Not So Black and White: Finding Diversity Where We Least Expect It.

Introduction

No one debates the fact that college-going populations have changed over the past thirty years (c.f., Levine & Cureton, 1998); indeed, our students have become more diverse, and our institutions attempt to accommodate and incorporate the differences within our structures, our curricula, and our pedagogy. Multiculturalism, the rallying cry for those changes--or the death knell to "traditional" values, depending upon one's ideological stance--has become a term used so widely, yet so laden with emotional and contextual vagaries, that while we all might know it, we might not exactly be sure what it means. Or, more precisely, we might not understand how to utilize the concept, along with the changes within higher education, in our own educational practices. In community colleges in particular, themselves each responding to wide ranges of constituents and missions, we can see both the political hazards of misunderstanding multiculturalism and the potential to realize the concept of multicultural understanding and education.

In this essay, I attempt to answer (all too briefly) a series of complex questions. What is multiculturalism? Is it not inclusion? What are the goals of a multicultural education for college students? What can be done in rural or predominantly (or historically) monocultural campuses to foster an understanding of multiculturalism? Can multiculturalism be achieved in an environment that is not (apparently) diverse? To address these issues, I first review salient definitions of the theories and applications of multiculturalism. Next, I confront the very real dilemma of how to transform those theories into policies, practices and procedures; how can we use this to benefit our students' understandings of, and participation in, theft communities? How is multicultural theory connected to other theories of student development in higher education? Finally, I offer a concluding section on incorporating multiculturalism into "traditional" courses and disciplines, completing the transition of this essay from theory to practice.

Definitions of multiculturalism and multicultural theory

Multiculturalism is a most pervasive, yet widely under defined, term. It must be the academic equivalent of pornography: while we might not be able to define it, we know it when we see it. This attributional sense of definition permeates many of the definitions of multicultural theorists and strategists. As Bullivant points out, "[t]he most common description [of] multicultural ... implies the existence of many (multi-) cultures within one society" (1993, 41). What constitutes a culture within one society, however, is up for grabs.

Although Fleischacker (1996) defines culture based on mores and ethical ideals from one generation to another, I find his definition fairly traditional and linear. As Tierney (1990) delineates, there are four assumptions of critical perspective of understanding culture:

   First, culture is not necessarily understandable either to organizational
   participants or researchers. Since culture is an act of interpretation,
   what each person observes and interprets varies. A second, related
   assumption is that organizational actions are mediated by equifinal
   processes. That is, the construction of meaning does not imply that all
   individuals interpret reality similarly. Third, it is impossible to codify
   abstract reality. Fourth, culture is interpretive, a dialectical process of
   negotiation between the researcher and the researched (Tierney, 1990, 43).

I am also partial to Manning and Coleman-Boatwright's definition: "Cultures are formed from a confluence of history, past experience, human action, and tradition" (1991, 368), although I admit it is less concrete than Fleischacker's, and less comprehensive than Tierney's. If culture is an intersection between the concrete and the abstract, can multiculturalism--the combination of nexus of multiple intersections--be any easier to define?

With this duality of precision and imprecision, I approach application of these concepts to our educational practices carefully. One of the first steps to this is analyzing the multiple, overlapping cultures within higher education. Bensimon and Tierney (1992-93) state, "Multiculturalism is a complex set of relationships framed around issues of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and power" (1992-93, 5); they then go on to define it attributionally: "One of the struggles in multicultural organizations is to understand the commonalities and differences among under represented groups, and to develop an appreciation of how an understanding of these characteristics might create alliances for change" (1992-93, 5).

Apart from cultures, or multi-cultures, most theorists define multiculturalism by its ability to improve human communication and a person's ability to be an active part of a society that incorporates many cultures. "By `multiculturalism,'" writes Fleischacker, "I mean the project of encouraging people to get to know a variety of cultures rather than a single one, to stretch beyond the limitations of the traditions around them" (1996, 17). This, then, is the elastic yet useful definition that we can utilize in higher education, particularly to plan educational programs and practices in settings that are not apparently diverse. Consequently, multicultural theory directly bears upon how, what, and (most importantly) why we teach.

Moving Through Theory to Practice

The easiest response to multicultural theory is to equate it with inclusion: by increasing access to higher education for historically under-represented minorities, institutions would consequently create change on campus. That simply has not occurred. Mere inclusion is not enough to fulfill the needs highlighted by multicultural theory. And, in many instances, minority populations are not present, Should those predominantly monocultural campuses ignore these concepts? No, for multiculturalism is not an affirmative action in the legislative sense. It is, instead, a refinement of the traditional concept of civic education long held by higher education.

   Multicultural education is an education for functioning effectively in a
   pluralistic democratic society. Helping students to develop the knowledge,
   skills, and attitudes needed to participate in reflective civic action is
   one of its major goals. (Hill, 1994, 35)

This is the inherent contradiction of multiculturalism. Although Graft (1992) begins with a most simple definition of multiculturalism; to "learn about diverse cultures" (31), he contends that goal, in and of itself, is not enough. He later expounds:

   Multiculturalism is not a unitary construct, it is radically
   multidimensional. It means, to various individuals, the study of topics as
   disparate as the life of various ethnic groups, racial diversity, gender
   differences, international issues, non-Western cultures, cross-cultural
   methodologies, sexual preference, and the physically challenged. Faculties
   addressing this topic must work toward a clear definition (Graft, 1992,
   32).

No doubt we must. But I doubt we will ever find one, single definition; rather, the answers will be contextually based. An analysis of Santa Monica College, a community college serving the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, will highlight different student populations and needs than Olney Community College, a rural school in southern Illinois. Certainly more differing cultures appear present in Los Angeles County than in Richland County, but is multiculturalism delimited to inclusion of "others"--or, if inclusion is not possible, then "exposure"? Are not the goals of multiculturalism, the changes educators hope students will understand in their analysis of and participation in the world, more than "playing well with others" (pun intended)?

So, what are the qualities that distinguish multicultural education from other forms of civic education? Again, theorists have similar, yet definitely different, responses.

   Multicultural education is at least three things: an idea or concept, an
   educational reform movement, and a process. Multicultural education
   incorporates the idea that all students regardless of their gender and
   social class and their ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics should
   have an equal opportunity to learn in school. Another important idea in
   multicultural education is that some students, because of these
   characteristics, have a better chance to learn in schools as they are
   currently structured than do students who belong to other groups or have
   different cultural characteristics (Banks, 1993, 3).

Banks' assessment of the benefits of current educational settings echoes the work of postmodern educational critics, including Apple (1990, 1995), Giroux (1983, 1992), McLaren (1993, 1995), and Tierney (1993). Multiculturalism is thus clearly tied to postmodern notions of knowledge, particularly the sociology of knowledge, knowledge production, and knowledge reproduction. However, multicultural education would appear to attempt to enable students not only to see how knowledge is constructed, but how to analyze its construction and its use (Bensimon, 1994; Fleischaker, 1996). This skill is not relegated only to urban or suburban communities that might have larger and more diverse populations, but is just as valuable in rural (or monocultural) communities.

Banks identifies three dimensions of multicultural education: content integration, the process of constructing knowledge, and an equity pedagogy (Banks, 1993, 20). The latter dimensions build upon the work done in the former ones, and, consequently, the fulfillment of such an education becomes more complex and less easily defined, delivered, or assessed. Content integration pertains to how an instructor will utilize examples from differing cultures and groups when presenting disciplinary content. Adding (or changing) course materials to include minority experiences and/or viewpoints is, like physical inclusion, not enough to provide truly multicultural education. Knowledge construction processes are those in which "teachers help students to understand, investigate, and determine how the implicit cultural assumptions, frames of reference, perspectives, and biases within a discipline influence the ways in which knowledge is constructed within it" (Banks, 1993, 20). But without a commitment to the goals of multicultural education, to the notion of interpersonal development through different forms of social analysis, these beginning efforts are not, in and of themselves, entirely effective.

Banks' final dimension, equity pedagogy, requires a way to teach students to be self-reflexive and self-critical enough to understand how institutions in society prevent individuals and groups of people from participating equally within society; in addition, the students should learn, through this process, strategies for overcoming barriers against participation. Banks (1993) defines an equity pedagogy as one in which "teachers modify their teaching in ways that will facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, cultural, gender, and social-class groups," including using "a variety of teaching styles and approaches that are consistent with the wide range of learning styles within various cultural and ethnic groups" (Banks, 1993, 21).

Banks' components of multiculturalism clearly parallel the issues of student development theories, particularly the personal cognitive development theory Perry (1968, 1981) outlined. Perry's theory "portray[s] the basic differences in the primary modes of meaning making, along with an explanation of the deflections that can impede cognitive growth" for students (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, 131). Cognitive development is a process of moving from a dualistic notion ("us"/"them," "right"/"wrong") to a constructed view of (competing, multiple) realities, and then to a sense of relationship between one's ideas and one's commitments. Multiplicity, the middle forms (or event occurrences, since Perry's model is not linear) of the theory Perry characterizes "as honoring diverse views when the right answers are not yet known. [Consequently] All opinions are equally valid, from a multiplistic perspective, in such instances" (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, 131). The end forms involve the forging of commitments, both to one's self and to one's society; those commitments are based upon one's acceptance, understanding, and incorporation of multiple viewpoints into one's sense of self within society. Viewed in this tradition, the goals of multicultural education are not foreign to the traditional goals of higher education.

Bensimon and Soto (1997) also highlight the need of multicultural education to address one of the traditional educational outcomes of general education, civic understanding and responsibility: "A multiracial community requires citizens who 1) understand that their views of reality may not be identical to the reality of others and 2) possess cultural competence" (1997, 44). "Still," as Stark and Lattuca remind us, "when one speaks of multiculturalism on a college or university campus, the images that arise are usually connected to racial and ethnic issues" (1997, 346).

Difference, however, is not limited to race or ethnicity, though those might be the most visible or easily identified distinctions. Other obvious aspects to understand multiple cultures include gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, age, and physical abilities. Less noticeable dimensions of cultural difference include religion, family background (rural/urban/suburban), and educational background.

For community colleges, these aspects might provide the easiest ways to understand the concepts of multicultural differences. To return to rural institutions, like Olney Community College, where the student population is quite homogenous in terms of race and ethnicity, educators must find methods and exercises of self-examination required for an equity pedagogy. The concepts utilized by students to analyze and to understand difference is the same whether we begin with populations our students know or with those less familiar. Indeed, rather than objectifying the "other," we would begin with the "same," finding the distinctions within our own community.

To do this, if teaching to a predominantly Caucasian population, beginning with intrinsic and personal differences within the non-other (i.e., the dominant, Caucasian population of the students) might be a better route for understanding of the impact of difference and sameness, rather than starting with extrinsic and impersonal differences of "others."

   [T]here is enormous diversity among European Americans that is mirrored in
   the backgrounds of the teacher population, including diversity related to
   religion, social class, region, and ethnic origin. The diversity within
   European Americans is rarely discussed in the social science literature..,
   or within classrooms (Hill, 1994, 49).

I anticipate that at this point in my argument, if not before, colleagues might disagree with me, positing that the need for inclusion (admittedly an earlier dimension than equity pedagogies) is more pressing, more important, to higher education as a whole. Perhaps they are correct, but I feel I must make a confession: I grew up 17 miles from Olney Community College, in a rural farming community of less than one thousand residents. Classmates of mine would graduate high school having left the county only on school field trips. As an educator in training, I returned to my grade school, to my reading teacher's class. The students were reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and I spent an hour fielding questions like "Do you know any Black people?" and "What are Black people like?" There simply were (and still are) no students or community members of different ethnic or racial groups. But there is cultural difference, if we remember the broader and more challenging definitions of what culture is.

Those existing cultural differences are where we should start teaching, using the experiences our students have. Instead of lamenting a lack of exposure to other cultures, we should utilize the resources within our communities. Rather than placing multicultural education within the realm of armchair anthropology, we should take the opportunity to teach the skills and questions of analysis that could serve the student not only in understanding himself/herself better, but also in knowing how to explore and comprehend difference. Obviously, community college students in Los Angeles start in a different experiential realm than those in Olney, Illinois, but both sets of students can benefit from the pedagogical theories of multiculturalism.

How Would A Multicultural Pedagogy Work?

The debates over multiculturalism boil down to a battle over ideological pedagogy and curricular content. This runs counter to the idea (quietly inherent in multiculturalism) that education is about teaching to learn. Such education could be done in a multicultural manner, no matter what the content of the curriculum; special courses--or even "multicultural models" tacked onto existing classes are not necessary, although they might address student beliefs in quite direct manners (both cognitive and affective). The structure of instruction, the method of teaching not what to think but different, multiple ways of how to think, will allow students to learn how to communicate about difference, how to investigate new areas of knowledge, and how to understand others.

While there is no single (or comprehensive) method to address these outcomes, proponents of multicultural education often posit that such democratic goals be incorporated directly into curricular plans and course work. Again, the reason for this is to foster a critical, reflective student. Such goals mirror those of student development theories; indeed, the recognition and value of difference is a key issue in cognitive development. Graft writes that "[t]he purposes of these [cultural diversity] courses are to stimulate students to rethink their attitudes and beliefs about races and ethnic groups and to understand the sources and consequences of prejudice and discrimination in the United States" (1992, 34). Those purposes should be kept in mind when designing, and when assessing, curricular and procedural reform.

Several institutions' experiences in attempting curricular and campus policy reform around these tenants are insightful. Gabelnick (1997) discusses general education courses at Occidental College that address multicultural themes and multidisciplinary methods and approaches:

   In these classes and through their assignments, students study issues of
   race, gender, and class, as well as the social, political, and economic
   realities.... Engaging in difficult dialogues about race, class, and
   gender, they are learning a more complex view of civic responsibility and
   engagement that connects them vitally with our nation's most important
   issues (Gabelnick, 1997, 32).

Inclusion of culturally diverse viewpoints and persons is important, but inclusion alone is not sufficient. A reductionistic trap springs upon those who equate multiculturalism merely to the inclusion of diverse peoples in the curriculum.

The example Zita (1994) gives of the curricular reforms at the University of Minnesota demonstrates how the focus upon content over method has diminished the potential for multicultural education. In trying to legislate a diversity requirement,

   efforts were made to include every possible ethnic group, various class and
   regional communities, religious groups, gender cultures, gay and lesbian
   cultures, the aged, the differently abled, and other collectives under the
   category "U.S. Cultural Pluralism." The meaning of the term became so
   diffuse that its utility in establishing college curricular policy was
   almost lost (Zita, 1994, 68).

As a result, the people shaping the conversation about multicultural curricula created a definition that placed a hierarchical arrangement to the classification: "a primary focus on the four following American cultures: Afro-American, American Indian, Asian American and/or Chicano cultures" (Zita, 1994, 68), followed by "incorporation and significant attention to course content and/or analysis to other significant social factors in these cultures, such as social class, gender, age, sexuality, etc." (Zita, 1994, 69).

Minnesota's problem is that it allowed the issues of classification (itself a problem stemming from power relationships) to take precedence over the issues of analysis. This classification polarizes students' perspectives and experiences (not to mention those of the faculty creating courses), and reduces multiculturalism to a sanctioned list students can check off when they finish two courses. What are the lessons learned here for the students about what is knowledge, and why and how we know it?

It is not enough to construct multiculturalism (especially transformative multiculturalism) around only issues of inclusion, power(less)ness or critical analysis. Multiculturalism encompasses those things, but cannot be reduced to any one (or two, or three...). That is why, inevitably, the "Noah's Ark" additive approach fails; it is not enough to simply "add" new voices or texts (or students) if we do not know how to incorporate their perspectives in ways that will allow students to understand why adding those perspectives is important, and how that understanding should affect their own perspective and their own learning.

   While the presence of persons of other cultures and subcultures is a
   virtual prerequisite to that [curricular] transformation, their "mere
   presence" is primarily a political achievement (which different groups will
   assess differently), not an intellectual or educational achievement. Real
   educational progress will be made when multi-culturalism becomes
   interculturalism (Hill, 1991, 45).

Part of this progressive change must be to admit--especially to students--that courses are created by people, for reasons, and by design (c.f., Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991). This personal, human decision-making delimits, among other things, the content, and thus the knowledge covered. No course will ever be able to convey, let alone cover, the complexity of any aspect of human life, except in the particular positioned view of the people constructing the course. This "coming out" of instructors is the first step to helping students realize what shapes that which we think we know.

Multicultural education should strive to achieve its educational aim--one of increase in personal understanding of self and society--by incorporating as many different (and similar) perspectives as possible: multiple perspectives, multiple knowledges, multiple populations, multiple texts, and multiple methods. It is not a matter of the enormous multiplicity of modern consciousness, but of the complex myriad influences of postmodern consciousness upon themselves.

We must go beyond "subjugated knowledges," beyond the teaching of data used to reproduce social strata (and inequities), toward a critical analysis of what is considered the unsubjugated. If all students can analyze their cultures, beliefs, and actions through multicultural education, then we have managed to wed student development, critical theory, and pedagogy. It is not about change of politics, or even curricular content, as it is about fostering a more complex understanding of life, and of our perceptions of reality.

A multicultural perspective could be achieved even in a "traditional" Western Civilization course, if the goals of the course were to understand how differences of all kinds affect--and effect--what is written, what is thought, what is studied, and what is taught. Teaching diversity should not be limited to the marginalized, for multiculturalism can and should be used to demonstrate the multiplicities within groups, even (especially) within the homogenous non-other. We could limit curricular inclusion to the accepted canon while remaining tree to the ideals of multiculturalism by including as many societal perspectives and positions as possible. If we believe that one must understand multiple positions, and must be critical of multiple positions for the construction of a truer understanding, we must include Western and dominant positions in our curriculum. It is possible to teach even the classics from non-traditional perspectives (Pellegrini, 1994), and in ways that foster deeper and multiple ways of knowing apart from bowing to the hegemony of accepting what is presented as classic as important.

Denby (1996) provides a fantastic example of a liberal alumnus returning to the Western canon, in a classroom, to (re)discover the content and pedagogy, their effects upon personal development, and the canon's ability to be used to teach us how, in the words of his instructor, Edward Tayler, to "think double," to see both sides of any troth or position. At the conclusion of his year in Columbia's Western Civilization courses, Denby reflects,

   I could not "come to a conclusion."  For the Western classics did not mean
   any one thing. There was no single line of significance, no "eternal
   truths," at least not of the type that William Bennett and Lynne Cheney
   thought they perceived. The Western classics were at war with one another,
   and there was only the experience of reading and its many shocks and
   comforts, its many small truths ... (Denby, 1996, 454).

In settings with fairly homogenous student populations, like many American community colleges, this approach--discovering and examining the shocks and comforts of small truths--might be more beneficial for critical examinations of the multiplicities without risking further alienating the majority from/or the subaltern.

Fostering and mastering new ways of considering the world and one's place(s) in it are not abilities achieved upon mere exposure to new thoughts, foreign people, or different cultures. Such skills must be nourished, supported, and challenged in order for them to become incorporated into one's repertoire of scholastic and mental abilities. Relegating such activity only to marginalized or legislated courses defeats the goals of teaching such skills at all: life is not compartmentalized and classified, despite our attempts to present it as such through our fifty-minute classes and our programmatic majors of study.

Bibliography

Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Apple, M. W., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of the textbook. New York: Routledge.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd Ed.), p. 3-28. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bensimon, E. M. (Ed.) (1994). Multicultural teaching and learning: Strategies for change in higher education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment.

Bensimon, E. M., and Soto, M. (1997, January/February). Can we rebuild civic life without a multiracial university? Change, 29(1), 42-44.

Bensimon, E. M., and Tierney, W. G. (1992-1993, Late Winter). Shaping the multicultural campus: Strategies for administrators. The College Board Review, 166, 4-7, 30.

Bullivant, B. M. (1993). Culture: Its nature and meaning for educators. In J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd Ed.), p. 29-47. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Denby, D. (1996). Great books: My adventures with Homer, Rousseau, Woolf, and other indestructible writers of the Western worM. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Evans, N. J.; Forney, D. S.; & Guido-DiBrito, F. G. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fleischacker, S. (1996, May-June). Multiculturalism as a Western tradition. Academe, 82(3), 16-19, 65.

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (I 992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Graft, J. G. (1992, January/February). Beyond politics: The educational issues inherent in multicultural education. Change, 24(1), 31034.

Hill, P. J. (1991, July/August). Multi-culturalism: The crucial philosophical and organizational issues. Change, 23(4), 38-47.

Hill, P. J. (1994). Multi-culturalism: The crucial philosophical and organizational issues. In E. M. Bensimon (Ed.). Multicultural teaching and learning: Strategies for change in higher education, p. 19-31. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment.

Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today's college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a ritual performance: Towards an political economy of educational symbols and gestures. New York: Routledge.

McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. New York: Routledge.

Pellegrini, A. (1994). There's no place like home? Lesbian studies and the classics. In L. Garber (Ed.). Tilting the tower: Lesbians teaching queer subjects, p. 70-82. New York: Routledge.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering & Associates. The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stark, J. S., and Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tierney, W. G. (1990). Cultural politics and the curriculum in postsecondary education. In C. F. Conrad and J. G. Haworth (Eds.). Curriculum in transition: Perspectives on the undergraduate experience, p. 39-54. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Zita, J. N. (1994). From orthodoxy to pluralism: A postsecondary curricular reform. In E. M. Bensimon (Ed.). Multicultural teaching and learning: Strategies for change in higher education, p. 65-82. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment.

Patrick Dilley is a qualitative researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California who explores student identity development, queer theory, and issues of diversity and inclusion.