What is Multiculturalism and What Has It Been?

The position that probably sparked the development of what we might today term multicultural awareness and perspective was that of tolerance. That is, earlier settlers would suffer the habits and cultures of immigrants new to the United States until they assimilated into the society in place when they arrived and were accustomed to the norms of roles and behavior. This, of course, excluded Native Americans since such an attitude would have required Europeans to adjust to the culture of whichever tribe lived in the particular area being settled at a given time. Tolerance of the Native American population came in limited amounts for those "heathens" who adopted the Christian faith and agreed to live among the "civilized" Europeans.

This attitude of tolerance is not what we would call a multicultural one today, but that is because it has undergone several generations of evolution to reach the goal and perspective to which most multiculturalists currently strive. Nonetheless, it is the idea that people already in the United States should give new immigrants a chance to get used to their new country that has allowed a more welcoming attitude to develop. Unfortunately, not all people living in the Americas held such views. Thus, new immigrants have and do face virulent ethnic and racial bias. Because the majority (80%) of early immigration (1820-1880) to the United States was from northwestern Europe, specifically Great Britain, Ireland and Germany, it was possible for these people to assimilate into the culture "seamlessly" within one or two generations. The next wave of immigration (1881-1920) brought people from southern and eastern Europe, especially from Italy and Austria-Hungary. While these groups were considered inferior to the Anglo-Saxon idealized in Great Britain and Germany, and it took them longer to establish themselves as citizens in the United States, it still took only one to three generations for these groups to make themselves a comfortable home in the US. Those groups constituting these first two waves of immigration to the US managed to do so with relative ease. There was an ebb in immigration for approximately 30 years just before the Great Depression through World War II (1921-1950), which was then followed (1951-1970) by an increase in immigration from a much greater variety of countries, including Canada, Mexico and China, as well as immigrants from islands in the Caribbean. This period was marked by the development of immigration reform laws as well as an increase in the size of a population of people who could not so easily assimilate into the society in place in the US because of racial differences. During this period, the government established quotas and guidelines to determine how many and which of the immigrants from each area of the world would be welcomed to the United States. Finally, the most recent wave of immigrants to the US (1971-1991) represents the one which places the most demands on the "open" society of the US, with large numbers of immigrants from so-called "third world" countries, even more of whom place demands on the US public's willingness to welcome "others" into "their" land. (Gonzalez, 83-85)

Of course, throughout the history of the United States, immigration has not been limited to individuals from those countries which made up the majority of immigrants during a given period; there have been time spans of relatively high emigration from various parts of the world that may not be obvious in a list of the countries from which most immigrants arrive. New and uneducated immigrants provide(d) inexpensive labor that is easy for owners and managers to control because of their inability to survive on foreign soil without the "aid" of a sponsor or boss. It is not, and has not been, uncommon for wealthy businesspeople to pay for the passage of an immigrant or group of immigrants desiring to move to the US but without financial means of their own. These immigrants then serve as an indebted source of labor for the backer. Often, this system acts as a cycle, preventing immigrant workers from escaping the burden of debt and labor. Additionally, the United States has had a history of forced immigration. This practice began early in the settlement of the Americas with the system of indentured servitude for poor Europeans, who, while "choosing" to emigrate from their homes, were forced to choose between likely death by starvation, and relocation, which ultimately represents an obligation rather than a decision. Another all-too prolific form of involuntary immigration to the Americas took place in the African slave-trade, with which we are all familiar. Juan Gonzalez asserts that "[s]ome would consider any form of contract labor [indentured servitude, slavery or any others] as a type of involuntary migration" (Gonzalez, 14), which is a perspective worth considering, as the majority of early settlers in the Americas fell into that category.

In an overview of laws relating to immigrant populations, it is clear that the United States Government's official policy has not always been one of tolerance. From Executive Order 9066, which ordered all persons of Japanese ancestry to evacuate their homes for relocation camps, in reality, prison camps, to state supported segregation of schools, buses and restrooms, to broken promises in hundreds of broken treaties with Native Americans, the US government has proved itself imperfect in the realm of justice time and time again. That, of course, is because the people of the country are similarly imperfect, as all people are. Multiculturalism is a movement that aims to correct as much as possible those imperfections that are brought to our awareness, both individually and societally.

So a more modern multicultural perspective was born in some groups, usually those in a more stable power position, advocating for others -- Quakers leading the anti-slavery crusade in the late 1700s, for example. As we know, others took up the cause in support of the abolition of slavery, and many of these people did so for religious reasons. For the most part, the movement for tolerance came from religious groups, who saw all men as created equal before God. Of course, it took nearly a full century for federal law to fall into line with this idea. In the debate surrounding the issue of abolition, a perpetual problem in public life is evident: what is the government's primary concern? economic well-being or ethical practice? Romantic notions of "the right thing" aside, the Civil War was fought largely over economic issues, not only the (im)propriety of slavery. Had it been a war over ethics, Americans of African descent would have been given the vote immediately following the abolition of slavery, without requiring the aid of a separate Amendment to the Constitution to achieve suffrage. In fact, several years passed after the end of the Civil War before that issue was addressed and redressed by Congress. And it was even longer before practice caught up with theory. Some would even argue, and have ample support for their argument, that practice in the 1990s still has not caught up with the constitutional ideal.

The multicultural movement, in its early forms, continued through the 19th century and into the 20th century, through a World War, the Great Depression and another World War. Progress was made during this lengthy period of time, particularly during the years of Reconstruction (1865-1877) and immediately following, when the federal government was very dedicated to following up its success in the Civil War. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, however, and the government was distracted by other concerns, racially segregating laws developed once again, marking the beginning of the Jim Crow period. In the late 1930s, the Attorney General created a civil rights section to the Justice Department. In the presidential election of 1948, Harry Truman narrowly won over Thomas Dewey; a large portion of his success is credited to his attention to civil rights issues. Still, the most substantial progress in the field of civil rights and the multicultural movement has been made in the past 40 years and can be traced back to the various rights movements of the 1960s. It was in the late 1950s and into 1960s that the issues brought to public awareness with the 13th, 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution (these Amendments abolished slavery, gave Black (and other minority men) the right to vote, and gave women the right to vote, respectively) came to bear in more real terms. With the Supreme Court's decisions on the segregation of schools issue in the Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, KS case in 1954 and 1955, the federal government began to put weight and force of law behind these Amendments. In the voter registration drives of the 60s and in the civil rights movements for Blacks and women, United States society began to struggle publicly with the difficulty of practicing what it preached. At this time, the radical disparity between pay scales and quality of life for different segments of the population were quantified and protested.

That brief summary of history brings us to the present time, when issues of civil and human rights in the United States are still hotly contested issues. On the one hand, many people argue that the force of law should be enough to rectify the state-supported inequality and injustice meted out in the first 200 years of the US's existence. On the other hand, one need only look to comparisons between different people's salaries for the same or equivalent job to see that de jure equality does not translate into de facto equality, and even a cursory observation of demographics will show that a disproportionate number of people of color suffer from poverty and live in squalor. As of yet, we have achieved neither equality of condition nor equality of opportunity. This is where the multicultural movement roots itself in today's culture. Ultimately, its goal is true equality of opportunity and the conditions to maintain that equality.

Multiculturalism has evolved from an attitude of tolerance to one of more active assertion of rights to the status it now holds as a more developed social position in possession of a critical discourse, a philosophical foundation and a political agenda. As a sociological topic, it has yet to reach its full potential and continues to expand and undergo metamorphoses as the subject is explored.

Who Speaks in Multicultural Discourse?

In consideration of this question, we locate another disparity between the current practice and our ideal. At present, multicultural discourse is "reserved" for those individuals who fit into some category of "otherness", while those who have been welcome in the arena of the dominant discourse maintain that position, in effect "giving" the multicultural realm to those dispossessed, "victims" of the system who have nowhere else to be heard. A fully formed multicultural discourse will call a halt to such a dominant discourse, bringing all voices to one table, and giving them all equal weight. This would include upper-class, straight White men as just another point of view, rather than allowing that perspective to anchor itself as the "norm" from which racial, ethnic and other groups distinguish themselves.

The Purpose and Theoretical Proposition of Multiculturalism

The "process" of multiculturalism is one of aggressively pursuing parity among Americans. As such, multiculturalists question the social disparity which exists today; at the core of this question is power. Departing from cultural pluralism, which focuses merely on the representation of diverse cultures within the dominant schema of society, multiculturalism goes a step further, demanding not only representation, but also respect for diverse peoples and cultures; multiculturalism strives to attain justice, equity, and equality for every member of society.

Power -- of government, business, education, natural resources, property, language, industry, economics, information -- in this nation has fallen consistently along well defined social group lines. If we consider populations by race, gender, sexuality, class and religion, we find that the ultimate power ability has rested in the hands of White, male, heterosexual, upper-class Judeo-Christian populations.

While cultural pluralism does not question those who are in power, multiculturalism brings about a paradigm shift as the status quo is challenged. Multiculturalism works to redistribute power so that the majority is no longer the sole party controlling government, business, education, law, natural resources, property, language, military, industry, information, etc. In addition, multiculturalism dives into the space beyond these social concerns and seeks to overthrow the prevailing system of beliefs and practices that structure our way of thinking and acting in the world. Because thought patterns are constructed by the dominant group, the range of experience is severely limited and blocked by these unnatural mandates. Consequently, multiculturalism strives to replace the restricted structures with the richness of experience that reflects the diversity of society. With this movement, multiculturalism attempts to expose the inequity and injustice in society and raise individual consciousness so that reorientation and transformation becomes desirable and forceful possibilities. Through civic listening, the public is urged to pay attention to new voices in order to include those peoples traditionally silenced by the dominant group. For the creation of a multicultural society, individuals are responsible for recognizing and respecting difference while striving to attain parity for all.

Multiculturalists understand that in order to achieve parity, the existing power structure must change. It is for this reason that multiculturalists are activists, concerned with empowering non-White, female, homosexual, lower class and non Judeo-Christian religious populations. Essentially, we attempt to bring some people up and others down, relative to a general standard of living. This is why so many people -- particularly those who have been consistently at the top of the power structure -- oppose multicultural activism programs like affirmative action.

Types of Multiculturalism

Today, multicultural issues span a broad range of topics. Questions of equality in the realms of race, ethnicity, gender, class and sexual orientation are the primary concerns. But it is not a simple question of equality for these groups, but also one of diversification and the deconstruction of existing power systems that have shaped the United States to date. Naturally, there is debate within the community of multiculturalists, as well, as to how radical the movement's goals are. There are four main positions of multiculturalism, but it should be understood that the delineation between the stances is blurry rather than distinct.

Conservative multiculturalists hope, for the most part, to integrate different people into society without changing that society. Under this system's ideals, people of different backgrounds and identities would settle without resistance into American society as it exists today. That is, they would assimilate as well as biologically possible, thereby making a superficially colorful, various and dynamic society of men and women of different races, ethnicities, and who have had different life experiences, all strive to fit their lives into the Anglocentric ideal currently in place. Conservative multiculturalists often support the conceptualization of culture as an absolute, and the idea that "intelligence" and other "virtues" are similarly absolute and inherently unequally shared qualities in different races. This is an ethnocentric position that will welcome "others" so long as they divest themselves of all but external marks of otherness and agree to settle for their meager portion of a culturally foreign pie.

Liberal multiculturalism asserts that, in fact, the races are inherently equal in abilities and that inequality of experience and condition stems from inequality of opportunity and insufficient social and educational support. This position still fails to consider diversity within the population under its gaze as a potential source of a new culture and cultural imperative.

Left-liberal multiculturalism emphasizes cultural variety in the US. Its main flaw lies in the exoticization of the "other" and in its normatization of its subjective position. It does not call into question existing values or norms, and, while it is more relativizing than either conservative or liberal multiculturalism, left-liberal multiculturalism uses one's membership in or proximity to a given group as validation for one's position in the political realm.

Finally, critical multiculturalism is both most the appealing and the most transformative vision for a multicultural society. It challenges not only the society of the US, but its very culture and construction to reexamine itself in order to achieve the metamorphosis from Anglocentric, patriarchal, upper-class-led, straight society to one that is both more welcoming of differences and more flexible under the force of the varied voices straining to be heard. In this paper, when we speak of multiculturalism, we mean critical multiculturalism. To our minds, conservative, liberal and left-liberal forms of multiculturalism maintain an unacceptable power dynamic and support the socially constructed superiority of some groups over others, which serve, to varying degrees in these formulations, as "add-ons" to the homogeneous WASP culture that the US has been. This condescending position is both too easy for the established power-holders and disrespectful of the populations that would serve as "add-ons", from whose culture the dominant system could selectively decide on those features it would like to have as part of society and borrow them. Like much of the New-Age movement does to Native American religions, this both demeans and cheapens the very system it claims to honor.

Psychological Factors in Multicultural Issues and Concerns

Socially accepted expectations, whether explicit or implicit in any given setting, have a profound impact on the individual on whom they reflect. When a belief or set of beliefs about an individual or group becomes intrinsic and is accepted without question or challenge, they become stereotypes. Stereotypes can indicate good or bad characteristics about a group. An example of a "bad" stereotype about an ethnic group is that Latinos are short-tempered. An example of a "good" stereotype is that Asians are good at math and science. It is important to recognize, however, that even a stereotype that may sound positive can be limiting and oppressive to a person onto whom characteristics are cast without regard to his or her individual traits.

We all use stereotypes in our daily lives because it is impossible not to do so. A stereotype is a psychological heuristic, or rule of thumb, by which we simplify our lives by making assumptions that may or may not be true about people, objects and situations. In a way, people naturally "judge books by their covers," so to speak, and infer meaning through external and not necessarily relevant clues. Say, for example, that you want to send a package to a friend and you go to the post office to buy postage. You approach the clerk, who scowls and seems put out at having to deal with you. You might leave the post office feeling a bit surly and disliking the clerk. If, however, you had been in the building three minutes earlier, you would have heard a customer complaining loudly about the price of stamps and berating the clerk for no apparent reason. You might then attribute the clerk's unfriendly behavior to his encounter with the previous customer. It is not, however, practical for people to second-guess every encounter they have through the course of a day. We save time and energy by summing up a situation and jumping to conclusions about it and the people involved.

This mental crutch becomes handicapping for ourselves and those with whom we interact, though, because it may change our behavior toward others, which then affects their behavior to us. In fact, research has shown that a teacher's expectations can impact his or her student immensely, not only in terms of behavior but also in terms of literal intellectual achievement and success on IQ tests. This is not due to anything a teacher does intentionally, but rather is due to subconscious reaction to the student, based on the teacher's expectations. Though no research has been done on the detrimental influence of a teacher's negative expectations of a student (as the simulation of such a situation would likely be detrimental to students' achievement, success and sense of self, it would be unethical), it is reasonable to assume that low expectations influence students' behavior, achievement and IQ negatively.

The work of Dr. Claude Steele, of Stanford University, provides an immense resource for students of race-relations. Of primary importance to our concerns is the concept of "stereotype threat", which is, in essence, a perceived expectation on the part of an individual that he or she will perform in a stereotyped manner. The perception of being seen through the lens of a stereotype or of fulfilling a stereotype about his or her group psychologically handicaps the subject enough to depress his or her performance. Dr. Steele's research focuses on the academic realm, where he has found that subjects under stereotype threat perform under their abilities when given a challenging task, while subjects who are not under stereotype threat do not so under perform, even when all other conditions remain the same.

Even if an individual knows that he or she does not fit a stereotype of his or her group, the perception of being cast in its light, in effect, makes him or her perform in such a way as to support the stereotype. Additionally, no one involved in the situation need be overtly biased in order to trigger stereotype threat. Like the teacher in the classroom who unconsciously responds better to a student with a good reputation, so do individuals in the world act toward others in a manner reflective of stereotypes presented by mass media and others around them. And, in fact, even if this were not the case, the only necessary condition for the negative effects of stereotype threat to take place is the perception of the threat; whether or not the threat exists in reality does not change the impact its perception has on an individual.

Multicultural Education

Multicultural discourse necessarily visits all social arenas; most significantly, this discourse has become increasingly complex and heated in the arena of education. The major questions which have been asked and answered by multiculturalists and other social scientists in this country have been: What is taught in the schools? How is it taught? What do students bring to their educational experience? The first question points to curricular content; the latter two point to style and means of conveyance. An exploration of these questions and their answers, although specific to the arena of education, lends itself to a better understanding of multicultural discourse as a whole.

What is taught in our schools?

What is the actual content of our primary and secondary school curriculums? Do we teach a range of history and literature, for example, which is truly multicultural? Who writes the texts we teach? What people do they write about? And who is it intended for? Are we representing the diversity of experience, past and present, within this country and others? Until recently, nearly any school curriculum would include works written primarily by, about, and for White males.

Only within the past two decades -- and minimally so -- have our educational institutions come to acknowledge the diversity of cultural experience which has, in the past, been absent from our schools' curricular content. Thus the multicultural goal with respect to what is taught in our schools is to diversify the representation of such cultural experience by publicly acknowledging and teaching the works by underrepresented people and, too, the works about underrepresented peoples; in doing so, multiculturalists hope to implement curriculums which are intended for underrepresented students as much as for others. Through curricular and other changes, these underrepresented students must move from feeling acted upon to being and feeling like actors. Such curriculums would explore previously neglected cultures and ideologies: non-White, female, queer, non-elite and non-Western religious traditions.

How are students taught?

Humans are culturally diverse. As such, we have diverse ways of teaching and learning which are practiced in different settings and among different peoples. In spite of this global reality and the diversity of the American populace, American schools have always taught by way of a traditional Anglo-Saxon tradition. Multiculturalists strive to liberate the methodology of "teaching". By implementing diverse ways of teaching in the classroom, we expose the diverse student population we educate to educational models both familiar and unfamiliar. This is important because we can no longer assume that different students are bringing the same background of experience to the classroom.

What do students bring to their educational experience?

Different students bring different backgrounds to the same educational experience. In a multicultural society, our social institutions like the schools have a civic responsibility to recognize this diversity of experience and to educate all of society's members accordingly.

Most critically, different students bring varied levels of support with them to the classroom. A White upper-class male student, for example, tends to bring a strong support system with him, including: 1) role models (parents, teachers, public figures) that look like him and share a relatively common background and experience; 2) socio-economic stability: a library of material information, support of stable human resources, reliable home setting, perhaps no need to work. On the other hand, a lower-class Latina woman, for example, will find herself with neither of the above. She has few, if any, role models who share with her a similar background and little evidence of Latina success in this country. She has little to no economic stability; she works after school while her classmates study. There is no library of information, literary or human resources, at her disposal. She very well might be the first generation in her family to pursue a high school diploma. Without role models, her motivation and self-esteem are likely lessened; add to that the instability of her support system and lack of resources, and the outcome is often decreased "success" in the American marketplace.

As multiculturalists, we must acknowledge this diversity of experience. Furthermore, our efforts must go beyond the realm of the tokenist respect of differences within a classroom or a nation. We must recognize that what we respect as "diversity" in this nation is often indicative of "disparity" in the socio-economic marketplace. Thus we must teach accordingly and compensate for the existent disparities. This means that the multicultural educator must not only celebrate the diversity of experience within his or her classroom, but must acknowledge that a given student might not have the same resources available at home to complete a certain assignment. Furthermore, he or she must not assume that every student has role models available to reinforce class lessons or ideas about career planning.

Thus the two prongs of multicultural education are (1) content, and (2) style/ means. Content has been discussed in response to the question, "What is taught in our schools"Ó while style and means have been discussed in response to two questions, "How is it taught"Ó and "What do students bring with them to their educational experience"Ó In response to the content component, some Americans have argued, in Arthur Schlesinger's words, "History should not be about esteem development." What these people are missing, though, is that, at least implicitly, history has been about esteem development for White, Anglo-Saxon, male, heterosexual populations and culture. It is these populations and their ideologies which have been at the core of "American" institutions like education.

Therefore, multiculturalism's integrating of the "other" -- minority histories for example -- into the general history curriculum that is taught to our students is an effort to compensate for this injustice to American people of color, females, queers, and non-Western religious ideologies. Through such curricular developments, members of these underrepresented groups must come to understand that they, like everyone else, created history, not only that they were created by history.

Another obstacle to multicultural education is that conservative Americans often support the "conceptualization of culture as an absolute and the idea that "intelligence" and other "virtues" are similarly absolute and inherently unequal qualities in different races. This is an ethnocentric position that will welcome "others" so long as they divest themselves of all but external marks of otherness and agree to settle for their meager portion of a culturally foreign pie." (Carson) It is these people who claim that "diversification means losing excellence," and that when you "colorize," education becomes less rigorous, less excellent, and standards are lowered. When it comes to style of teaching, learning and working, they say of the sciences, "Science is science; we interpret it; we need accuracy," and then condemn other cultural paradigms as having no regard for accuracy.

Diversification of curricular content and educational style or means does not translate to a loss of excellence or, for that matter, to a loss of anything worth keeping. It translates to a gain in richness of experience shared within a single classroom; to a gain in potential for new and comparative ways of critical thinking. And it translates to an elevation of universal respect for humankind. As long as our social institutions fail to fully acknowledge this reality, they are doing a tremendous disservice not only to those people who have been and are being underrepresented, but to the future of humankind as a whole.

Achieving Racial Equity: A History of Our Affirmative Actions

What is racial equity? How do we achieve it?

In 1865, the end of African enslavement in this nation spawned such questions into debate. Suddenly African-Americans were "free", but far from equal. Indeed, many have suggested that the system that remained after the Civil War was "slavery in all but name." What, then, was racial equity? If the end of slavery did not mean the end of racial inequity, then what measures would? How could racial equity be achieved? In 1896, the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson decided that racial equity could be achieved by way of "separate but equal" resources and facilities. The courts upheld the conviction of Homer Plessy, "a man whose one-eight African origins made him a Negro, of refusing to move to the "colored" section of a railroad car" (Platt, 30). Wrote Justice Henry B. Brown, "Enforced segregation of the two races" does not stamp "the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so . . . (it is) because the colored race chooses to put that construction on it" (30).

Was this a valid decision? Can you imagine this nation, in 1896, effectively translating this decision into racial equity? Whether the difference was race or not, the fact is that in a society like this, equity cannot be achieved on separate bases. Imagine two schools were established -- one for lower class students, one for upper class students -- during the nineteenth century. Now imagine there are a limited number of new textbooks and trained teachers; there are also some outdated textbooks and several untrained teachers. Which school would receive the new textbooks? the trained teachers? What would happen if the lower-class school got the new textbooks and trained teachers? Who would complain? Who holds the most powerful complaint? the most power? Indeed, in a nation of limited resources and facilities, and group disparity, the implementation of "separate but equal" policy is practically oxymoronic.

Undoubtedly , the gap between the haves and the have-nots will persist in spite of such policy. In fact, as the implementation of such policy is likely to spread resources even thinner, thus increasing competition, the gap is likely to widen even further. This disparity tends to one of two forms: (1) unequal facilities (qualitative inequity) or (2) lessened access; a complete lack of facilities for one group (quantitative inequity). To illustrate the first form, imagine, for instance, that on a corner where only one water fountain is needed, two are installed -- one white, one black. Let's imagine that there is $100 set aside for the water fountain(s) on this corner. Rather than install one beautiful graphite fountain ($100), the town -- by "separate but equal", or at least by "separate" policy -- installs one mediocre quality fountain ($70) for its white residents and one poor quality fountain ($30) for its black residents. The results? First, lowered quality for everyone's facilities and, second, increased antagonism due to shared resources. Indeed, the complaint here would be on the part of white residents, angry that money had gone to the black residents at all, when it could have gone toward the graphite fountain. Ironically, the black residents could also complain of this "lessened quality", indeed, an even lesser quality than the white fountain. Thus, "separate but equal" was indeed "separate," but as well costly (and thus full of antagonism), and never "equal". Even more brutally unequal were the cases in which "separate but equal" policy made for lessened access or a complete lack of facilities for Black Americans. Often, Black Americans had no public bathroom facilities whatsoever. Such cases illustrate most harshly the failure and inevitable inequities of "separate but equal" policy.

Indeed, the Plessy decision is noted by many as the "burial of the first wave of the civil rights movement" (Platt, 30). While the court decided that "separate but equal" was constitutional in 1896, the fact that the impact of the decision proved "separate but equal" a failure, indeed, in impossibility as a means toward racial equity. There was much proof in the way of disparate quality facilities and resources, proof which was embodied years later in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision. The court decided that "black" schools were clearly lacking in resources and facilities as compared to "white" schools. Indeed, "separate" had come to represent "unequal" in nearly every instance since the Plessy decision. Separateness was not the road to racial equity. Consequently, the Brown decision led to the closing of many race-designated schools, and the openings of others to both races. Ambitiously, the court even added a required element of expediency to their equity call. "Now the Supreme Court belatedly was made to recognize the 'inherently unequal' structure of racial segregation" (Platt, 31) and to put an end to it with "all deliberate speed."

Affirmative Action: The Legal Redressing

What has happened since? Have we achieved any racial equity? Have any affirmative actions been made to overwhelm the effects of past inequity? Have any further actions been taken to erect new social systems representative of historically underrepresented peoples? Have these actions been directed with "all deliberate speed"Ó Following the 1954 Brown decision, the Civil Rights Movement took off, demanding such expediency to racial equity. One of the first accomplishments of the movement was the implementation of what we know today as "affirmative action." While various actions are "affirmative" in the way of racial equity, "affirmative action" policy is quite specific; at the same time, it accurately reflects the dynamics of our current racial struggle in myriad ways.

Race-based affirmative action programs were created with the intent to "redress racial inequality and injustice." Specifically, to redress, first, the effects of past centuries of enslavement and legal segregation; as well as for the effects of past and current discrimination by law and in practice. In other words, it is aimed at bringing groups that have been excluded in the past into society as full members (Shalom, 1). These are the qualifying components of "affirmative action" policy as it has existed for three decades. However, when we look at forms of preference on the whole, it is clear that, in actuality, such policy is needed to compensate not only for negative discrimination, but for positive discrimination, as well. In Paul Kivel's words:

   Affirmative action is practiced in many areas of our society.  
   We have hiring and recruiting preferences for veterans, women and the 
   children of alumni of many universities, special incentives for 
   purchase of U.S.-made products, import quotas against foreign goods 
   and agricultural and textile subsidies.  These practices have led to 
   a huge over representation of white people, men and people of middle, 
   upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in 
   well-paid jobs and in the professions.

Stephen Shalom delineates three forms of racism which have served and continue to serve such discrimination, exclusion, and unfair preference: personal racism, subconscious racism, and institutional racism. Evidence for personal racism includes various studies in which Black and White "testers" have been used to reveal degrees of racism is life situations: shopping, buying and renting homes, applying for jobs (Shalom, 2). Subconscious or unconscious racism has been revealed in research which has shown that a teacher's racialized expectations can "impact his or her student immensely, not only in terms of behavior but also in terms of literal intellectual achievement and success on IQ tests" (Carson, above). Indeed, such racism often does not stem from any intent of the teacher, but rather is due to a subconscious or unconscious reaction to the student, based on the teacher's expectations (Carson, above). The work of Dr. Claude Steele offers useful insight on the nature of "stereotype threat" and how in psychologically handicaps students, particularly students of color and women. (See Psychological Factors in Multicultural Issues and Concerns, above) To some extent, personal and subconscious racism are attacked by affirmative action programs. Indeed, the two forms of racism are impossible to quantify, nor are they explicit; however their effect is felt, and qualified in the work of Claude Steele and many others.

Most specifically, affirmative action programs attempt to compensate for the third type of racism Shalom outlines: institutional racism. Certainly the greatest target of affirmative action programs is institutional racism. The pervasiveness of institutional racism lies in the fact that racism, according to Kivel, is "self-perpetuating," particularly when it is institutionalized. Institutional racism refers to racism which has been built into society's institutions -- education, the workplace, for example -- and, thus, adversely affects people of color even when there is no discernible discriminatory intent (Kivel, 173). For example, since Whites have historically -- by law and otherwise -- been in more powerful positions, they have many more personal connections available to them than do Blacks and other people of color. The influence of seniority and experience, too, adversely affects people of color even without current discriminatory intent. Shalom discusses several more examples, from housing and mortgage discrimination to the fact that the social security law unfairly excluded typically Black professions (Shalom, 3). Indeed, such forms of institutional racism are initially hard to detect, as no explicitly racism agenda is necessarily expressed in order for the institutions to effect injustice.

Thus, race-based affirmative action programs have had quite a task before them during the past three decades. All of the above forms of racism make for what is often called an uneven playing field or an unfair foot race; affirmative action programs attempt to even the playing field and make fair the foot race. The very nature of the problem of racism, however, leads many to question the solution, i.e. affirmative action. Initially, opponents often question the sacrifices of affirmative action programs, such as a lessened "standard," or the hiring of a "less qualified" candidate. However, these myths are easily dispelled: affirmative action, first, looks for qualified candidates only; second, it looks to actually better the workplace or academic environment through obtaining an inclusive and representative mix of individuals.

Perhaps more pervasive is not the questioning of what affirmative action might "sacrifice," but the questioning of whether it is truly an appropriate response to racial inequality. First, the fact that racism, be it personal, subconscious or institutional, is often unquantifiable or implicit, causes many to question whether "policy" -- a quantifiable and explicit mandate -- is the appropriate response. However, this form of questioning is not really a powerful one. Just because one cannot quantify a single racist action -- for example, the power of the "stereotype threat" -- does not mean that one cannot quantify the overall effect of a racialized society and its institutions on its people. Certainly one can; the fact that Black males make $0.70 to every White male's dollar is a quantifiable fact. Indeed, preference for White males has been a quantifiable wrong for centuries; indeed, a quantifiable correction is the answer; according to Lerone Bennett, Jr.:

   They're against quotas, they say.  For three hundred years in this 
   country, there's been a 99.9 percent quota of white males in all the 
   institutions:  the church, the university, the corporate world.  There 
   is no way you can begin to create a level playing field without 
   affirmative action (Bennett, 587).

   It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not 
   take into account that our society has been doing something against 
   the Negro for hundreds of years.  How then can he be absorbed into 
   the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for 
   him now . . . ?

Similarly, proposals for "class-based" affirmative action policy cannot alone "even the playing field," when it comes to color. Affirmative action programs were created on the basis of race and gender -- not class. While it is likely that class-based affirmative action programs would be useful today in bridging our economy's income gap, such programs would stray -- at least in terms of race -- from our original goal. The proponents often argue that class-based programs would naturally bring you the desired "of color" population. This is not the case. Since Whites outnumber Blacks at every income level, "any program that only benefits people of a particular income with necessarily dilute our efforts to help the victims of racism" (Shalom, 7). The fact is, a move to class-based programs would continue to privilege White America within the changing class society, without challenging the racial hierarchy. We must achieve parity through race-based programs before shifting to class-based programs. Furthermore, we must acknowledge the significance here of a "team" analogy, as presented by Shalom. There are certain things that a White student could never provide for the particular intellectual mix that affirmative action desires. Indeed, a college, for example, should not look simply for the best academic students, but for the mix of students that can "create the environment that can best contribute to the educations experience of the college" (Shalom, 5). Thus, affirmative action should serve as a vehicle to bring underrepresented people into the workplace, educational settings, etc.; the hope is to both "add to" and "enhance" the pre-existent populations. Furthermore, the component of expedience once demanded with the words "all deliberate speed" must be respected. Indeed, change should occur within a generation; thus we need to redefine, or define for the first time, the meaning of "all deliberate speed," and act accordingly. Indeed, if a generation of Black Americans were able to see significant change within their lifetime, perhaps this nation could gain back the trust of its former slaves, segregated people, its people materially and ideologically robbed for far too long. Perhaps this nation's peoples just might start to trust each other for the first time. Such team-oriented goals serve to highlight the necessity of race-based affirmative action programs even more. Indeed, they are both fair -- as a compensation for past exclusion -- and positive -- as an attempt to better represent and serve our entire population.

The fact that there are "certain things" that a White student today could never provide for the "intellectual mix" is a hard one for White students to swallow because they (American students on the whole) tend not to think in terms of the "team." Furthermore, affirmative action -- however "positive" in these attempts at the right "intellectual mix," for example -- does threaten the status quo. White people do hold power -- of government, business, education, natural resources, property, language, industry, economics, information -- and multicultural activism attempts to overthrow this power structure. I therefore understand the infuriation of many White Americans and students, in particular, in response to affirmative action policy. However, I have an even deeper understanding of why affirmative action programs are necessary, as we strive for the day when this is no longer the case. The task which lies before all of us who strive to educate the infuriated is this: to overwhelm their clinging to the status quo with a definitive statement that while they may not be racist, our society still is. And while they may not be to blame for past and present discrimination, as White people in twentieth century America, they still benefit from it. We strive to rejuvenate the socio-psychological drives of this nation's peoples; we must allow affirmative action to make an American public statement of trust on the part of former slaves, slave owners and others. Unfortunately, we do not yet trust our fellow Americans. We do not have racial equity. But if we allow affirmative actions to permeate our institutions and our people, our policies and our minds, it will be achieved.

What Will Multiculturalism Be in the Future?

The future of multiculturalism depends heavily upon the voices that take part in its development and implementation. Ideally, it will become an arena in which all members of US society can easily bring their concerns to public attention. This may be in the form of a Jew or Hindu asking that a school's performance of a Christmas play be replaced with something more secular and culturally-encompassing or a school board receiving federal funds to improve the communication and teaching abilities of teachers who speak a different dialect of the same language spoken by their students. Of course, these are issues with which we are all familiar, as they are debates that are, in fact, widely discussed in public discourse today. What makes this vision of multiculturalism different from today's reality? In the future, these and other topics for discussion will be considered, not ridiculed. Whatever the issue might be, the ideal multiculturalism of the future will provide a floor on which such concerns can be discussed in a progressive manner, equally considerate of all perspectives involved, without giving primacy to any one person or group. Under this system, de Tocqueville's warning that democracy must be wary of inviting the tyranny of the majority over the minority might be considered and placed before the majority-rules attitude of the status quo.

back to another dimension of silence