Mediaboss Marketing

Recently, the Carleton College historian Amna Khalid argued in our pages against what she sees as unproductively bureaucratic or administrative approaches to student demands for social justice and diversity on campus. I spoke with Khalid about her essay and her larger thinking. Here's some of that discussion.

You begin by noting what you suggest is an irony: While many student-activists insist that they are poised against the increasingly corporate logic of the contemporary university, they end up recapitulating and even intensifying it. What happens?

I dont think its primarily the fault of the students. They are operating inside the ber-administrative university. Every complaint on campus has to be filed through an administrative office. So Im not really blaming the students thats the system they know. But I do want to point out that there is a contradiction within their own logic. A neoliberal logic has now suffused the ways in which we think to the extent that we are unable to conceive of alternatives to bureaucratic solutions.

But I also think that as educators it is our responsibility to point out to students where the gaps in their logic are. Thats our job. We must challenge them to help them grow. We must do this responsibly, but I dont think that means handling them with kid gloves.

Some critics have suggested that students own real desire at some very intimate level is for bureaucratic management.

Perhaps. But its more complicated and I think theyre unaware of it. First, I dont think that all students feel this way. Arguably its a minority, albeit a loud one, that is setting the tone here. These are students who feel that theyre entitled to a certain way of being treated. I dont know why that is I really dont. But coming from the outside: I think it is a peculiarly American thing. Id argue that kind of entitlement has been fostered by the growth of the administrative university. Students are told: Youre entitled to a certain standard of well-being, support services, recreational facilities, which is why we must create offices to cater to all these needs.

This entitlement dovetails with what I call debased identity politics. The result is powerful and potent. Theres both a sense of entitlement and a sense of being a victim a dangerous combination.

You mention the quixotic rhetorical goals offered by many university administrations as they try to satisfy the demands of student activists. Another word for quixotic rhetorical goals is cant. Do students ever bristle?

Students are capable of noticing when administrative measures are perfunctory. Often they are further frustrated by this. But their next step is to ask for more administrative solutions. We have lost the capacity to think outside of administrative solutions: Whether its bias-response teams, diversity training, cultural competency or sensitivity training. Initiatives like these debase the very idea of diversity into a meaningless etiquette exercise.

Theres always the risk that an essay like yours will be received as a kids these days lament a sort of debased culture wars piece. But far from just complaining, you offer solutions, like the course of study at Pitt. And what you suggest is, rather than hiring outside consultants or whatever, using the expertise of faculty members themselves.

At Pitt, theyve used their own faculty theyve pooled their intellectual resources in order to understand social-justice problems in not just an academic and abstract sense but also in terms of the local situation. I love it because its truly multidisciplinary. Theyre reading scholarship. Some of that scholarship you might agree with, some you might not. Theres viewpoint diversity that suggests robust engagement. And most of all the course seems to open up conversation and pose intellectual questions as opposed to providing the kinds of pat answers that trainings provide.

A number of universities have created seminars and lecture series. I do worry sometimes that these lecture series are offering only one point of view, which is not that dissimilar from the kinds of training I refer to. My problem with the training model is that it presumes that there is a perfect recipe for doing diversity: Just put in the right ingredients and youll get your pie. Thats not how this works!

Conflict and disagreement are necessary for reaping the benefits of diversity. Engaging with difference engenders discomfort and risk. We have become conflict averse and the fear of causing offense reigns supreme. But you cant do this work without taking the risk of occasionally offending someone, and learning how to forgive. Walking in someone elses shoes is rarely comfortable or pleasant at first. But a novel perspective is its own reward. When you learn that, you become more willing to embrace risk and conflict as positives.

More:
The Review: Hilarious Netanyahus; Diversity Demands; an Interview With Amna Khalid - The Chronicle of Higher Education