FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Ethnic Studies and Me

by RYAN MORGAN

I’m a white guy from Denver who transferred to Hunter College, in NYC, intending to major in Latin American and Caribbean Studies. In my second semester here, I changed my major to AFPRL—Africana, Puerto Rican, and Latino Studies. That decision has been met in many cases with, if not hostility, certainly skepticism. I usually encounter that skepticism (or sometimes just outright surprise) during the introduce-yourself segment of the first day of class. “Yes, my name is Ryan Morgan; I’m a junior here at Hunter; I’m taking this class because I’m really interested in the subject, and my major is AFPRL.”

Students and faculty don’t typically ask the question, but I see it on their faces—why would you be doing that? Often I get raised eyebrows and an “oh, really? Huh.” I find myself defending my choice to people I know inside and outside of school. Not because they attack it, but because they register such surprise. I’ve taken to responding to their doubts without being asked, because I think the answer to the question of why I would do this is important. And I’d like to explain it.

It starts with the politically unstable ground on which ethnic studies programs in the United States currently stand. The stated reason for the attacks on these programs—that ethnic studies programs are divisive, or encourage ethnic pride over American pride— whatever that means—strikes me as absurd on its face. It suggests that Black Studies are only of interest to Black people, that Puerto Rican Studies are only of interest to Puerto Ricans, and that, accordingly, they encourage disunity. That idea is fundamentally wrong. The question for me was what I could do to refute it. And though it may not be much in the grand scheme of things, one thing I realized I could do is be a statistic in the other direction—a tally mark that says these areas of study are, in fact, of interest to white people and to others who don’t match the ethnic identities delineated in the program names. I could be a tally mark that says, no, Black philosophy is American philosophy, and human philosophy, and Puerto Rican literature is American literature, and human literature.

The point seems so obvious that it’s disheartening that the current political environment merits making it. But this is how I’ve chosen to make it—by making my academic career a counter-point.

This political argument isn’t my only motivation; it may not even be my main motivation. More important, perhaps, is my basic philosophy about what getting an education is about. On a fundamental level, I reject the idea that college is simply a trade school for white-collar jobs.  I hold the archaic and naïve view that the purpose of higher education is to seek out voices and ideas outside the normal canon. And for someone like me, who is a member of the privileged class, it specifically means seeking out the sort of voices that are studied in ethnic studies programs—voices that are disenfranchised and marginalized. This isn’t about divisiveness; it’s about learning the silenced histories of marginalized groups. It’s about understanding the ethnic complexity of American society, and its richly textured history that stretches far beyond the traditionally-taught philosophies and stories of white men.

Critically, when it comes to marginalized voices, it isn’t just about Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael and Pedro Albizu Campos. In Arlene Dávila’s book Latino Spin, she explains how extremely qualified economists, historians, anthropologists, political scientists, and so on, have been moved out of their fields of expertise when they get academic jobs and into ethnic studies programs that match their own superficially-defined ethnic identities. They then enter a vortex wherein their work is considered less scholarly and legitimate, if it’s even read at all—after all, it’s published under an ethnic studies label, so it isn’t part of the mainstream of the social sciences. This perpetuates the marginalization of women and people of color, and the invaluable perspectives they could be adding to their fields. Some of the best work being done in the traditional social sciences is shelved differently, is categorized differently, because of this phenomenon.

What does this mean for me as a student? Once I knew this was happening, I couldn’t un-know it. And it inevitably became clear that by majoring in a more traditional discipline, the current scheme of things would ensure that I missed out on some of the brightest minds in that discipline—and that if I wanted to expose myself to those professors and their ideas, the best if not only way to do that was to take ethnic studies courses. It’s depressing to consider how many students overlook the courses offered by many of the best professors I’ve had at Hunter, and it’s especially depressing to reflect on the extent to which this happens throughout the American higher education system. It boils down to this: I would have missed out on nearly all the best and most important things I’ve learned at Hunter had I chosen to major in a more traditional discipline.

If I may return, briefly, to those tedious first-day-of-class introduction sessions. One question I do occasionally get asked is how did I, a 27-year-old white guy from Denver, end up at Hunter, of all places? Why not NYU, or the New School, or Columbia? My answer is that I was and am attracted to CUNY generally—and Hunter specifically—for historical, political, and theoretical reasons. I believe strongly in the vote-with-your-dollar idea, and an institution that has specifically sought to provide higher education to marginalized people is an institution I want to be a part of and support with my tuition.

More specifically, I am inspired by the genesis of what is now the AFPRL department at Hunter. It was forged in fire. It reflects a time when campuses were hotbeds of radical political activity, a time when students and faculty alike demanded to be heard and represented—demanded, in a sense, to get an education rather than just a degree. It has occurred to me that on a superficial level, I’m about four decades too late, and that some amount of institutional cynicism has set in. However, I’ve been justly accused in my life of being a hopeless idealist. So I believe even if I am four decades too late, in this small way, I can be a part of that. By enrolling in AFPRL, I can pay tribute to and show solidarity with the people who fought so hard to create the program and the people who, to this day and against long odds, fight to sustain it.

I realize, of course, that one student at one school isn’t going to stem the tide of anti-ethnic studies sentiment. But I do feel very strongly that if more white people exposed themselves to the ideas and social issues that AFPRL explores, they’d come away with a better understanding of the specific history and context of marginalized peoples, which could help promote social change.

I think if one considers everything that majoring in ethnic studies provides—the value of studying minority viewpoints, the access to otherwise marginalized writers, thinkers, and professors, and the political necessity of fighting both the bigotry that insists that ethnic studies programs are divisive and the other sort of bigotry that insists that they’re nevertheless where scholars of color belong—and if one considers that I’m not the only student in the city who is seeking an education rather than a degree, and that I’m not the only one attracted to CUNY for its radical political history—if one considers all that, then one should realize the question I get almost-asked is not the right one.

The question should not be, of me, why I would want to study that. The question should really be—why doesn’t everyone else?

Ryan Morgan is a senior at Hunter College, CUNY, who is majoring in Africana and Puerto Rican/Latino Studies, and minoring in Human Rights.

More articles by:
July 25, 2016
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
As the Election Turns: Trump the Anti-Neocon, Hillary the New Darling of the Neocons
Ted Rall
Hillary’s Strategy: Snub Liberal Democrats, Move Right to Nab Anti-Trump Republicans
William K. Black
Doubling Down on Wall Street: Hillary and Tim Kaine
Quincy Saul
Resurgent Mexico
Andy Thayer
Letter to a Bernie Activist
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan is Strengthened by the Failed Coup, But Turkey is the Loser
Robert Fisk
The Hypocrisies of Terror Talk
Lee Hall
Purloined Platitudes and Bipartisan Bunk: An Adjunct’s View
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of Collective Punishment: Russia, Doping and WADA
Nozomi Hayase
Cryptography as Democratic Weapon Against Demagoguery
Cesar Chelala
The Real Donald Trump
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Propaganda Machinery and State Surveillance of Muslim Children
Denis Conroy
Australia: Election Time Blues for Clones
Marjorie Cohn
Killing With Robots Increases Militarization of Police
David Swanson
RNC War Party, DNC War Makers
Eugene Schulman
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Nauman Sadiq
Imran Khan’s Faustian Bargain
Peter Breschard
Kaine the Weepy Executioner
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail