For some years educational institutions have been experiencing a fairly steady increase in the percentage of students who choose not to declare race. We had thought this trend might be modified by new census categories that allow multiple race identifications, but it has not.
Now the trend is affecting faculty, bigtime. This year about 200 of our roughly 1,400 full-time faculty are not reporting race (which means, among other things, that some who used to report have probably changed their minds). Opportunities to report two or more races are not widely pursued (grad assistants show slightly greater willingness, but not much). Admin faculty are even more reticent than regular faculty. Staff, however, are much readier to report—only 4% hold back.
I mention all this mainly because it’s so interesting, as a change in culture and possibly a political comment as well (though of what sort is hard to fathom). Conceivably it’s a “good thing,” in suggesting less racialized thinking, but it may also be a highly, if racial, quiet protest against diversity programs—interpretation is challenging.
But it also does complicate the lives of us foolish few who try to run universities. We really do want to improve our faculty diversity, and we know that we face steep challenges in the process. Our governing board, students and others recurrently ask why we’re not doing better than we are, and it must be admitted that progress in recent years, though measurable, has been quite slow.
The obvious fact is that our efforts to monitor results and assess our deficiencies will be increasingly complicated by lack of information, with 14% non-reports and rising. We can speculate about the racial composition of the non-reports—my own personal guess is that they’re mostly Caucasian but, for one reason or another, just don’t like the reporting notion—but the fact is that we’re by definition unsure. (It would be nice to assume disproportionate minority affiliation, but this would be unrealistically comforting.)
So we discuss whether there is anything we can or should do about the current trend. It’s surely a personal right not to disclose, and pressing harder might simply annoy those affected. It does make this already demanding aspect of our job more difficult— but I’ve never assumed that faculty place high value on easing administrative tasks. Possibly a fuller realization of the impediment the trend poses to the goal of diversity gains might change a few minds, which is one reason to venture this blog.
But mostly I report the interesting change in attitude, which has intriguingly moved up in age brackets from its inception among students themselves. And this returns us to the contemporary-history challenge of figuring out what the shift means, and what longer term impacts it might have. Opinions welcome.
Over time, I have evolved to the belief that racial identity is pointless, except possibly when genetics are useful in medicine. Most of my ancestors are Irish, with a few English and Germans (and probably some Scandinavians a millennium ago). When my English ancestor married an Irish woman in the 1700s it was a controversial “mixed marriage.” Who would notice now? My marriage to a Chinese woman would have been illegal in Virgina in the 1950s, is still strange in my home state of Kentucky, but is barely noticeable in Fairfax.
And our son? He’s not Chinese, Irish, or English. He’s human. I resent trying to put people in arbitrary boxes, and view racial categorization as being outdated and small-minded.
And racial diversity? It will happen naturally if we stop caring about race. After all, this is America. We can’t help racial diversity.
Racial identity no longer has the same exclusionary meaning it once had. Does knowing my racial heritage make me any less aware of my racial identity because its mixed? Absolutely not. The fact that I am less conscious of my race in NoVA than I am in Richmond has not made it “pointless” for me.
On the contrary, researchers indicate that it is common for educated, privileged individuals (of which faculty would qualify) to be more “open-minded” about race, but in a society where “Whiteness” is the “standard” that Caucasians are less likely to report their own race. One of the most fascinating theoretical frameworks from Critical Race Theory is “interest-convergence”; it posits that persons are less likely to be concerned with diversity initiatives if they cannot see the direct benefit to themselves. Therefore, I might argue that faculty who don’t report race are just as likely to not see diversity as specifically relevant to them as individuals as they are to be silently railing against such initiatives. The mere fact that there is a significant lack of racial parity among faculty is a reason to give the issue more than mere lip service. I call for more research into the issue.
Speaking of research–I have my hands on a ton that indicates that it race (and by extension gender, sexual preference, etc.) does matter to marginalized faculty and students. Research does show that underrepresented students are more likely to find mentors among those of their own race than among faculty of other races. By the year 2050, when the majority of the US population are persons of color, I believe we’ll be glad that higher education continued to be concerned with this issue to assist in maintaining parity for all Americans at every level.