Teaching the whole story

A state university of New York trustee’s statement that black studies are “flabby feel-good programs that carry an anti-American bias and do little to advance knowledge” only further validates the need to keep them on college and university campuses.

Indeed African-American studies, like women’s studies, should be strengthened. Prestigious universities including Brown, Harvard, Georgetown and Howard realize this. But Candace de Russy’s remarks show that too often academia has not come to grips with its legacy of exclusion. Specialty programs such as these are more likely to be targeted as “flabby” and “feel-good” because they present points of view that have been suppressed throughout the history of the country.

De Russy told Newsday in an interview in which she made her remarks that African-American programs have become “therapeutic in nature.” Responding at the time to a flap over academic standards in the black studies program at Harvard University, she went on to say, “The goal became consciousness-raising as opposed to conveying solid scholarship.” Her criticisms are troubling on a number of levels.

First, the arrogance of privilege is evident in evaluations of a program by someone who is not an expert in the field. One who is not a physician would not dare criticize medical school curricula; yet, if a curriculum is based on the experiences of blacks, criticism is freely offered. It is assumed that because the program focuses on blacks, it cannot be viewed as legitimate scholarship. This smacks of the white privilege that caused the development of these programs in the first place -the 1960s, a turbulent political and social era and a time when there was societal division in America, one black, one white, one rich and one poor.

The message that is presented in remarks questioning the validity of African-American studies is that although one has not experienced such a program, one can judge it as inferior because there cannot possibly be anything of substance that blacks have contributed to this country. She said that the materials used in these programs lack “solid scholarship.” This is the same criticism of women’s studies. In many cases, black history, like women’s history, has not been written down, or is fragmented. This doesn’t make it invalid.

Second, de Russy said that these programs have become therapeutic in nature. In other words, she was saying that these programs give students self-esteem by discussing blacks’ contributions – maybe even exaggerating them. While in some cases this might be true, there is a larger question: Why are black students still feeling marginalized on white campuses?

In an ideal world, students would not look to ethnic or gender studies for affirmation of their presence on campus or their forefathers’ significance in the building of this country. Many black students attend historically black institutions for this very sense of affirmation. They hope to gain the confidence that can assure them of success in their professional lives, and we provide that in a very affirming environment.

Black students in the SUNY system, or any other predominantly white institution, constantly battle both overt and covert forms of racism, indicating that they are not completely welcomed on those campuses. On at least four campuses across the nation last Halloween, white students chose to wear blackface and Ku Klux Klan paraphernalia for campus parties. With these constant transgressions, it seems plausible that any group of people would need some sort of therapy.

As most people of color will attest, their cultures support the notion that they must be two or three times more qualified than white Americans because they are viewed as inferior from the onset. This is why it is important for specialty programs to continue their legacy by offering rigorous courses and promoting the diversity within that discipline.

The final concern de Russy raised was that these ethnic or gender studies programs spout an anti-American bias and ought to be mainstreamed into traditional departments. If it is anti-American to study and question how forebears willfully came to this country, massacred the indigenous people, enslaved Africans to build the country and rewrote the history of those deeds to soften the blows, then most definitely these programs are anti-American. But if it means that these programs oppose the value of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, then they are not.

Higher education’s history is full of events that could be classified as anti-American. The forcing of Native Americans in schools during the early 1700s to convert them to Christianity is anti-American. The separate but equal doctrines in the South that funneled blacks to poorly funded state colleges and universities, a practice that is virtually alive today, is anti-American. The blatant racism, which required courts to force state universities in the 1950s and early 1960s to even admit blacks, is anti-American. African-American studies are nothing like this.

It seems that if white Americans were “American” throughout the history of higher education, ethnic- or gender-studies programs would not have emerged. Today, it is easy to simply “mainstream” these disciplines into broader fields as a means of eradicating the programs. Teaching the whole story of our history should have been the practice from the beginning. But the contributions of other groups in the making of America were discounted as insignificant and the people viewed as inferior and not eligible to participate in higher education. African-American programs and other specialty studies would not even have been necessary if the history of our country had included other people’s contributions. But it focused mainly on white people.

Black studies have a place in higher education today, and progressive institutions realize that fact. Agreed, the programs must be stringent and present differing points of view to be a serious discipline, as should any program. Perhaps it’s time for an independent evaluation of these programs. Without validations, there is no basis upon which to judge whether these programs are inferior or need improvement – unless you look at the outcomes, such as the contributions of people who come through these programs.

When the ill-informed challenge the worth of a program, they further justify its existence in an environment that continues to be hostile to blacks. Sadly, but in all honesty, the unmerited and unsubstantiated criticisms of blacks and others outside of white mainstream America, is anti-American.

Portia H. Shields is president of Albany State University in Georgia.