A Protest, Ongoing
The Ethnic Studies Debate
Why is it that Columbia University needs an Ethnic Studies Curriculum? What were the students of 1996 fighting for when they asked for an ethnic studies department? What tactics were in use? This section deals with the three main issues that were up for debate during the struggle for the formation of an ethnic studies department at Columbia.
The Three Major Debates
Was the Method of the 1996 Protest Justified?
Throughout the confrontations between the administration and the Committee on Ethnic Studies and the Core Curriculum, there has always been a question: What is the "acceptable" way of pushing an administration to consider the demands of a small number of advocates? How much disobedience and disruption is necessary? How does one know when one "crosses the line"? Both students and administrators discuss the significance and repercussions of the tactics employed in the 1996 Ethnic Studies Protest - a hunger strike, sit-ins, mass rallies, and more. Ultimately, the students of 1996 Columbia debated: Is there an acceptable way of protest against an apathetic administration?
For
"[T]he use of formal channels instituted by the University to express our demands is futile and consequently require an alternative tactic for direct communication."
"...history teaches us that where change happened it was because students took direct action."
"the real violence lies in the arrest of students [in] the presence of police."
Contrary to what the dissenters said, peaceful method of engagement with the administration had been going on for the past three decades without success: a petition for an Asian American History course that garnered over a hundred signatures; a 150-page proposal for a Latino Studies track at Columbia; ping-ponging between individual department heads and the administration for authorization of new courses in ethnic studies. Throughout these efforts, activists were hitting a brick wall with asking the administration to consider ethnic studies through official channels. Escalation to direct action was a final resort to being heard. To the point that these tactics were disruptive - the purpose of sit-ins were precisely to create a disruption big enough for the administration to take notice. The media attention from the hunger strike or the low library arrests ultimately brought administrators to acknowledge the need for ethnic studies, hence proving its efficacy.
Furthermore, the overreaction of the administration was the most extreme tactic of all. Who was resorting to threats for their cause? Students were risking their health and academic goals to sit in class buildings; the administration was the one threatening for expulsion and NYPD arrests if proposals were not accepted.
Against
"...disturbed by the lack of patience [of protestors]"
"taking their movement in an extreme direction and threatening their cause [....] drastically depart[s] from a stance of positive discussion"
A persistent group of students and administrators described the April 1996 ethnic studies movement was “uncompromising,” “exclusive,” “impetuous,” “drastic,” and “too political.” They argued that there were more positive and peaceful ways of resolving the ethnic studies demands. They claimed that a curricular change requires more time and deliberation from the school; that the ethnic studies activists had to fight within the constraints of an institution if they wanted to be taken seriously.
Whereas most were indifferent about the less disruptive speak-outs and rallies, dissenters argued that a building occupation or a midnight rally at the President's House had been counterproductive and unnecessarily aggressive. Some claimed that in the process of criticizing the administration through such drastic tactics, ethnic studies activists alienated many who would have softened to the cause if offered a more "moderate" persuasion.
One alternative that was offered in opposition to the more "aggressive" tactics was to direct the pressure to other channels. Instead of tackling the president and deans, activists could reach out to Asian American, Latinx, and African American alumni to raise funds for an ethnic studies program.
Should Ethnic Studies be Considered a Discipline?
From as early as the 1960s, when west coast colleges were hurriedly initiating their program for the study of ethnic minorities, the discussion on whether ethnic studies fits in as an academic discipline has been a point of debate. How is Ethnic Studies different from the study of Asia, Latin America, or Africa? What is there to be studied and analyzed about the relatively short diasporic history of ethnic immigrants in the United States? What is, indeed, Ethnic Studies?
For
"Ethnic Studies is not just for a handful of students [...] it is a necessary educational component for all students."
"this sense of alienation is legitimized by [...] The Core, curricular exclusion [and] Columbia's contribution to the cultural supremacist legacy"
"Students [...] want to be taught the truth."
For the supporter of ethnic studies, the creation of Asian American, Latinx, African American and Native American studies was not a mere addition to Columbia's present education; it was an alternative safe space where the histories, cultures, and experiences of ethnic minorities in United States to be studied without the constraint of a Eurocentric curriculum and epistemology. To them, having ethnic studies was about "truth being taught in schools" to invite the censored perspectives to academia.
Ethnic Studies was by nature different from Asia Studies or Latin America Studies, because it deals with the diasporic experience of these ethnicities within the United States of America. Advocates contended that a token Asian American history course, or a Latin American literature course was neither a fundamental nor a lasting solution to the gaping hole in Columbia's current curriculum.
As a discipline, ethnic studies would definitely look different from other disciplines - but in a way that would expand the definitions of a traditional academic discipline: intersecting with history, gender, culture, language, and activism, it would not seek for "compartmentalization" of knowledge, just as any academic discipline that draws upon others for points of reference and inspiration.
Against
"Let us be realistic --- there have not been enough Asians and Latinos in America long enough to justify these majors."
"Asian Americans and Latinos will study themselves and the rest of us will remain unenlightened."
Especially during the early 1990s when the viability of studying racial minorities in the America was still up for debate, most dissenters to ethnic studies argued that there was not enough subject matter to warrant a concrete discipline. Some even went on to claim that the history of Asian American and Latinx immigrants was too short (only having begun in the 60s and 70s) to become a whole area of study - and that a relatively small university like Columbia could not offer classes in such a limited subject area.
Indeed, there were actual concerns that ethnic studies would not be able to produce the six minimum courses that make up a major/concentration requirement for undergraduates.
Another concern with having ethnic studies be assigned a separate area of study was that it would segregate the study of minority experience in America to a single discipline, instead of it being "shared" throughout existing disciplines like history, literature, or language.
Why is a Department for Ethnic Studies Needed?
One of the main clauses in the Ethnic Studies Manifesto from the Committee for Ethnic Studies and the Core Corriculum was establishing an ethnic studies department. The need for an ethnic studies department is debated - why is it important to create a new departmental home for ethnic studies? What difference does it make? Are there viable alternatives - or do they sacrifice the very values the discipline stands for?
For
“[P]lacing ethnic studies within the rubric of an American studies program [...] remov[es] the counter-hegemonic foundation of the ethnic studies program."
“Ethnic studies is more multi-dimensional than a root language.”
The Committee for Ethnic Studies and the Core Curriculum (leading group of ethnic studies protestors) made it clear that ethnic studies must be housed under an independent department. The logic behind ethnic studies was simple: students wanted an anti-Eurocentric, anti-hegemonic curricula in both content and form that focuses on people of color conceived in a different way from the current disciplines. Ethnic studies as an intellectual scholarship was "a fundamental and explicit challenge to mainstream scholarship" that needed to exist separate from status quo disciplines.
Advocates claimed that an “appeasement” scenario to host ethnic studies under American Studies or Area Studies does not meet that goal as both disciplines are still deeply rooted in the hegemonic framework of knowledge production and do not center the marginalized experience of minorities.
They also reasoned that a department is the only administrative structure that will ensure the hiring of leading scholars and a longevity and consistency in its course offerings. Merely borrowing adjunct faculty and courses from related departments would leave ethnic studies hugely undermined.
Against
"an ethnic-American studies department would be [...] far too specific."
"the entire point behind 'interdisciplinary' programs is that they borrow from the sundry disciplines..."
The administration, in response to the demands to create a department of ethnic studies, suggested hosting that same program under the umbrella of American Studies.
They claimed that ethnic studies will be able to retain its epistemological flexibility by not being restricted to a department. Ethnic studies' interdisciplinary nature - its contingency to race, ethnicity, gender, politics, and history - invites a similar interdisciplinary structure, admins argued.
Hence, there were offers to host Ethnic Studies under Area Studies, American Studies, or even their respective foreign language departments. However, they failed to respond to the concerns of underfunding and lack of faculty hiring power that only departments can access.
Concluding The Debates
Most of the debates around ethnic studies at Columbia cannot be classified into a clear-cut pro and con argument. But for an easier read on these issues, the main arguments are presented under the big categories of "for" and "against" despite their varying stances.
I chose not to include names of each quote or editorial in the website, as their purpose is not to incriminate or criticize individuals for their opinions, especially ones dated 25 years ago. Readers may, however, access the full article and its authors by referring to the specific dates assigned to each quote (above) from their archives.
The purpose of including this section is to provide readers of the context of the debates surrounding ethnic studies at Columbia University - perhaps these editorials give a sense of the understanding and political climate of the 1990s and beyond.