The Diversity Dilemma in Academia

Embracing diversity and inclusion in name and spirit has become the norm in American academia, particularly since the global movement for racial and social justice in 2020. However, the predominant rationale for diversity that is given by universities is often instrumental and utilitarian — citing research on how this improves the learning experience or enriches campus life. A recent study from Princeton University psychologists published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" suggests that domestic under-represented minorities resent such a rationale. Often there is a perception that such reasoning favors international students over domestic minorities, and does not grapple with historical debt that academia owes to Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and African-Americans. The ways in which American universities benefited from the slave trade and often had leaders and alumni who were overtly racist is beyond question. Yale alumnus and benefactor John C. Calhoun was one of the most strident defendants of slavery. Stanford’s first president David Starr Jordan, was a devout eugenicist with utterly repugnant views on racial supremacy of Whites. However, such dreadful histories are now being addressed through a range of healing programs and we need to move towards a bigger tent conversation on diversifying campus life.

Definitional Quandaries

Consensus on what constitutes cultural diversity is needed between domestic underrepresented minorities, Asians and the full range of international students. I got a stark awakening to the sensitivity of this topic, particularly among African Americans, at a recent meeting at a university. A diversity plan was being discussed by one of the faculty members and there was repeated emphasis on the need for increasing the number of domestic underrepresented minorities. Given my Pakistani heritage, I suggested that diversity plans should also include internationalization efforts, particularly from Africa which has been a neglected continent. One of the African-American alumni was offended by my intervention and seemed to suggest that this would dilute the primacy of the need to right the wrongs of the past. On my side, I was offended that somehow my suggestion for a bigger tent view of diversity would be a threat to domestic minorities who still had a range of financial support programs and legal protections, which were not always accorded to undocumented or international students. The COVID pandemic was a poignant example of such vulnerabilities where international students were not eligible for support payments from the U.S. government and they could not go back home either. Many suffered from severe mental stress and several suicides were documented.

The unfortunate acrimony from my argument at the meeting led me to write this article to see how we may find some consensus on approaching diversity in academia. First, there should be no question that African American descendants of slaves have a certain primacy in terms of their right to affirmative action because of the generational struggles that they faced. As one of my African-American friends said to me — “our family’s blood is baked into the soil and the foundation of this country.” International students and other minorities must respect that. A powerful visual essay by Yale professor Dorceta Taylor highlights the particular prejudice and danger that African-Americans face in contemporary America. However, at the same time, we must acknowledge that many international students also feel that the Anglo-European empires benefited enormously from plundering their lands and there is also a debt to be noted there. The Commonwealth Scholarship program in the United Kingdom is partly a recognition of this reality as is the case with scholarships for many African students in Europe from lands colonized by various nations on the continent.

Valuing International Diversity

The diversity that international students bring to campus is qualitatively different from domestic diversity. There is the experiential aspect of culture in another land, linked to language, social strata and connection to place. There is also the realization that as citizens of the planet, we have to work with nations from all over the world to solve pressing problems like climate change or pandemics. Domestic minorities need to consider this aspect of diversity and embrace it without feeling threatened by it. At the same time, international students need to capitalize on their time abroad and integrate better with local students rather than being cliquish and just surrounding themselves with their own comfort crowd. Increasingly, there is a need for universities to facilitate this two-way communication and bond-building between the diverse populations themselves. There may well be a need to differentiate between what is referred to as “Generational African-Americans” and more recent immigrants (as done in the 2020 census), but there is also a need to consider points of convergent phenotypic experience. We should dispense with presumptions about the wealth of international students as well. While many may be able to afford and pay for their tuitions, they often do so through sale of property and debt at home, or competing for rigorous scholarships. Stereotyping international students as “elite” is also unhelpful and perpetuates divisions.

Asian (Un)exceptionalism

Perhaps the most contentious grouping in the diversity dilemma is Asian-origin students. In general, conflating South Asians and East Asians is itself problematic but when it comes to university demographics both are deemed “well-represented.” Let us not forget that Asians are demographically more than half the planet’s population and so their relative dominance in universities should not be a surprise. Indeed, there is growing tension on campus that Asian origin students are at a disadvantage in admission decisions. A recent high profile case brought forth by some Asian students on this matter against Harvard is now before the supreme court after an initial win by the university’s affirmative action program. Tensions between African-Americans and Asian-Americans have unfortunately simmered since they reached a boiling point during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. There is a history of mutual racism in these communities and distrust but on reflection there is more opportunity for common cause. Asian Americans have also been victimized by the dominant population in America, including racist laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War should not be forgotten either. Recent racist rhetoric and “yellow peril” narratives around the COVID 19 pandemic and the rampant suspicion around academic collaborations with China are alarming too. Even with reference to historical debt, let us not forget the enormous wealth that American university benefactors during the nineteenth century accrued from the forced opium trade that was imposed on China.

Common Cause and Strategic Patience

Ultimately, all minority communities need to recognize that they will have most success in fighting oppression from the ruling elite if they are united and build coalitions of strength. They should give each other some benefit of the doubt about past prejudices and learn about each others’ histories. University administrators must also recognize that both anthropological and political aspects of diversity are essential for creating a vibrant chromatic community. Allowing for dissenting voices to be heard is essential, even if they may be initially offensive. Rather than silencing such voices of opprobrium, formats for challenging them with counter-arguments can be convened. A recent cancellation of a lecture at MIT due to protest from students is an example therein. A format in which such a controversial speaker could be constructively engaged was offered later by Princeton University. We must realize that universities have a particular responsibility for debating the forms and contexts for diversity. They are incubators of ideas and innovations which gain strength from such curated dialogues, that have been the hallmark of institutions such as the Oxford Union and other debating societies. It is tempting to claim prejudice in a highly prejudicial world but this does not always serve the cause of winning the long game for diversity. Recognizing victimization is important but claiming victimhood as a means of shunning dissent is strategically, and even morally problematic. There are of course emerging norms on the parameters of free speech so as to avoid incitement of violence or proliferation of misinformation which can be followed. The president of Columbia University Lee Bollinger and Agnes Callamard (Director of the university’s Global Freedom of Expression Initiative) have recently published an authoritative anthology on this topic. Only through a process of constructive confrontation of ideas; and through recognizing our common causes across nations; will we be able to resolve the diversity dilemma for the greater good of society.

Saleem H. Ali is Blue and Gold Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware. Twitter @saleem_ali