Harlan Stelmach

I am and unapologetic supporter of the attempts in higher education to create inclusivity for all people and groups through a commitment to diversity and equity. I am outraged and saddened by the politicization of these efforts by so many people, including some progressive white thinkers, feeling a loss of power from their dominant patriarchal positions of privilege that are now being challenged. They have helped efforts for inclusivity to be hijacked and politicized by certain politicians and educators. The good news for me is that the dominant culture of white, largely male academics, was appropriately being displaced by a new set of inclusive values. This type of power shift has not been a simple straight line. Yes, there are moments when the underclass may become emboldened to condemn all who have oppressed them directly and others of us who have indirectly benefitted by systems of oppression endemic in institutions. After years of being oppressed by sexism, racism, colonialism and anti-unionism, this posture is no surprise. We recognize this new ascendency for women, exploited workers, non-binary and people of color to have been a long-term struggle now with glimmers of success in the last fifty years with progressive policies. After centuries of oppression, can we not understand their outrage? Today we are experiencing how this long struggle for a more pluralistic society is fragmenting and people of different alienated groups are now in conflict, stoked by reactionary forces not willing to give up their privilege and a misguided American pathology for an unsustainable good life.

 

My experience in higher education is that so many in these oppressed groups have sought solidarity with others beyond their group. An effort minimized by many, particularly the mainstream press, which focused on divisive actions without reporting the solidarity actions. For example, I have witnessed the efforts of many leaders in the Black Lives Matters movement to articulate solidarity with other oppressed groups. Also, as a white man I feel I have gained from my feminist colleagues with new ideas, and even knowledge about myself. Of course, I know that some of my white male and conservative colleagues have often felt they are not able to offer their views without being challenged with incredulity and even disdain. Further, some of my female students have demonstrated in my class because I have not included more women authors. A demonstration I welcomed which fostered a discussion about the value for women of some male authors and some female authors that were suggested that I would add to my syllabus. In addition, a wing of the recent anti-racist movement has lost patience with the pace of inclusivity and has demanded more from progressives. The mischaracterization of the ‘anti-racist” as producing white shame is a bogus argument. There is in fact legitimate shame that should be felt and should largely arise from our complicit and complacent actions. I am aware that the anti-racist perspective does articulate an openness to reform and self-criticism, which is never emphasized by the press and the declining dominant class. Therefore, it is also understandable that we have a significant back lash from the old dominant, largely white male world. They are fearful of losing their privilege. Unfortunately, they are ripe for being used by demagogic politicians, demonizing others not of their class or group. Of course, this dynamic does not totally explain the support of 77 million Americans, even

many from the oppressed groups. How can we better understand our current reality in order to be able to sustain the gains of pluralism in the last half century?

 

The same system of privilege which forestalls inclusion for women, people of color and new gender identities has also marginalized many in the white working class who now seek gains or hold on to privilege through a zero – sum approach. Rather than developing a solidarity with other marginalized groups they saw the only status they had , their whiteness and their maleness, being undermined. This resentment could be manipulated. They were “left behind.” The irony is that they were left behind by their own identity group many years before liberation groups. They have sought to hold on to their only real status, their whiteness, without wealth, power or advanced education. Yes, identity politics is at play today. It is however whiteness that is the most significant and destructive identify group today. Unfortunately, this “left behind” white group has a large segment in what we would call the less educated working class, ripe for exploitation, manipulation thus sustaining their own bigotry to be used for revenge, through conspiracy theories and a distorted history of the United States. By most measures, as reported by the Pew Research Center, this less educated group has the most prejudicial world views of all Americans. It is hard to bring this group into the vision of a pluralistic democracy when they do not see it in their narrow interest. [Add survey data to back this up]

 

I saw these dynamics being played out in my tenure in higher education from 1963 until my retirement in 2018. Higher education’s attempt to be more pluralistic for gender and racial groups the agenda often seemed to privileged non-whites. In one sense this was true for we were so far behind in addressing the racial and gender injustices. In another sense there was always an attempt in higher education to reach out to a class of students with marginal incomes from all exploited groups. At the philosophical and ethical level, higher education developed notions like “intersectionality” to embrace, race, class and gender. Though this was developed in the field of the law, it permeated higher education. To live these principles was the agenda of higher education. The real difficulty in higher education for the white working class did not come from privileging women, gender identities and people of color but the governmental loan programs that created massive debts for students. Many poor white working-class families gave up on higher education because it was too expensive. The lending agencies who worked for the government gained in billions of dollars. The universities were shielded from responsibility which they passed on individual students. The cost of education left many behind, more significantly than the misplaced blame put on diversity initiatives told by the Make America Great Again leaders. To be clear, however, professors’ salaries were maintained on the backs of students of all groups, class, gender and color. Complicity is widespread in the story of higher education justice.

 

My experience with students of all classes and all so-called identity groups led me to appreciate how all the students gained from the pluralistic commitment of higher education. They all received an honest and truthful understanding of the dark side of American history, not to shame them but to engage them for a new future. White privileged

and working-class students appreciated the new knowledge and the new relationships outside their class and racial group. Students of color appreciated that their oppression was acknowledged. Women students across all color and class lines sought a solidarity that could be modeled for all. A lovely picture. Of course this was not the whole story. Within the faculty there were classic tensions between faculty of privilege, especially white males, and others.

 

I became directly involved in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as a member in 2001 of the Diversity Action Group on my campus for over fifteen years. My main responsibility was to help implement a diversity student objective in each course syllabus. Needless to say, there was understandable push back. “Do not dictate what I teach.” “How can I add diversity to my nursing class?” What happened was in fact a successful conversation about higher education’s commitment to inclusivity and a pluralistic democracy. Each course ended up with a diversity learning outcome. This helped all students. It allowed marginalized students to see themselves in the curriculum. Students of privilege saw themselves as part of an ethical enterprise that made our culture more understanding, compassionate and just.

 

My route to diversity work probably began when I was bused to the so-called ghetto in 5th grade due to overcrowding of my all-white school. I gained new friends, poor whites, blacks and Mexican Americans. I played with students of all classes and ethnic backgrounds. We were all part of one enterprise of daily living and of learning. High school and college sports duplicated this experience. Each of my teams, basketball and baseball, had significant diversity in terms of color and class background. These experiences were foundational. However, attending privileged private colleges and graduate schools this experience was largely expressed in abstract ideas, profound but not experiential, affirmative action policies had yet to make these experience’s mirror American society as a whole. It was not until the sixties and seventies in Berkeley with the women’s movement, and other liberation movements, that diversity became more experiential and personal. For example, my wife at the time explored her independence and new identity. I had to come to terms with my patriarchal views and privilege. It was a growth time that I consider one of the most important of my life, laying the foundation for who I am today. The pluralistic culture in Berkeley informed my work in civic activities like the girls’ softball program. I sought to help an inclusive vision for the softball league, attempting to bridge the racial and class divide in Berkeley. This social justice commitment has continued to this day after 40years. The current website of the League expresses its support for Trans players. A courageous stance today. All of these efforts were challenging and confirmed my commitment to diversity, beyond my white male privilege.

 

Today my reading, writing and research leads me to try to make sense of and analyze the backlash against diversity initiatives and my experience that has been part of my life since the 5th grade. It seems that vague talk about “wokeness” for some is simply defined as diversity programs that have created a back lash against them, both from conservative politicians and liberal commentators. Further, diversity efforts (i.e. Diversity, Inclusion, and

Equity- DEI) have been reduced to a simplified notion, tying their downfall to a vilification of “identity politics.” I wonder why so many people have developed the view that our problems today are the cause of these noble efforts that have defined my life and made me a more sensitive person helping to elevate so many people.

 

I have already addressed this above. But the conundrum for me deserves more attention. In particular there seems to be a sentiment that marginalized groups of the past and still today, themselves do not believe in the efficacy of diversity initiatives. This is why, as the argument goes, they voted for Donald Trump. They did not want the so-called educated class, even within their own identity group, to define them. “They are not LatinX people or want to be defined as BIPOC people.” I have heard this argument in the mass media, liberal magazines and general parlance. It has become a “common sense” notion. I am not convinced this is the crucial issue on which to focus to understand the behavior of Americans today. It may have currency in the way we talk but it masks other variables that might be more important or just as important.

 

Yes, there is a problem with casting “identity politics” as the main problem without a deeper understanding of the importance of group identities. We equate group identity issues with a notion that we are tribal. Meaning, that we only see life through the lens of narrow self-interest. I reject this reductionism. I find so many cases where we are not tribal in sense that we use this in our common parlance. My understanding of the great historic world religious traditions are not tribal but universal. Neither are the lived experiences tribal societies. As reported by a noted anthropologist, traditional tribal societies were not exclusive. [Add citation here] Much of tribal warfare has been the product of colonial occupations or a loss of resources that produced conflict. Of course we give greater weight to our own family, friends and nations. We need a home a base from which to relate to others. But humans are also relational not just in group oriented. I remain committed to this universal notion. I believe we are in a transformational age in our world. It is challenging but there is no turning back. Of course, if our group is abused or oppressed, we need a group pride and internal solidarity to engage for justice for our people. The lucky paradox is that when a marginalized group gains its liberation, we all win. How can I live with the notion that my privilege will cost the degradation of others? I cannot? I have to be “awake” to this truth. This was the original meaning of being “woke.” I will not let others, media, pundits or reactionary groups define the meaning of awake for me. This is what it means for me. I work against notions of tribalness that define the world in terms of “us against them.” To put the burden just on oppressed groups to move beyond this tendency seems to me to be wrong. The burden today should be on the most destructive, and yes, most truncated “tribal group,” (if you want to use tribal in this sense) whiteness. This identity group is exactly a perversion of the meaning of identity. It has defined a way to organize it reactionary forces as a fight against all not in their group. They are not about solidarity. They have projected, for their own self-interest, a self-serving view of identity politics. For them all are either for us or against us, just the way they criticize others motivated to project a sense of respect and justice. This friend or foe mentality is what defines their approach. Let us not fall into this trap that breeds hatefulness.

 

So, if identity politics is not fully illuminating how might we also understand, maybe better understand, what is going on in our world which is seen as polarized. I think it is best to see the polarization of American polity and culture as due to people seeking their share of the fruits of the wealth of our economy and society. We are put in a position of competition for the fruits, which leads to our polarization. In shorthand terms this is the truncate view of the American Dream, to want the good life. Or as President Reagan put it, the American Dream is where everyone has the opportunity to be rich. Many so-called evangelicals consider Trump not as a religious leader with Divine powers (though some do) but more as somebody who epitomizes this Dream. They want the good life, a false god. This urge cuts across all class, ethnic and gender lines. It recapitulates American individualism at its extreme utilitarian instrumentalism. A telling interview with a low income marginalized Latino voter helps us understand this deep-seated American pathology, deeper than identity. When asked why he voted for Trump he said, “Trump, they say is for the rich. Harris, they say is for the poor. I do not want to be poor. I want to be rich.” Forget the fact that Trump’s policies may only help the rich and actually not help the poor get rich, what he is saying is that he does not want to be identified as poor. If poor means being a Latino, he does not want that identity. He wants to be on the winning side. For now, that means throwing his lot in with a TV personality who had to have his wealth be artificially propped up so that he could portray wealth for TV ratings. Which brings us to the issue of class. Maybe this is the real American identity grouping. Americans want to be seen as in a class above what they actually are. Many of the wealthiest Americans want even more wealth, regardless of their own previous class backgrounds. We middle class individuals also do not want to see ourselves as middle class, we want to be upper class. In fact, it does not take much to buy us off and not resist leaders who are of despicable character and serving their own egos. Just as long as my stock portfolio is doing okay, I may just go along. Trump appeals to these voters, representing all classes, as much if not more than the so-called left behind poor working class.

 

My idea of education to not just to make students critical thinkers but for higher education to embody through its activities a universalism that respects genuine and heathy identities that can be a foundation of strength and confidence that will engage with others and provide an in-group solidarity with a broader solidarity with others. Shame on others who try to exploit and manipulate resentment for power and privilege. Also, education for a democracy has to help us identify the values that promote a just and sustainable economy, that does not see wealth as a birthright. A healthy view of class politics takes us back to a time when we were not as stratified a class society as we are today. This would build on what made America great in the past and will continue to make America great by its example to struggle for a more perfect union rather than through power. [Add quotes from Tocqueville and Bellah here]

 

I believe higher education and education in general can regain its sense of commitment to a pluralistic world with in-group solidarity and universal solidarity. Higher education has this crucial role to play. We need to stay the course and not give in to our current

misguided critique of diversity. Yes, reform where necessary but do not give up. This is our heritage from many universal world religions and what many of us experienced in the cultural revolutions of the 60s and 70s and the social security programs from the early part of the 20th century. I believe higher education can expose American unhealthy and unsustainable lifestyles and promote our strength in terms of values not power or wealth. We ought to try to live this commitment or covenant with higher calling. It is worth a try. I think education needs to be bold in the next four years. It will take a great deal of solidarity.

​

Read further thoughts about My Journey in the Humanities here. ​​

 

Read reflections on inequality here.

​​

Read my Intellectual Memoir here.