For my ethnic/diversity community event, I chose to attend the "Doing 'Diversity:' Making It or Faking It?" conference about diversity within the CCA community. (I had also attended the Tim Wise lecture but was so enthralled by his humor and presence that I failed to take many notes!)
I caught the opening remarks by Melinda de Jesus, the Diversity Studies Faculty Roundtable, and the "Integrating Diversity Studies at CCA" Roundtable that included administrators and faculty. Due to scheduling conflicts, I was unable to stay for the discussion that I thought would be most relevant: the thoughts and presentations of fellow students.
During the opening remarks, I learned that Diversity Studies started at CCA after the inclusion of a Black Studies program and Black Arts minor at the college in 1978. It was never fully explored and no one quite knew the answer as to why CCA no longer offers Black Studies programs or Black Arts studio classes anymore. Other faculty members expressed concern about this invisible history as well. I think it's a valid question and one that should be explored.
During the first two hours, ten Diversity Studies faculty members presented their work and education to the audience.
Tressa Berman explored diversity and artistic citizenship and defined diversity as "creating environments characterized by equal access, parity, and equity."
Claudia Bernardi presented her work with Central and South American communities affected by political strife and human rights violations. She discussed the role of art in these communities and how they contribute to the diplomatic process. I understood that she was very sensitive the needs of each community and later found out that this was due to her own history of subjugation in Argentina.
Lauren Elder collaborates with performance artists to make location-based work dealing with public housing and schools.
Guillermo Galindo uses music in time-based performances and teaches a postwar music class. He mentioned that he is also the only minority to teach of primarily technology-driven class. (Which is really interesting because when I think back to my studio classes dealing with technology, I had one white professor and one Asian professor, both men.)
Amana Harris was the only faculty member that is also a CCA alum. She shared her frustrations as being a minority as both a student and instructor. In her classes, she divulged that there was a lot of contention felt by primarily white students over being "forced" to meet required diversity studies courses. I could feel her anger and confusion and empathized. As a white student taking required diversity studies courses, I understand the frustrations of these fellow students that want to focus on their studio classes but I find their anger unwarranted. I think that diversity studies seminars and studios can help students explore these issues in their studio work. When I interviewed Claudia Bernardi she expressed surprise over the lack of knowledge that some of her students have about the world around them. I think that in order to be a successful artist (in any discipline), it's important to be aware of the world.
Taraneh Hemami presented her work with the Iranian community. She collected stories about Iranian immigrants after the revolution and mentioned that she started her project after 9/11 and was, thus, met with suspicion over her goals for the project. The work that she showed was incredibly beautiful and poignant. It made me long to be in the gallery with the work in order to devote more time to each individual story or collection of photographs.
Devorah Major is a poet that wants to explore forms of resistance in her work. I found her presentation inspiring due to her strong presence and constant raising of valid questions. She was also a major voice during the faculty roundtable.
Lydia Nakashima de Garrod is a visual artist interested in social justice. She spoke of several different projects with victims of violence.
Parisa Parnian spoke about the intersectionality in her life as an Iranian queer woman. During her education at Parsons in New York, she suggested asexual clothing and was shot down as being too "transgressive." She currently teaches a class at the San Francisco campus called "Alternative Bodies" for designers and architects. The projects currently in progress in the class include a house for little people and their "standard" size children and maternity wear for butch women.
Celia Rodriquez spoke of installation and performance pieces about the Chicano/a experience, especially regarding the migration of Chicanos and the indigenous people of Mexico.
At the end of the presentations, all the faculty members gathered for a short roundtable discussion about diversity studies in the CCA curriculum. One member mentioned the idea of "both/and" meaning that there should be both professors of color in each artistic discipline as well as in diversity studies. A peculiar challenge was the integration of diversity issues in the design programs such as: interior, graphic, and fashion.
After the break, faculty members and administration met for a Roundtable entitled "Integrating Diversity Studies at CCA: Challenges and Initiatives." Mark Breitenberg, the Provost of CCA mentioned the recent racially charged events at UC campuses in Merced and San Diego. He also dismissed the notions of a "colorblind" or post-racial society. He mentioned 4 important reasons to devote the school to diversity: 1. provide a reflection to the world we live in 2. pedagogical 3. pragmatic (especially in design) 4. ethical.
After Breitenberg spoke, the rest of the faculty and administration had a moment to speak about the ways they are each addressing diversity. It was strange that all the faculty and administrative members were white. Could that speak about the lack of diversity within the faculty and administration?
Ila Berman, the architecture chair, provided some great points for the discussion and how the issues of race, culture, and gender are explored in the architecture program. But, the more practical forms of architecture affect everyone. How a city is planned, how a public building functions, these have larger social implications. She focused part of the discussion on the lack of diversity within the student body and addressed the socioeconomic factors that factor into a student's decision to attend CCA. Another problem for the marginalization of diversity studies by students is the existence of these courses "outside" of major coursework.
Mel Corn, the Associate Provost provided statistics on the student body and faculty. The final tally? The faculty is 72% white. During a Q&A session with the roundtable, Devorah Major questioned this statistic even further. What would happen to this percentage if the professors in diversity studies were removed? Who would remain? What would happen if we added up all the professors with tenure? Would any people of color remain on that list? These are valid questions that need to be asked and during the conference, we all found that there are no easy answers for this question.
Unfortunately, I had to leave before witnessing presentations by my fellow students. The issue at CCA is a divisive one and I don't know of any simple answers. Through my course work with the History of US People of Color, I can understand the plight of the faculty and students trying to change the status quo at CCA. I have heard fellow students talking about some of the course requirements for diversity studies in a similar manner and it really surprised me. How can my intelligent friends at CCA not think that learning about these issues matter? That these issues have been magically resolved? It's frustrating and I find myself unable to change their minds. I really wish that there had been a bigger audience at the conference because the people that were not in the audience were the ones that needed to be there the most!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Week 13 Reading Response
The four readings for this week were (mostly) all about interracial L-O-V-E, from varying perspectives.
The first reading was "Discovering Racial Borders" by Heather M. Dalmage. In this essay, Dalmage talks about the way that color lines are "policed" in order to keep interracial relationships from happening and flourishing. And how interracial couples fight back against this policing by family and friends. Dalmage pointed out that the people watching the dissenters between the color line can be black or white but each person brings a "different historical and social perspective." Most white "border patrolling" (this metaphor is so apt!) want to keep white friends and family in line in order to protect the "purity" of the white race. I like that Dalmage doesn't gloss over the issues of gender that come into play when talking about interracial heterosexual marriage. She provides different scenarios (white-wife and black-husband, black-wife and white-husband) and perspectives from each gender. White women that marry black men, she mentions at one point, are seen as "bad or bizarre" or otherwise seduced by the stereotype of the sexually dominant black man.
Throughout all the readings, the issues of power and privilege played a tremendous role in the feelings of betrayal by family members and friends. Cultural closeness of people of the same race was also an important issue. Of the black men interviewed by Dalmage, they mentioned being seen as forsaking their race by the transgression of marrying a white woman.
Frank Wu tackles the issue of interracial marriage from a predominantly Asian perspective in "The Changing Face of America." In his essay, Wu explores the interracial marriage rates for Asian Americans and the tendency to overlook race when speaking of an interracial Asian-white couple due to the "passing" of Asian-Americans. Wu provides the historical struggle for legalized interracial marriage. During the Civil Rights era, Wu notes, interracial marriage struggle was relegated to white-black marriages. When speaking of interracial marriages between whites and Asians, Wu states, "Whites are much more likely to marry Asian Americans than African Americans. The Asian American intermarriage rate is triple the African American rate." Wu explains this discrepancy by theorizing that Asian Americans "marry up" and that a white spouse is seen as a form of moving up in the social and class structure of the United States. For an Asian American to marry an African American, by this logic, would be a step down. The gender mix of Asian American-white couples consists of a white husband and an Asian American wife.
Wu discusses the issue of "passing" and that there is only one race that other races wish to pass as: white. "People who are white rarely try to disguise themselves as people of color and would have few reasons to do so." He provides Keanu Reeves and Tiger Woods as examples of mixed race Asians that can either "pass" or not. Keanu can pass since he is half white, Tiger cannot since he is half black. Despite Woods' lineage, he is still seen as a black man. After Fuzzy Zoeller insulted him, Wu says, "When he looks at Woods he sees race; he sees blackness." The "blackness" overrides anything else and comes back to the antiquated "one drop" rule. Woods has to constantly talk about himself in terms of race, while Reeves doesn't because he "passes" as a white man. Wu calls Reeves a "closeted Asian American."
In closing, after an examination of the mixed race movement, it is said "Race may be fictional, but racism is real." And still difficult to talk about.
Maria Root offers the "Ten Truths of Interracial Marriage" and specifically talks about love in her final paragraphs of the essay. She explores the differences between families that embrace interracial marriages of other family members and those that don't. She, like, Dalmage explores the intersections of race and gender that come together in an interracial marriage. "The strongest objections still pertain to black-white marriage." This may be due to the ability for other races to "pass" whereas blacks can never be seen as white. Root maintains that authority and privilege play integral roles in the acceptance or dismissal of interracial marriage. She also argues that interracial marriages may help give an understanding of male or white privilege to each spouse and that this can lead to a flexibility in gender roles and redefinition of attractiveness (these all being good things). The "Ten Truths about Interracial Marriage" are then listed. These include, financial independence of women have led them to choose their mates without family approval, love and values compel an interracial couple to marry, interracial couples may replace estranged blood kin with a fictive family of friends, and conflicts within interracial marriages are more likely to arise from cultural, gender, class, social, and personal differences than from racial ones.
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a Pew Research Center report on mixed-race marriage. 22% of Americans have a relative in a mixed-race marriage according to their findings. The surprisings were pretty standard: younger people are more accepting of mixed-race relationships than older people, blacks and Hispanics are more supportive of mixed-race relationships than whites, and people in Western states are more supportive of mixed-race relationships since there are higher percentages of Asian-Americans, American Indians, and multi-race Americans living in western states.
The first reading was "Discovering Racial Borders" by Heather M. Dalmage. In this essay, Dalmage talks about the way that color lines are "policed" in order to keep interracial relationships from happening and flourishing. And how interracial couples fight back against this policing by family and friends. Dalmage pointed out that the people watching the dissenters between the color line can be black or white but each person brings a "different historical and social perspective." Most white "border patrolling" (this metaphor is so apt!) want to keep white friends and family in line in order to protect the "purity" of the white race. I like that Dalmage doesn't gloss over the issues of gender that come into play when talking about interracial heterosexual marriage. She provides different scenarios (white-wife and black-husband, black-wife and white-husband) and perspectives from each gender. White women that marry black men, she mentions at one point, are seen as "bad or bizarre" or otherwise seduced by the stereotype of the sexually dominant black man.
Throughout all the readings, the issues of power and privilege played a tremendous role in the feelings of betrayal by family members and friends. Cultural closeness of people of the same race was also an important issue. Of the black men interviewed by Dalmage, they mentioned being seen as forsaking their race by the transgression of marrying a white woman.
Frank Wu tackles the issue of interracial marriage from a predominantly Asian perspective in "The Changing Face of America." In his essay, Wu explores the interracial marriage rates for Asian Americans and the tendency to overlook race when speaking of an interracial Asian-white couple due to the "passing" of Asian-Americans. Wu provides the historical struggle for legalized interracial marriage. During the Civil Rights era, Wu notes, interracial marriage struggle was relegated to white-black marriages. When speaking of interracial marriages between whites and Asians, Wu states, "Whites are much more likely to marry Asian Americans than African Americans. The Asian American intermarriage rate is triple the African American rate." Wu explains this discrepancy by theorizing that Asian Americans "marry up" and that a white spouse is seen as a form of moving up in the social and class structure of the United States. For an Asian American to marry an African American, by this logic, would be a step down. The gender mix of Asian American-white couples consists of a white husband and an Asian American wife.
Wu discusses the issue of "passing" and that there is only one race that other races wish to pass as: white. "People who are white rarely try to disguise themselves as people of color and would have few reasons to do so." He provides Keanu Reeves and Tiger Woods as examples of mixed race Asians that can either "pass" or not. Keanu can pass since he is half white, Tiger cannot since he is half black. Despite Woods' lineage, he is still seen as a black man. After Fuzzy Zoeller insulted him, Wu says, "When he looks at Woods he sees race; he sees blackness." The "blackness" overrides anything else and comes back to the antiquated "one drop" rule. Woods has to constantly talk about himself in terms of race, while Reeves doesn't because he "passes" as a white man. Wu calls Reeves a "closeted Asian American."
In closing, after an examination of the mixed race movement, it is said "Race may be fictional, but racism is real." And still difficult to talk about.
Maria Root offers the "Ten Truths of Interracial Marriage" and specifically talks about love in her final paragraphs of the essay. She explores the differences between families that embrace interracial marriages of other family members and those that don't. She, like, Dalmage explores the intersections of race and gender that come together in an interracial marriage. "The strongest objections still pertain to black-white marriage." This may be due to the ability for other races to "pass" whereas blacks can never be seen as white. Root maintains that authority and privilege play integral roles in the acceptance or dismissal of interracial marriage. She also argues that interracial marriages may help give an understanding of male or white privilege to each spouse and that this can lead to a flexibility in gender roles and redefinition of attractiveness (these all being good things). The "Ten Truths about Interracial Marriage" are then listed. These include, financial independence of women have led them to choose their mates without family approval, love and values compel an interracial couple to marry, interracial couples may replace estranged blood kin with a fictive family of friends, and conflicts within interracial marriages are more likely to arise from cultural, gender, class, social, and personal differences than from racial ones.
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a Pew Research Center report on mixed-race marriage. 22% of Americans have a relative in a mixed-race marriage according to their findings. The surprisings were pretty standard: younger people are more accepting of mixed-race relationships than older people, blacks and Hispanics are more supportive of mixed-race relationships than whites, and people in Western states are more supportive of mixed-race relationships since there are higher percentages of Asian-Americans, American Indians, and multi-race Americans living in western states.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Week 12 Reading Response
This week, we read Audre Lorde's comment that was made during "The Personal and the Political" Panel in 1979. The comment is titled "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House."
In her acknowledgment of being the only black lesbian on the panel, Lorde makes valid comments on feminist theory in 1979 and its ignorance of the differences in race, sexuality, class, and age between women that participated in the panel. She laments the lack of voices being heard from poor women, women of color, and lesbians. The article does not provide an account of the audience reaction so I don't know how the audience responded to Lorde's comments but I think that her observation was completely spot-on. The second-wave feminism's rallying call was "The Personal is Political," and Lorde acknowledged the lack of support for "differences" between the women participating on the panel. She states, "advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives." Lorde then explains that the differences between feminists is what gives them strength. She insists that individual differences give each of them power.
I thought that this reading was really powerful and I could not help but compare it to my life and my involvement with different aspects of feminism. During high school, I was involved in the "Riot Grrrl" movement, a punk feminist movement directed at empowering young women. Within the small community, we attempted to address the diversity within our small group. Bands wrote songs about the lack of racial diversity in the punk scene, in general, as well as addressing the differences between class, sexuality, abilities, and size of those belonging in the community. I felt incredibly empowered during my involvement with this group, but I wonder if I would have felt that sense of belonging if I were not white. I had two Chicana friends that wrote a zine about their experiences within the mostly-white scene and their feelings of being "outsiders."
Another experience that I recall during this reading happened during my first semester of community college. I was attending a large college in Orange County and it was one of the first weeks into the semester. During a conversation in my Women's Studies class (consisting of mostly white women and a token dude), there was some contention over the material that covered the lesbian experience. One particularly vocal and immature woman actually questioned the validity of learning about the experiences of these women. Calmly, my professor replied, "We cover the experiences of lesbian women because they are women and we are in a Women's Studies class. We want to gain knowledge about the lives of all women." To this day, I recount that story because it seems so incredible that there would be any question regarding the lesbian or queer experience in a Women's Studies course!
Back to Lourde's comments...
She makes a compelling argument acknowledging the weaknesses of assimilation techniques for gaining acceptance within the larger society. Lourde encourages women that are "different," whether they be poor, black, older, or lesbian, to turn these "disadvantages" into strengths. Warning that the feminist movement of the late '70s was racist, Lourde insisted on a "define and empower" strategy rather than the "divide and conquer" one of the patriarchy.
Lourde compared women having to educate men on the patriarchal oppression to having women of color having to education white feminists on their ignorance. It is time that the "personal" in the slogan encompasses the personal experience of all women. And only then, will the personal become political and an impetus for lasting change.
In her acknowledgment of being the only black lesbian on the panel, Lorde makes valid comments on feminist theory in 1979 and its ignorance of the differences in race, sexuality, class, and age between women that participated in the panel. She laments the lack of voices being heard from poor women, women of color, and lesbians. The article does not provide an account of the audience reaction so I don't know how the audience responded to Lorde's comments but I think that her observation was completely spot-on. The second-wave feminism's rallying call was "The Personal is Political," and Lorde acknowledged the lack of support for "differences" between the women participating on the panel. She states, "advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives." Lorde then explains that the differences between feminists is what gives them strength. She insists that individual differences give each of them power.
I thought that this reading was really powerful and I could not help but compare it to my life and my involvement with different aspects of feminism. During high school, I was involved in the "Riot Grrrl" movement, a punk feminist movement directed at empowering young women. Within the small community, we attempted to address the diversity within our small group. Bands wrote songs about the lack of racial diversity in the punk scene, in general, as well as addressing the differences between class, sexuality, abilities, and size of those belonging in the community. I felt incredibly empowered during my involvement with this group, but I wonder if I would have felt that sense of belonging if I were not white. I had two Chicana friends that wrote a zine about their experiences within the mostly-white scene and their feelings of being "outsiders."
Another experience that I recall during this reading happened during my first semester of community college. I was attending a large college in Orange County and it was one of the first weeks into the semester. During a conversation in my Women's Studies class (consisting of mostly white women and a token dude), there was some contention over the material that covered the lesbian experience. One particularly vocal and immature woman actually questioned the validity of learning about the experiences of these women. Calmly, my professor replied, "We cover the experiences of lesbian women because they are women and we are in a Women's Studies class. We want to gain knowledge about the lives of all women." To this day, I recount that story because it seems so incredible that there would be any question regarding the lesbian or queer experience in a Women's Studies course!
Back to Lourde's comments...
She makes a compelling argument acknowledging the weaknesses of assimilation techniques for gaining acceptance within the larger society. Lourde encourages women that are "different," whether they be poor, black, older, or lesbian, to turn these "disadvantages" into strengths. Warning that the feminist movement of the late '70s was racist, Lourde insisted on a "define and empower" strategy rather than the "divide and conquer" one of the patriarchy.
Lourde compared women having to educate men on the patriarchal oppression to having women of color having to education white feminists on their ignorance. It is time that the "personal" in the slogan encompasses the personal experience of all women. And only then, will the personal become political and an impetus for lasting change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
