COLUMN: Permanence of a minority

From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96 From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96Difference should beFrom Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96Difference should becelebrated, not decried. It addsFrom Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96Difference should becelebrated, not decried. It addsto the college experience. From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96Difference should becelebrated, not decried. It addsto the college experience.Before any sort of discussion about President Judith Rodin's recently released minority recruitment and retention initiatives can occur, we must recognize the double meaning inherent in the words "minority permanence." The phrase "minority permanence" thus takes on a different meaning; it implies that ethnic "minorities" will forever remain so -- and this will not be the case at the turn of the century. The permanence of minority status for ethnic and religious groups here at Penn and elsewhere needs to be considered when initiatives such as Rodin's are submitted. Many may regard such redefinitions of the term "minority" as political correctness. If that is the label different perspectives must wear, so be it. Politically correct or not, we are justified in asking, what precisely are the intentions of these plans? I bring up this different perspective on "minority" and "minority permanence" because while Rodin's plan appears to be a well-intentioned step in the right direction, it remains rather indistinct and open to interpretation. Entitled "Minority Recruitment and Retention at Penn," Rodin's document states four important initiatives. First, the plan calls for the allocation of $1 million during each of the next five years for the "recruitment and retention of students and faculty from underrepresented minorities." To ensure that these initiatives continue beyond this five-year period, plans to raise a $20 million endowment for recruitment and retention are included. The above two initiatives are a bit ambiguous because, aside from the various schools, they name no specific agency or persons who will receive the allocated funds. While departments will be receiving money, which they are encouraged to match dollar-for-dollar, no specific use is outlined for these funds. The final two initiatives are even more curious. Rodin proposes that $250,000 be allocated to a seed research fund for the investigation of "the educational benefits of diversity in a university setting." Also, the plan asks that a member of the standing faculty be appointed special advisor to the president. The special advisor would monitor and periodically report on progress made on the other minority permanence initiatives. The $250,000 Rodin asks for is not a necessity, for she states that her purpose for the request is to "give proof (that diversity in a university setting is educationally beneficial) to those skeptics who remain unconvinced." Truthfully, Rodin need not waste valuable resources trying to move an immovable object. I say this because some faculty members, including History Professor Alan Kors, believe Rodin's plan is "the very opposite of creating a diverse university." Kors, for example, would prefer an added emphasis on merit and not on ethnic identity. Kors appears to have taken something out of Rodin's initiatives that was not there to begin with. He states that her plan "discriminates against Jews, Italians, Catholics, Muslims" and several other ethnic and religious groups. However, if we look closely, there is not one mention in the initiatives themselves that the new resources will be meant exclusively to benefit African American and Hispanic students and faculty. Kors' misconception arises out partly from the vagueness of the language in Rodin's document. If specific groups were targeted -- namely all religious and ethnic groups currently underrepresented at the University -- it is quite possible that Kors and those who agree with him would not have the complaints they do. Nevertheless, one complaint Kors voiced does tie in directly with the my earlier statements about "minority" and "minority permanence." He said a plan like Rodin's would further separation of all students and faculty into "groups rather than their own lives and their own visions." The group mentality with respect to ethnicity and religious affiliation can be dangerous when that group is classified as "minority." If a group is called whatever its members are -- African American, Italian, Jewish, Japanese and the like -- that difference should be celebrated, not decried. And for this reason, Rodin's initiatives should be met with salutation. The problem of recruitment and retention of underrepresented ethnic and religious groups -- or the lack thereof -- has finally been addressed. We all need to involve ourselves in making our campus more multicultural. Our student groups -- ethnic and non-ethnic, religious and non-religious -- must take an active and influential role in the implementation of these initiatives. To maintain and improve the academic reputation of this University, resources for underrepresented ethnic and religious groups need to preserved and enhanced. If we can't come together and agree that addressing the problem of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups is vital, we and students who succeed us will not have the multicultural collegiate experience we all need and deserve.