americans real wages have grown only slightly since 1973, despite two of the most vigorous and prolonged economic booms of the post--World War II period. Perhaps, then, some future issue of the Swarthmore College Bulletin will treat how "the faculty is recognizing that to educate leaders for the next century, Swarthmore needs to help its students" understand class divisions and their connections to the new national and global political economies.
Rick Valelly '75
Swarthmore, Pa.
rvalell1@swarthmore.edu
Valelly is associate professor of political science.
To the Editor:
Profound thanks to author W.D. Ehrhart '73 and the Swarthmore College
Bulletin for the admirable article "Military Intelligence" (December
1997). May Ehrhart's words continue to travel far.
With that in mind, please send me a copy of his 1971 poem "To Swarthmore," which you mentioned in your editor's note.
Virginia Stern Brown '49
San Francisco
More copies of "To Swarthmore" are available by writing to the editor.
To the Editor:
I read with interest and empathy W.D. Ehrhart's excellent piece,
"Military Intelligence" (December 1997).
Ehrhart writes that the United States had "only one choice," which was to recognize Ho Chi Minh's government when it proclaimed Vietnam's independence in September 1945.
To me this expectation is not reasonable. The United States had been unable to visualize quarantining aggressors in the late 1930s, nor an attack on Pearl Harbor, nor the presence of a Japanese fighter plane superior to any American aircraft. If this was so, what did the United States know about Ho, or even Vietnam? In 1946 the United States had just two academicians (both historians) who had written dissertations dealing with French Indochina.
If Ehrhart is willing to move his date up a bit, may I suggest 1955, after the Geneva Accords had been signed and "free elections" had been called for in both North and South Vietnam?
Paul W. van der Veur '49
Toccoa, Ga.
The Bulletin welcomes letters concerning the contents of the magazine or issues relating to the College. All letters must be signed and may be edited for clarity and space. Address your letters to: Editor, Swarthmore College Bulletin, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore PA 19081-1397, or send by e-mail to bulletin@swarthmore.edu.