This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
The title "Diversity or Decline: Different is not Dumb," describes the collision course upon which higher education is traveling.
Diversity
Let me begin by describing one of the forces contributing to the collision-basically, it is just demographics. Nationally, the traditional college-age population will decline in number between now and the mid-199Os by roughly 25 percent. The message is clear. If the traditional students are declining, some group must pick up the slack or institutions will suffer great enrollment losses. The demographics also suggest the group that has the potential to be the new students of the '80s and '90s. These are students of diversity. By 1990, ethnic minorities of all ages will constitute approximately 24 percent of our total population, and their percentage among youth cohorts will be more than 30 percent.
The notion of diversity or decline is best summarized by the recent publication "Guess Who's Coming to College: Your Students in 1990," published by the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities. It concludes, "Higher education will have to get used to a smaller contingent of white, middle-class students from suburban backgrounds in their entering classes and will have to provide new programs in order to attract minorities, older adults, and programs offered in conjunction with industry, the military, and other users of educational sevices." To underline this conclusion as well as to point to the difficulty of the task, it notes the following: "Thus, out of sheer self interest, it would behoove the higher education community to do everything to make sure that the largest possible number of minority students do well in public school, and thus become college eligible. If this is not done, and significant numbers of minority students leave the public schools before graduation or graduate without the aspiration for college, the potential decline in the college cohort would not be 24 percent for the nation in 1990 but could be twice that. Several recent reports of increasing attrition of minority students from secondary schools add credence to this possibility."
Different is not dumb
The second force that is contributing to the potential collision in higher education can be described by the concept of "learned ignorance." Learned ignorance occurs when there is conscious and purposeful rejection of valid and usable information for primarily self-serving reasons. I am afraid the "learned ignorance" for higher education is "different is dumb." In other words, institutional racism, sexism, agism, and "full-time-ism" makes it very difficult not only to see the full potential of diversity, but it allows the denial of the oncoming decline. We continue to hold on to stereotypes regarding ethnic minorities, women, older students and part-time students.
The collision!
Here's the collision! The demographics tell us that it is diversity or decline, and our learned ignorance tells us different is dumb. The challenge is to overcome our learned ignorance. We must discard the notions that part-time students are not as serious as full-time students, women can't do math and science, minorities do not succeed or that the handicapped are disabled more than differently abled. We need to help each other face the racism, sexism and other "isms" in our institutions and in ourselves.
We must celebrate the new pluralism and the new diversity in our society. If we do not and allow the collision to occur, institutions of higher education will suffer needlessly, and more importantly, millions of students of diversity will be denied an education and the full opportunity to participate in the social fabric of our country.
Where do we start? There are many starting places for the promotion of diversity, but perhaps none as critical as the faculty/student relationship. It is this very personal encounter that the concepts of institutional racism and sexism translate into personal pain and the stunting of academic and personal growth. On the other hand, a bias-free relationship can unlock personal growth and intellectual excitement.
Nothing is as freeing as a personal encounter devoid of biases, stereotype and prejudices, and nothing is more damaging to the personal spirit than encounters that do not embrace these freeing conditions. As faculty, we are entrusted with a critically important human relationship. The vitality of academy will rest on its ability to celebrate and promote diversity.
References:
Hall, J. (1983) "Learned Ignorance" Data Forum Vol. 11. Spring.
Hodgkinson, H.L. (1983) Guess Who's Coming to College: Your Students in 1990. Washington D.C. National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities.
Eli Bowers reports the following story: "A telling model of the need for prevention is embodied in an old Cornish custom which was at the same time a simple and valid test of what might be called social insanity. In the 1600's a person suspected of being insane was put in a small room in front of a sink in which was placed a bucket. The faucet was turned on. The subject was given a ladle and was asked to empty the water from the bucket. If he tried desperately to bail the water out of the bucket without curtailing or attempting to reduce the flow at its source, he was considered insane." Bowers' point is, "Any society or community which attempts in this 20th century to provide bigger and better buckets of cure for behavior disorders without at the same time trying to reduce or stop the flow of their sources is equally suspect of insanity." He concludes by saying, "I urge all of us to examine the tap, and to look for tools and methods by which we can begin to turn it down or turn it off."
What is coming out of the "campus taps"? A steady flow of confusion over how to define quality? An education that does not "involve" the whole student? Monolithic thinking for a growing multicultural society? Racist and sexist modeling? Perhaps we need a few more good plumbers and a smaller clean-up crew? Perhaps more designers?
Source for story:
Bowers, E.M. (1964) Primary Prevention of Mental and Emotional Disorders: A frame of reference. Mental Health Monographs No. 5 U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare.
Argyris (1980) defines two types of learning; "Single-loop learning is any detecting and correction of error that does not alter the underlying values or policies of the organization . . . Double-loop learning is any detection and correction of error that involves the changing of underlying values ape policies." Further explanation is given by Argyris; "Single-loop learning focuses on changing routines; double-loop learning focuses on changing the values and policies from which the routines are designed."
Unfortunately most program redesign on campus is reflective of single-loop learning. The basic values associated with our programs are often overlooked by and even unknown to the programer. As a result, when a program fails (lack of attendance) we ponder such issues as "Did we schedule the event on the wrong day?" or "Was our advertising efforts substantial enough?" A double-loop view, however, would raise such questions as "Did our values include student participation in setting program values and objectives?" or "Why are we really engaged in this programing effort? Is it for students? Or does it reflect current staff interest?"
Argyris' summary makes the point that both types of learning are necessary, but that focusing on single-loop learning will not be of much help solving the complex problems of higher education. Likewise, much of student affairs programming should be forced to stand the rigor of double-loop analysis. Significant environmental change is difficult to vision as a result of the single-loop perspective.
Reference:
Argyris, Chris (1980) Educating Administrators and Professionals. In Argyris, Chris and Cyert, Richard M. Leadership in the 80's. Institute for Educational Management. Cambridge, Mass.
The following quotes were selected from Murry Bookchin's 1980 work Toward an Ecological Society published by the Black Rose Books LTD of Montreal.
Ecology and Domination
"The ecology, feminist, and community movements implicitly challenge this warped destiny. Ecology raises the issue that the very notion of man's domination of nature stems from man's domination of man. Feminism reaches even further and reveals that the domination of man by man actually originates in the domination of woman by man. Community movements implicitly assert that in order to replace social domination by self-management, a new type of civic self- the free, self-governing citizen - must be restored and gathered into new institutional forms such as popular assemblies to challenge the all-pervasive state apparatus. Followed through to their logical conclusion, all of these movements challenge not only class formations but hierarchies, not only material exploitation but domination in every form." Page 15
"What is in the balance, here, is the age-long spirit and systems of domination and repression that have not only pitted human against human, but humanity against nature. The conflict between humanity and nature is an extension of the conflict between human and human. Unless the ecology movement encompasses the problem of domination in all its aspects, it will contribute nothing toward eliminating the root causes of the ecological crisis of our time. If the ecology movement stops at mere reforms in pollution and conservation control-at mere "environmentalism"-without dealing radically with the need for an expanded concept of revolution, it will merely serve as a safety valve for the existing system of natural and human exploitation." Page 43
"An ecologically oriented feminist movement is now emerging and the contours of the libertarian anti-nuke alliances still exist. The fusing of the two together with new movements that are likely to emerge from varied crises of our times may open one of the most exciting and liberating decades of our century. Neither sexism, ageism, ethic oppression, the "energy crisis," corporate power, conventional medicine, bureaucratic manipulation, conscription militarism, urban devastation or political centralism can be separated from the ecological issue. All of these issues turn around hierarchy and domination, the root of a radical social ecology." (pages 82-83)
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.