‘New ethnic studies’ looks at interactions, relationships

In March, “Race, Globalization, and the New Ethnic Studies,” a conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America, welcomed back several dozen alumni scholars – from the 1950s through 2002 – whose work pays particular attention to issues of race and ethnicity. Professor Evelyn Hu-DeHart, the center’s director, sat down with Ricardo Howell of the George Street Journal to discuss the historic gathering, new directions in ethnic studies, and how ethnic studies responds to the current efforts to redraw affirmative action in higher education.

What unites the scholars who returned to Brown for the conference?

We identified over 70 Brown graduates across the United States and abroad who are doing work on race and ethnicity. Many of them are in sociology, in history, or in American studies; with very few exceptions, they are in social science or humanities or departments or interdisciplinary programs. Some 60 accepted our invitation; we had someone come in from Venezuela as well as from England.

What does “ethnicity” mean in the “ethnic studies” context?

The popular use of “ethnicity” is sometimes as a substitute for “race,” because it’s not as harsh a word. Oftentimes, when people talk about “ethnicity” they really mean “race” – you know it from the context. What we distinguish in ethnic studies is that everybody has ethnicity. Ethnicity is your cultural heritage and everybody has it. You can trace it back.

Racialization, on the other hand, is a process by which people are constructed as racially distinct, meaning that there are some fixed distinctions about them that can’t be changed. And, therefore, they are then put in a subordinate category or an inferior category. Racialization has nothing to do with ethnicity per se or skin color. Race is a socially constructed category that is always historically contingent and politically contested.

“Ethnic studies” is actually a misnomer for the field. But we’re kind of stuck with it… it’s the name we all know and everybody uses it and we all understand what it is we’re doing. What we mean by ethnic studies is much more correctly race studies. Ethnicity theories [presuppose that] if you’re just looking at ethnic groups, in time every ethnic group will assimilate. Race theorists do not make that assumption.

What differentiates ethnic studies at Brown? And what are the directions of the “new ethnic studies?”

Ethnic studies at Brown is just getting off the ground. We have an opportunity to move forward in a direction that will put us at the forefront. And that’s why our conference was called the “new ethnic studies” with transnationalism, diasporas and global comparisons as our themes – always centered around the process of racialization.

The “new ethnic studies” tends to focus more on interactions and relationships rather than the contributions of particular communities. There’s lots of work to be done where we look at the intersection of race with class, with gender, with nationality, with sexuality – what we call the “intersectionalities” – how all of these things intersect. We understand that when you examine these relationships you’re really looking at questions of power and privilege.

I don’t think there is a single issue in contemporary American society which could not be looked at from a race and ethnic studies point of view.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases brought against the University of Michigan. The court’s rulings are anticipated in June and are expected to affect how or whether race may be considered in college and university admissions decisions. Does ethnic studies have a role in the current debate regarding affirmative action?

The current debate is a very good example of how race is politically contested. Ethnic studies examines affirmative action as a racial project: “Why are people intent on dismantling affirmative action today? Who is behind it?” It is a political movement – it’s a struggle about power, and in this case about racial power.

During its heyday, when it was significantly applied, affirmative action covered all white women and covered all kinds of non-white communities. Right now when we talk about affirmative action it is primarily fixated on two groups – blacks and Latinos, particularly African Americans.

Affirmative action forces the breakdown of institutional racism in higher education. It means something to us, personally, as students of color over the past 30 years. Many of us can attribute the opportunities we have received to something called affirmative action.

I got into Stanford as an affirmative action admit because they told me my verbal score was too low. I got in and I worked very hard, the same year President Bush went to Yale and his verbal score was 50 points lower than mine. Nobody told him they had to lower any standards for him. He was exactly the kind of person for whom Yale automatically opens its door. There’s always been a kind of affirmative action ­ it’s just not called that.

Affirmative action opened doors that otherwise might not have been opened. We’re really talking about keeping those doors opened. Once we’re here, we compete academically, like everybody else.

I have a long view of things. History is a continuous struggle. We can’t just say it’s the end of affirmative action, there’s nothing more we can do. What we’re doing here at Brown is very exciting. The Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America is starting to organize a partnership with Campus Compact and the 700-member Kellogg National Fellows Alliance to find ways to address diversity in higher education after the end of affirmative action as we know it. Our vision is a powerful national coalition.