Culture War?

DUDE! Where's My Diversity?

It's mid-afternoon. The sun is reflecting off the huge swathes of snow on the quad at Colgate University's campus. Students with satchels of different names and brands carrying note books for classes march rhythmically and in an organized fashion towards and away from what could be called the center of the school's social life, at least in the day time: The Coop.

If you stand and observe this progression when classes get out at 12:10, like I have, you will be struck by the monotony of the majority of its constituents. That is not to say that among this highly selective group of people there are not outliers. A pair of purple pants passes through the crowd; I can hear the distinctly different ring and twitter of an eastern European language being exchanged by foreign students; two girls with heavy eye liner stand by the steps exhaling ashy clouds of cigarette smoke. It might seem that among these outward characteristics any similarity among students is lost.

But they are here, because surprisingly, the majority of students have very similar attitudes—about life, about what's right, and about what's wrong. What causes the perceived tension that some hastily call a culture war is not the actual consensus of the majority here, but rather, the assumed views held by a fictional body of fictional students made up by those who feel at odds with what Colgate tends to projects.

I will attempt to show that the culture war at Colgate University is a fraud and that by assuming one exists we increase tensions further. I will draw on comparisons to American politics to prove that the student body at Colgate is more similar than dissimilar, even though it may seem otherwise to many of its members. To prove that what we perceive as silent racism, or apathy, may in fact be a byproduct of psychological hardwiring I examine how people use "selectivity" throughout their daily lives. Finally I conclude with what should and can be done to lessen the tensions on campus, because although there is no war here, there is tension, which negatively affects the well being of minority groups on campus.

Is it possible that the attitudes and beliefs of people are greatly exaggerated? In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, America was divided into Blue states and Red states who apparently had such differing views that compromising was out of the picture. Yet a study conducted by political scientists Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope in 2006 demonstrated that the "attitudinal differences between residents of blue and red states were greatly exaggerated in [both these elections]"¹. The perpetrator of these exaggerated claims? Of course, the blame falls on the news stations. Examine the media of America against what actual citizens believe, and you can see disconnect. As a general rule, broadcasts stress conflict over agreement¹. Why waste space in the Maroon-News, the weekly editorial at Colgate University, discussing the weather, unusually freakish as it may be? Such neutral discussions would fail to garner many readers. Furthermore, most people who choose to share their views with the general public tend to have much more polarized views than their intended audience¹. Anyone who has watched Fox News or MSNBC knows that their reporters rarely tell an unbiased story. But to prove that in contrast, general people aren't as polarized, let's look at their reaction when polarized views are presented to them.

When the conservative writer for the weekly "Being Right" article in the Maroon-News wrote about the moral wrongs of Same-Sex Marriage on November 14^th, 2008, she was immediately attacked. The author claimed that "redefine[ing] marriage to mean anything and everything, will [cause it] to mean nothing. This nihilistic approach to an institution that is so fundamental to the American story, and to the human story, cannot occur without irrevocably altering the thread of society."²

When I first read the piece online, I was deeply offended. Did people at Colgate really think so hatefully about same-sex marriages? I knew I had to write a comment in response, but first I wanted to see what other people had written. Would I be in the minority? A lone voice against a clamor of hate? Or would there be a fair split of people on either side of the debate? To my surprise, there was only one other response, with the words "this is appalling" sprawled under a name². I quickly jumped into a short rebuttal and hit the comment button with pride.

There were two opposing views presented in the newspaper. One was a conservative view point, the other more liberal, discussing why gay marriage should be allowed. But as they were laid out on paper, it seemed as if there was an even divide, a 50% split, among people who were pro-gay marriage and those who were not. In reality, the picture is not so black and white. There are people who think gay people are perfectly normal, but that they shouldn't get married, people who think unions are the way to go, but not marriage, as well as people who are on the extremes. By putting two articles together that only featured the extreme viewpoints, readers of the article, like me, were completely thrown off about what the real perceptions of people on campus really are.

The Maroon-News web page that held the "Love is Not Enough" article in electronic form was blasted with over 60 comments in the next five days from current Colgate students, Colgate Alums, and non-affiliated individuals. They were not agreeing with her. One commenter attacked her personally, saying that she refused to be told who she could be married by "a person of privilege who belong[ed] to the straight majority"². An alum wrote he "hope[d] … that you will be exposed to enough contrary ideas at Colgate to open your mind"². These two comments illuminate the two different views of Colgate's student body. The first is that the people who attend Colgate are incredibly rich and actively remain distant from minority views, opinions, and lifestyles. The second is that Colgate students are incredibly intelligent and embrace the views of others. How could two people who have both attended Colgate think so differently about its constituents?

To answer that question, we must first answer the question: what are Colgate students really like? Without all the stereotypes and tropes that have gotten into the public mind? They are more diverse than the picture most recognize—rich, carelessly talented, white individuals who enjoy partying more than studying, but will pursue academics as a means of making more money for the future.

In reality, the majority of people on campus cannot afford to pay tuition in its entirety. Only a sizeable minority can. The rest, an entire 65%, apply for financial aid, and receive, on average $21,900³ to help alleviate the high costs. Our school also boasts a fairly large foreign and minority population³, a population of 25% of total student enrollment. Although this percentage is less than the national percentage of minorities at 34% as of 2007⁴, it is still a high statistic when compared to other small liberal arts colleges. Why then is the school seen as predominantly white? Perhaps the image of Colgate possessing an affluent, preppy student body makes it impossible for someone to think of minorities actually attending the school. When I say "a prep", what comes to mind. Is it a wealthy twenty-something in a cardigan and ascot with blonde hair and blue eyes sailing a yacht? It is, isn't it? This stereotype belittles the diversity of Colgate, and furthermore, has a horrible effect on people belonging to minority groups at school. How uncomfortable must one feel if they themselves aren't a wealthy white person with a yachting license on a campus full of potentially wealthy white people with yachting licenses?

Back to the question at hand, how could two people who have attended Colgate develop such different views of what students here are actually like? The first, that all of Colgate is comprised of the rich, wealthy, and oppressive, is incredibly misleading and made through stereotyping. The second is more accurate, in recognizing that there are diverse opinions on campus, but that the majority would target the author of "Love is Not Enough" for having such negative views against civil rights.

And he was correct. The comments to the article got so bad that a week later, on November 21^st, a letter of clarification had to be published by the editor in chief. In it, Vanessa Persico writes that the fiery comments were unexpected but she rationalizes them by saying:

"Unfortunately, homosexuals are so frequently subjected to acts of intolerance that any sentiment even remotely reminiscent of intolerance can raise an emotional response. We share this disdain for acts of hatred committed against anyone due to sexual orientation, race, gender or religion, and regret that anyone should have misinterpreted the column as a manifestation of discrimination."⁵

Is that it? Was this column just "remotely reminiscent of intolerance"? Or was it actually an attack on the gay community? Do homosexuals and advocates overreact? Or did the author really step out of line?

I believe that the answer, unfortunately, lies somewhere in between. The letter of clarification goes on to state that the author didn't believe everything she wrote, but was rather trying to outline the "conservative rationale" held by certain Americans. And furthermore, "The conception of the two simultaneous but opposing dialogues on national topics [was] intended to provide a forum for intellectual and political diversity, by giving equal space and weight to both political sides of any argument." But what she wrote symbolized the bulk of hatred that the minorities, in this instance, people in the GLBTQ community, have had to deal with. Even if the author claims not to hold the views she talked about, she is still embodying them. This had the ill effect of making it appear that there might be a group of people on campus who held anti-gay views, and the way her piece was written, possibly people on campus who equated homosexuals as less than human.

In the end it appeared that the author didn't actually "mean" anything she had written, and that the gay community on Colgate's campus, therefore, had little to react against. However, this event only helped to convince the gay community that there is hatred, even at Colgate, a liberal arts college. It may have been meant as a harmless analysis of the conservative view on keeping gay marriage illegal, but it in fact helped to make many people feel unwanted and uncomfortable in the place they must spend so much of their time.

But this unfortunate instance did was not the first. To find an earlier, more publicized conflict, we must look backwards ten days prior. The morning after the election of Barack Obama, an unfortunate user of the men's bathroom in Alumni stumbled upon some unbelievably racist, and incredibly graphic, graffiti. That afternoon e-mails were flying around from the administration, student groups, even RAs, with the lay down, the pictures, their condemnation, and their attempts to offer comfort.

And then there was nothing. For an entire week people gossiped about the incident, but nothing monumental was done. It was as if no one in power really cared about the issue.

And then there was everything—a Speak Out, a Solidarity Event, and a Unity March. It was as if the school's administration and student groups finally realized they should care about attacks against minority students. That initial delay concerned many. "They should have done something immediately," and "They only cared about their reputation—that's why they finally did something; if this got out into the public's consciousness, applications and donations would plummet," were some of the big complaints I fielded in the aftermath. But why the administration did what it did is not our focus. Our focus is on the students. Although the administration greatly controls, and can dissipate or fuel growing tensions, whether or not the school enters into fighting is entirely up to the students.

The response of students to these events was overwhelming. The Solidarity Event in the Chapel packed more people than the passionately attended biannual Dancefest (Figure 1)⁶. Likewise, the diversity did not differ drastically from the actual statistics of the school. White, black, and all the shades in between were there together, representing approximately 25%⁷ of the school. This event had four purposes: first, to show the administration attacking racial injustice, second, to increase awareness of the racial injustice that had occurred, and third, to reaffirm that the school was unified against racial injustice. But perhaps the most important reason for the event may have been to ease tensions among anxious minority students. As we have seen already, being attacked leads to the assumption that everyone is attacking you. And this was a widely held belief after the racist graffiti scandal. As one of my black friends wrote in a Facebook note, "There's been talk that people don't feel safe anymore and are willing to transfer if something isn't … done. I can understand that, who would want to stay around in a school where your own peers don't even respect you?"⁸

Figure 1: The Chapel Overflows with Solidarity

The week of nothing between injustice and action was filled with gossip—but also an almost unbelievable amount of apathy on the part of non-black students. It is my belief that this apathy appeared very negative to black students which lead to further tension and an assumption that they were being attacked. But this apathy was not necessarily in place because everyone agreed with the perpetrator of the racist graffiti, but because of natural psychological reasons.

The apathy on campus wasn't just hateful apathy. It was a biased assimilation of available information. Also known as selectivity, biased assimilation of information consists of three parts⁹. The first is exposure. Everyone at Colgate was exposed to what happened in some form, whether they were the person to see it themselves, or if they read about it in the news or via e-mail, or were told about it from friends. The second part is attention. Whether or not someone paid attention to their e-mail or their friends would determine how greatly they reacted. However, it is my belief that black students in particular would pay attention to gossip and their e-mails much more if the words "racism", "nigger", and "lynching" were involved, because these are things that affect us more than our white counterparts. The third part in selectivity is interpretation, and here white students and black students face the greatest amount of division. My interpretation of the event was that there was at least one really racist person hanging around the campus, but I firmly believed that it couldn't be anyone attending Colgate¹⁰. Or at least I hoped and prayed that was the case. Depending on past experiences, however, students of color might have seen this differently. I had no past experiences, and so my interpretation wasn't terribly fearful. However, after the event, I did notice a change in my sensitivity to everyday things. In conversation, if anyone said anything remotely off color, I would immediately attack them, then try to play it off with nervous laughter.

Whether interpretations are positive or negative has very much to do with cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance
states that people avoid information that conflicts with their world view¹¹. The Colgate Campus Climate Report published by Dr. Reid, a Colgate Professor, in 2003, showed that when polled African-American students perceived more negative campus, racial, and academic climates than their white peers¹². An actual racist event against black students would cause an even greater divide in these numbers. Students who view the school as peachy keen would toss aside the incident. But students who viewed the school as already tense would see this as a validation of those perceptions. And this second group of students was predominantly black.

So were white students aggressively apathetic? I say no, because when given the opportunity, they showed their support for unity, not against it. They might not find racist graffiti as aggravating or fear-inducing as their black counterparts—but that's because they are not directly affected by it.

I have tried to prove that there is no culture war on campus, but just because there isn't does not mean that the people on campus who see tensions day in day out are overreacting and their opinions aren't valid. There is clearly an issue, or hateful things would never be said, written, or thought. The Solidarity Event was, to quote my black friend again, "a time to talk out and make people aware of the racism that was still around and especially in Colgate. As one student speaker put it, Colgate is portrayed as a 'postcard' college and [was] right when he [said] that's not the case and people have to be made aware of that in order for them to change."⁸ Something must be done to assure Colgate students, prospective Colgate students, and the general public, that Colgate is as diverse as it actually is. This cannot be done simply be sprinkling Colgate publications with pictures of minorities. The biggest disservice Colgate can do to its students is to not care about the image it projects. Right now, within the school, minority students feel like they are being attacked. Colgate is seen as only taking in a very selective and very homogeneous student body that is hostile to the few minorities that manage to get accepted. The truth is far different from that. Although the school is settled within a part of the country which is 90% white¹³, Colgate does not actively rid itself of diversity. But we must do more. Staging a solidarity event after the hate crimes in November is the least we could do. We must not simply react when tensions result in hateful activities, but we must constantly prevent such things from occurring by presenting better images and more open communication. We all must ask why foreign food nights at Frank generally suck? Why is ALANA out of sight at the far side of the campus? Why can't there be more interactions between religious and ethnic club activities? Why are there no black fraternities/sororities on campus? And once we're done asking, we must act.

The only way our school can make the jump from tense to friendly is by projecting an image of unforced, integrated diversity. Once this is applied, I believe that everyone, black or white, rich or poor, gay, bisexual, or straight, will feel more at home at the institution where they sleep, eat, and study for eight months out of the year, and attend for four years out of their lives.

References and Author's Notes

1. Fiorina, Morris P., and Matthew S. Levendusky. The Political Class versus The People. Vol. 1. Eds. Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2006. 2 vols. 51-2
   
2. Offner, Olivia. "Being Right – Love is Not Enough." The Colgate Maroon-News 14 Nov. 2008. 23 Feb. 2009 http://media.www.maroon-news.com/media/storage/paper742/news/2008/11/14/Commentary/Being.Right.Love.Is.Not.Enough-3544937.shtml
   
3. College Profiles. 12 Aug. 2008. 16 Feb. 2009 http://www.collegeprofiles.com/colgate.html
   
4. Minckler, David . "U.S. Minority Population Continues to Grow" America.gov. 14 May 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-english/2008/May/20080513175840zjsredna0.1815607.html
   
5. Offner, Olivia, and Vanessa Persico. "Editors' Column - Being Clear." The Colgate Maroon-News 21 Nov. 2008. 23 Feb. 2009 http://media.www.maroon-news.com/media/storage/paper742/news/2008/11/21/Commentary/Editors.Column.Being.Clear-3557589.shtml)#cp_article_tools
   
6. 2008. Colgate University, Hamilton. 27 Feb. 2009 http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1.aspx?tabid=4085
   
7. This percentage was found by taking the seating capacity of the Chapel divided by the total student body population. It is, due to the crowdedness of the Chapel, an underestimate.
   
8. Black opinion courtesy of Lauryn McNair, Colgate 2012.
   
9. Murtz, Diana C. How The Mass Media Divide Us. Vol. 1. Eds. Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2006. 2 vols. 224-25
   
10. I was later attacked on this point because it showed my bias against poor white people who populate the rural New York area around campus.
    
11. Festinger, Leon. Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964.
    
12. Reid, Landon D., and Phanikiran Radhakrishnan. Race Matters: The Relation Between Race and General Campus Climate . Educational Publishing Foundation , 2003.
    
13. US Census Bureau. 27 Feb. 2009 http://factfinder.census.gov/