Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 22, 1991)
Opinion Jana Pedersen, Editor, 472-1766 Eric Pfanner, Editorial Page Editor Diane Brayton, Managing Editor Walter Gholson, Columnist Paul Domeier, Copy Desk Chief Brian Shellito, Cartoonist Jeremy Fitzpatrick, Senior Reporter Idle chatter is cheap UNL minorities need action, not talk When the NU Board of Regents met Friday, it heard four hours of testimony on the plight of minority students at the University of Nebraska. Among the problems cited by those who testified is a hostile climate at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “The vast majority of minorities who succeed (at UNL) do so in spite of the system rather than because of it,” said Miguel Carranza, an associate professor of sociology at UNL who chaired the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Minorities for two years. Persistent talk of changing the campus climate to be more receptive of minority students apparently has had little effect. In typical form, after the four-hour open forum, the regents announced that a committee would be appointed to study the issues raised. It seems that the university’s quick answer to tough questions always is to talk about them. out one uiNL college has gone beyond talk. The law college has implemented a system to ensure that first-year minority students don’t feel isolated from others of the same ethnic background. Dean Harvey Perlman said non-minority students are * placed in their first-year classes randomly, but minority students are grouped together on the basis of race. That means all African-American students are placed in the same classes, all Asian students are placed in the same classes and all Hispanic students are placed in the same classes. Perlman said the college adopted the policy to help minority students overcome feelings of isolation in the college, which is composed predominantly of white students. The policy, which Perlman said is still under review, I has been criticized as possibly being illegal. But Perlman defends the policy by saying, “It seems * clear to me that in cases that exist, some race-preferential programs — people given a preference on the basis of race — are suspect, and some are not. “I’m not giving anyone a preference.” In that respect, Perlman is right. All students are re quired to take the same classes and complete the same amount of work. But the policy does have its drawbacks. Part of the goal of creating a diversified campus Is to give students the chance to interact with people from other ethnic backgrounds. While the policy dotes not discourage non-minority students from interacting with their minority classmates, it does make such interaction less likely and it may prevent different groups of minority students from interacting with one another. The policy also carries the sting of “separate but equal.” It implies that without such groupings, minority students would be unable to compete with their non-minority counterparts. The minority students are not given a choice regarding the separation; they simply are shuffled into it without consent. But the negatives or the policy are outweighed by its benefits, because the detractors assume that the campus environment is acceptable to both minority and non minority students. It is not. The policy is intended to give minority students in the college the same advantages that non-minority students have — classmates who have similar backgrounds. No one can argue that isolation in the classroom damages the learning atmosphere. Grouping minority students together at the very least gives them a friendly face to turn to. At the most, it will prevent the minority viewpoint from being drowned out. The policy does not presuppose that minority students could not succeed without such treatment. Instead, it gives them an environment in which success comes as easily as it does for non-minority students. Until UNL overcomes its hostile atmosphere for minority students, the few programs that do address minority students’ concerns should not be condemned prematurely. The regents should pay close attention to the law college. Its program is one creative example of how UNL has attempted to step beyond well-intentioned talk. —j.p. I y - -— ® JIMMY SWASGAKT'S ONE STOP DE&AUCHERY t~ ATONEMENT CENTER FOR THE ON-TWE "60" CHRIST > A.N . _ * © j?___ GARY LONGSINE Not all generalizing wrong Scrawled on the bathroom wall, I saw: Abstract is not synony mous with ineffable. Obvi ously the etchings of a math student in stage 1: Denial. Synonymous it shouldn T be. How ever, the tertiary definition of ab stract — “hard to understand”— has become its most popular, because there are so many people who can’t, or won’t, eff things. The secondary definition of inef fable is “not to be uttered — taboo.” In today’s world, it is taboo to gener alize. This is evident most clearly in discussions of how to be politically correct. In classrooms, coffeehouses, edi torials all across the country, you can witness the phrase that, when first uttered, gave birth to the PC move ment: “I don’t think you can say that; it’s a generalization.” Generalizing has been saddled with a pejorative sense on par with racism, sexism and communism. Abstract thought requires general izing. Don’t let the champions of dogmatic political corrcclism deter you from abstracting. Let abstraction prevent you from ineffing. Allow me to generalize: velcro doesn’t slick locals. In actual cat testing, Velcro failed to slick. No large cats were tested, all were domesticated and unwilling, but I claim thalcven a willing cal will not stick to Velcro. Velcro doesn’t slick to cats. Any cals. Ever. I know this having tested a finite number of cats — one, to be precise. 1 am quite certain of this fact. I know it and you should know it, but maybe you have doubts. Maybe you’re thinking, “Hey, Garc, you can’t say that, because some where in the universe there might be a cat that slicks to Velcro. Unless you lest all cats, everywhere, you’re gen eralizing.” Damn right, I’m generalizing, and proud of it. Millions of years of evo lution aren’t going to be wasted by this neural network. A universe in which generaliza tions didn’t work would be a very different place. But people are dedi cated to stamping out generalizations because it’s easier than thinking. Psychology shows us that natural stages of development arc associated with the cognitive process. Regard less of whose model you use, it gener ally is accepted that humans progress from an early struggle with sensory/ motor coordination, through various stages to some sort of concrete rea soning ability. Some, but not all, then develop abilities to handle abstract Allow me to general ize Velcro doesn’t slick to. cats* In actual cat test ing* Yelcm tailed, to slick. /Vo large cals. were tested, all were domesticated and un willine. but I claim that even a willing cat will not stick to Velcro. thoughts comfortably and routinely. This is a direct result of the evolu tionary process that has made hu mans what we arc. Our brains are designed by natural forces to recog nize patterns, to generalize, to think abstractly, to use inductive reason ing. If you have doubts, look at the sketch of me that accompanies this column. This flattering caricature is not me, nor is ila photographic depic tion of me. In fact, the simple lines here con tain scarcely enough information to identify the drawing as a person, one might think. The most sophisticated computers would have trouble with that. Nevertheless, your brain is quite capable of recognizing this sketch as me. None of you will confuse it with a drawing of George Bush. Even the photo normally appear ing on this page tests your brain’s talents, as it is merely a grainy patch of dots in black, white and gray. One of the early roots of PC lies in cultural relativism. This was a theory developed by anthropologists who realized that European culture wasn’t the only form of civil society. A cul tural relativist believes that no cul ture is superior to any other. Cultural relativity gets part of its name directly from Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. It says that many heretofore “objective” physical events are characterized only relative to observer position. This was very loosely translated into popular culture as “Everything is relative.” Unfortunately, the idea doesn’t translate well from general relativity theory to cultural anthro pology. Anthropologists, reacting to cen turies of abuse in the name of science and living in a time infatuated with the bold new idea of relativity, over- ‘ reacted. They claimed that one can not make any moral statement about a culture that one is not a part of. I can and do. Beyond that, I am morally compelled to make certain evaluations. I claim, for example, that female circumcision, as practiced by certain African societies of which I am not a member, is immoral. One docs not need to bcl ieve that a cultural element is morally justifi able to study it objectively. Likewise, one does not need to abandon the objective study of the world around them to feel comfortable with one’s political morality. 1 IICIC 15 a icai piuuicm uuu IV are trying to solve by stamping out generalizations. It is that, in general, people can’t recognize the difference between a system and a model of a system. Furthermore, they cannot tell when they themselves arc making a statement about the system, or about the model of the system. This blurred distinction leads some people to make unfair, hateful and harmful generalizations. They also tend to be poorly formed generaliza tions or over-generalizations. Other people perceive that gener alizations arc the root of x-isms. Racism is not the result of stereotypes about x-colored people. Unfair stereotypes will be believed by those who already are racist. They will be questioned and rejected by those trained to en gage in skeptical inquiry. Political correctism is not the only form of dogmatism used to counter a natural human trail such as general iz ing. Other real problems have been attacked in the same, concrete way. Instead of encouraging responsible abstract thinking, people arc discour aging abstract thinking altogether. Rather than engage in rational analy sis, people spew forth politically cor rect dogma. A singer named Laurie Anderson says, ’’Language is a virus.” If that’s so, political correctism is a social disease. Understanding is a vaccine. Longsine is a senior international affairs and economics major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.