Student Protest and Multicultural Reform

Abstract

Introduction mid-1990s saw release of two films, PCU and Higher Learning, both of which relied heavily on stereotypes of contemporary activists and their corruption of academy through what has often been described as correctness. In both of these films message is clear: university of 1990s is besieged by students who have replaced dispassionate and objective pursuit of knowledge with political correctness and identity politics. Unfortunately, simplistic treatment of contemporary students is not left entirely to film industry. Sacks (1996), in his book Generation Goes to College, assails postmodern Balkanization of knowledge and power in which students are part of a broadside attack on modern institutions (p. 141). For Sacks, postmodern student is one who knows value of learning but expects to be entertained. He has a keen sense of entitlement but little motivation to succeed. That is essence of Generation X (p. xiii). criticism of contemporary students has by no means been limited to popular media, for attack has been waged on a variety of intellectual fronts as well. For example, D'Souza (1991) assailed campus identity politics for, in his words, supporting the victim's revolution. Likewise, Schlesinger (1992) attacked what he described as of for rejecting the unifying vision of individuals from all nations melted into a new (p. 16). For Schlesinger and D'Souza, as well as other notables such as Lynne Cheney and William Bennett, identity politics of 1990s threatens foundation of a common national identity. In Schlesinger's words, It belittles unum and glorifies pluribus (p. 17). Moreover, activists engaging in identity politics are often described as a threat to very fabric that holds United States together, as Schlesinger maintained: The cult of ethnicity has reversed movement of American history, producing a nation of minorities - or at least of minority spokesmen - less interested in joining with majority in common endeavor than in declaring their alienation from an oppressive, white, patriarchal, racist, sexist, classist society (p. 112). All of this is to suggest that perceptions of fragmentation of academy as a consequence of campus multicultural initiatives during early and mid-1990s had achieved near mythical proportion despite strong evidence suggesting otherwise. For example, Astin (1993a) discussed findings from a national study, part of which focused on outcomes associated with institutional commitment to multiculturalism: The fact that a strong emphasis on diversity enhances student's commitment to promoting racial understanding is of special interest, given that some critics have alleged that emphasizing issues of race and multiculturalism tends to exacerbate racial tensions on campus. Quite opposite seems to be case (p. 46). Resistance to multiculturalism, however, is not limited to voices from Right. Attacks also derive from liberal-leaning social critics who have grown impatient and mistrustful of what they see on today's campuses. Perhaps most astute criticism derives from Gitlin (1995), who, interestingly enough, was one of young Leftists contributing to rise of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) back in early 1960s. Now a professor at NYU, Gitlin has adopted more of a centrist position in his criticism of identity politics and multiculturalism. Though Gitlin assuredly agrees with democratic vision of educational opportunity for all, he sees identity politics as a detour and a new kind of orthodoxy enforced through institutional policies. Gitlin's apprehension largely concerns breakup of Left: The cultivation of difference is nothing new, but sheer profusion of identities that claim separate political standing today is unprecedented. …