Skip to main content

Full text of "Bigotry and violence on American college campuses"

See other formats

UNIV. OF MD MARSHALL LAW LIBRARY "^^^^^^ L. '^ /' 'C, , "-^ (^ 

3 IMEfl D3q3flMTb 2 

Bigotry and Violence 

On American 
College Campuses 

United States Commission on Civil Rights 

October 1990 


NOV 3 1990 


» 12 . 7a2 



The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary, indepen- 
dent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957, 
reestablished in 1983, and directed to: 

• Investigate coma denial of equal protection of the 
laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, 
age, handicap, or national origin, or in the administration of 

• Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to discrimina- 
tion or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, 
color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin; 

• Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect 
to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws 
because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national 

• Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the 
President and Congress. 


Arthur A, Fletcher, Chainnan 
Charles Pel Wang, Vice Chairman 
William B. Allen 
Carl A. Anderson 
Mary Frances Berry 
Esther G. Buckley 
Blandina Cardenas Ramirez 
Russell G. Redenbaugh 

Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, Staff Director 

Bigotry and Violence 

On American 
College Campuses 

United States Commission on Civil Rights 

October 1990 



The following contains the transcript and summary report of a 
briefing conducted by the Campus bigotry Subcommittee of the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to address bigotry and violence 
on college campuses. The briefing was held at Commission 
headquarters, 1121 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., on 
May 18, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. Present for the briefing were Murray 
Friedman, former Vice Chairman; Commissioner Esther G. 
Buckley: former Commissioners Francis S. Guess and Sherwin 
T.S. Chan; and Melvin L. Jenkins, former acting staff director. 


This report was written by LaUie P. Dawson. It was prepared 
under the overall supervision of Barbara J. Brooks, Acting Chief 
of the Congressional and Public Affairs Unit. Editorial review was 
provided by Carol-Lee Hurley, Acting Chief of the Regional 
Program Coordination Unit. Valuable support services were 
provided by Deborah Gllspie. 



1. Introduction 1 

2. The Extent of the Problem 3 

3. Causes of the Problem 7 

4. Recommended Solutions 12 


Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

Subcommittee Chairman Murray Friedman 19 


Session 1 - The extent of the problem: 
Grace Flores-Hughes, Director, 
Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of 
Justice, accompanied by Judith Kruger, 

Conciliation Specialist 21 

Dr. Jeffrey Ross, Anti-Defamation League, 

B'nai B'rith 24 

Dr. Stephen Balch, National Association 

of Scholars 28 

Session 2 - Causes of the problem: 

Dr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Scholar, Office of Minority 

Concerns, American Council on Education 43 

Patrick Cheng, Campuses Against Racist Violence . . 48 
Dr. Thomas Short, Associate Professor of Philosophy, 

Kenyon College 53 

Session 3 - Solutions: 
Irving Levlne, National Affairs Director, 

American Jewish Committee 38 

Dr. Robert Dunham, Vice President and Vice Provost, 

Penn State University 58 

Roundtable Discussion 63 


Chapter 1 


On May 18. 1989, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a 
briefing on "Bigotry and Violence on CoUege Campuses" in 
Washington, D.C., at the Commission's headquarters. The forum 
met to assess what is happening at American institutions of 
higher learning and discuss possible solutions to the problem. 

Commission Vice Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman 
Murray Friedman Introduced the panelists, expressing his concern 
about the apparent Increase in the number of incidents of bigotry 
and violence on college campuses. In 1988, Commissioner 
Friedman introduced a resolution requesting a Commission 
briefing on the subject. As a result, a written briefing was 
produced by Commission staff in December 1988.' In March 
1989, Commissioner Friedman Introduced a second resolution to 
hold a formal briefing, which resulted in the panel and roundta- 
ble described in this summary. 

During the 3-hour briefing, participants presented information 
to address the extent, causes, and possible solutions to blgotiy 
and violence on college campuses. 

Grace Flores-Hughes, director of the U.S. Department of 
Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), and Judith Kruger, 
a conciliation specialist for the CRS in Region III, opened the 
briefing. Other presenters were Dr. Jeffrey Ross, director of the 
Anti-Defamation League of B'nal B'rith's department of campus 
affairs/higher education: Irving Levine, national affairs director of 
the American Jewish Committee; Dr. Stephen H. Balch of the 
National Association of Scholars and Chairman of the Commis- 
sion's New Jersey Advisory Committee; Dr. Reginald Wilson, senior 
scholar for the American Council on Education's Office of Minority 
Concerns; Patrick Cheng, a Junior at Yale College and member of 
Campuses Against Racist Violence; Dr. Robert Dunham, vice 
president and vice provost of Pennsylvania State University; and 
Dr. Thomas Short, associate professor of philosophy at Kenyon 

' "Briefing on Bias-Related Incidents on College Campuses," prepared for the 
Commissioners by the USCCR's Congressional and Public Affairs Division, 
December 1988. 

Their presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion 
with the Commissioners to clarify issues raised and to address 
how the Commission might help solve the problem. 

The Commission thanks each panelist for his or her time and 
effort, without which this briefing would not have been possible. 

Chapter 2 

The Extent of the Problem 

Although it is impossible to measure with precision the extent 
of the problem of racial bigotry on college campuses in the United 
States, this chapter reviews the limited statistical data and shares 
the perceptions of the experts who provided information at the 

Who experiences campus bigotry? 

The panelists varied slightly in their perception of which group 
or groups are the primary victims of campus bigotry. 

Dr. Reginald Wilson of the American Council on Education 
asserted that the majority of Incidents are directed toward black 
students, "subsequently against Asians and Hispanlcs, and 
against Jews." He based this opinion on statistics compiled by 
the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Relations Service 
(CRS), the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, and 
the Center for the Study and Prevention of Campus Violence 
located at Towson State University. Meanwhile, Irving Levlne of 
the American Jewish Committee advised the Commission that 
"(tjhose of us who think the black- white dichotomy defines 
American ethnic relations had better take another look." 

Mr. Levlne also told the Commission that the New York City 
Board of Higher Education requires every school to work on 
multlculturalism and pluralism and develop consistent policies. 
This developed as a result of 20 years of forging a coalition of 
blacks, Jews, Hispanlcs, and other ethnic groups. Mr. Levlne felt 
that all groups, even white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, must be 
included when examining the pluralistic nature of the population. 

Patrick Cheng, a member of Campuses against Racist Violence, 
recommended that homosexuals be included under the definition 
of Incidents of racist violence. "Violence against gays is going to 
be a major issue in the next 5 or 10 years. . . . Just because It 
is not explicitly listed under Title VI or Title IX doesn't mean that 
you can ignore it. . . . "* 

Dr. Jeffrey Ross of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rlth 
Informed the Commission that not all Incidents involve majority 

' Patrick Cheng; briefing held by the U.S. Commission on CivH Rights in 
Washington, D.C.. May 18, 1989 (cited hereafter as USCCR Briefing). 

versus minority scenarios. Some are minority versus minority 
conflicts, he said. 

All panelists agreed that there is a problem and offered their 
perception of what the causes and possible solutions might be. 

How is bigotry manifested on 
college campuses? 

The panelists, while sharing the belief that there Is a problem, 
differed in their Interpretation of how bigotry on American college 
campuses is expressed. 

Dr. Thomas Short of Kenyon College addressed the "mistake" 
of lumping together racial hostility and insensitivity, saying that 
"(i]nsensitlvlty of whites toward blacks is rooted less in prejudice 
than in unfamlliarity and curiosity and simple lack of tact. . . . 
I have heard black students complain in private, rarely In public, 
until recently, about white students who either stereotype them 
or exhibit an annoying curiosity." 

Dr. Short predicted, "We shall see, too, another manifestation, 
not exactly of insensitivity, but of strained racial relations: 
namely, whites avoiding blacks for fear of saying or doing the 
wrong thing." 

Dr. Robert Dunham, vice president and vice provost of Pennsyl- 
vania State University, reminded the Commission that acts of 
bigotry can take a more sinister tone. He said that at Penn State 
during the 1988-89 school year, acts of racism and bigotry took 
the form of racist slurs and posters, racial harassment, and 
alleged racial intimidation; anti-Semitic remarks, graflfltl, and 
posters: and harassment and threatening statements toward 
lesbians and gays. According to Dr. Dunham, someone used a 
computer network to transmit the statement, "Why Should One 
Kill Homosexuals?" to all parts of the country and some places 

Dr. Ross and Dr. Wilson said that most college administrators 
fall to recognize that most of the incidents indicate the breakdown 
of human relations: Instead, colleges choose to view the Incidents 
as public relations problems. According to Dr. Wilson, this 
mlsperceptlon makes institutions that subscribe to this attitude 
appear responsive only to demands they view as potentially 
embarrassing. He offered, as an example, that the University of 
Michigan, after protest marches on campus, made efforts to 
increase opportunities for minorities by increasing the number of 
doctoral students. Also, Dr. Wilson said that the University of 
Michigan hired 18 black tenure track faculty, more than it had 
ever done in any one academic year in its history. 

What is the frequency? 

statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice's Com- 
munity Relations Service (CRS) and the Anti-Defamation League 
of B'nai B'rlth corroborate the panelists' and the media's percep- 
tion that incidents of campus bigotry are increasing. 

Dr. Stephen H. Balch of the National Association of Scholars 
warned against drawing the conclusion that the incidence of 
racist violence is increasing without hard data, and encouraged 
other Jurisdictions to do as the State of New Jersey had done. 
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights's New Jersey Advisory 
Committee encouraged the State of New Jersey to collect 
systematically statistics on mcidents having to do with hate 

According to the Department of Justice, requests for assistance 
to the Justice Department's Community Relations Service (CRS) 
since 1986 have increased significantly: from 1987 to 1988. the 
number of alerts (formal notifications of tensions or conflicts) filed 
went from 48 to 77.* 

In 1988. the Anti-Defamation League of B'nal B'rlth noted that 
the incidence of anti-Semitism on campus since 1987 escalated 
from a steady Increase during the previous 5-year period to a 
dramatic 271 percent mcrease.* 

Why are there more reported incidents now? 

Several explanations were offered to explain why more incidents 
were reported in the late 1980s. The panelists addressed the 
inevitable question, are there more cases or are we just finding 
more cases because we are looking for them? Also, why are 
there more cases now? Has anything different been happening 
the last few years? 

According to Dr. Balch, over the years society has widened its 
notion of what constitutes harassment and victimization. He said 
that during the late 1970s and 1980s, the number of groups 
considered targets and the types of acts considered offensive have 

' See also "Hate Crimes Resolution." Issued Feb. 12, 1988, by the U.S. Commis- 
sion on Civil Rights calling on Congress to enact legislation requiring the Attorney 
General to collect data alx)ut hate crimes; the Hate Crimes Statistics Act passed 
by the U.S. House of Representatives May 1988; and the Crime Awareness and 
Campus Security Act of 1989 (Section 3e "Disclosure of Campus Security Policy 
and Campus Crime Statistics") (HR 3344). introduced Sept. 26, 1989. On April 
23, 1990, the President signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act (Pub. L. No. 

* Grace Flores- Hughes, USCCR Briefing. 

• Jeffrey Ross, USCCR Briefing. 

Dr. Balch proposed that increased sensitivity may have 
provided greater incentives to report incidents and that a greater 
interest in changing campus policies exists today. "Add to that 
an element of se2"-fulfilling prophecy: The more people sense that 
there is racial tension the more racial tension actually exists; 
things happen that might not otherwise." 

Dr. Short noted, "If there is more insensitivlty now than before, 
I suspect it is due to an additional third factor, an exaggerated 
fear of giving offense." 

The press is giving more attention to the situation now than 
before. Careful examination reveals severed significant incidents 
prior to 1987: the hazing at the Citadel (1986). the attack by 
white baseball fans upon blacks at the University of Mas- 
sachusetts (1986), and the antiblack behavior at the University 
of Michigan. But were these isolated incidents or evidence of 
ongoing conditions? 

Dr. Ross compared the sudden awareness to the sudden 
appearance of a pothole — one day you don't see It, the next day 
you do. "What happened yesterday to create the hole in the 
ground? What you have had for years and years is subsurface 
erosion. The hole in the ground wasn't created yesterday. It 
only appeared today." 

Chapter 3 

The Causes of the Problem 

The panelists cited a number of causes of campus bigotry. The 
causes fell Into four categories: 1) deficiencies on college 
campuses that exacerbate existing tensions; 2) society's failure to 
keep up with change: 3) competition for limited resources; and 
4) extremist speakers. 

Deficiencies on campus that exacerbate existing 

Several panelists focused on local campus conditions that not 
only prevent the Improvement of race relations, but also en- 
courage racial conflict. They include campus environments 
perceived as hostile, isolation of many minorities on college 
campuses, perceived Issues of recruitment and retention of 
minority students and faculty, perceived exclusion of minority 
cultures from the curriculum, defundlng or deemphasis of special 
programs that target minorities, and perceived Institutional 
discouragement of minority students from entering or continuing 
academic studies in certain disciplines. 

Dr. Balch pointed out the uniqueness of coUege campuses. 
Although they are places where people work and live together, 
they are not permanent communities. He described them as 
communities where people stay for a while and move on. 
Therefore, the Incentive to cooperate and coexist amicably that 
might exist In permanent communities does not exist on college 

Mr. Cheng discussed a lack of responsibility by universities for 
the students* welfare. "Universities used to take more care of the 
students, being responsible for their actions, acting as their 
parents in absentia." He also said that, now that legal 
responsibility has been removed, universities are under no 
obligation to resolve conflicts between groups and often tell the 
disputing parties they have to find their own solutions. 

Dr. Short condemned college administrators for not being 
"swifter and firmer" In punishing racial violence. He said that 
hostile acts are increasing as an expression of prejudice learned 
on campus out of resentment of perceived preferential treatment 
of minorities and of false accusations of racism rather than an 
expression of prejudice that whites bring with them to college. 
Also, he argued that there's a "lack of prior commitment to the 
genuine Ideals of equality" that allows resentment to occur. Dr. 

Short offered that it is possible to oppose afilrmative action 
without expressing the opposition as a racial insult. 

Dr. Wilson pointed out that racism on college campuses origi- 
nates and exists in "the administration, in the faculty, in tJie 
curriculum, and in the practices that all of those individuals 
engage in. That is where it begins and that is where attitudes 
are created." 

Dr. Wilson also stated that institutions are not interested in 
training faculty and students in dispute resolution or sensitivity. 
He said that there are plenty of people who are "very able and 
available to teach them." 

Most institutions. Dr. Wilson said, do not have sanctions or 
policies against this kind of behavior, and are even ambivalent 
about the need to develop them. "One would expect that campus 
leaders would hope that it would simply go away. Much of what 
is happening is a consequence of great denial." he said. 

Dr. Balch discussed the effects of applying different admissions 
standards. He advised administrators to examine how admissions 
policies function and how students on both sides of the policies 
perceive their fairness and equity. 

According to Dr. Wilson, "Very little recruitment of any kind is 
going on in graduate schools and in professional schools, and the 
numbers are showing that. In 1975 there were 1,213 doctorates 
awarded to black Americans. In 1987 there were 725. Institu- 
tions are not making any significant efforts to recruit minority 
scholars. I think. . . .that it's nothing less than disgraceful." 

Most of the panelists agreed that people are reacting to things 
that previously did not bring forth a reaction. Dr. Ross said that 
victims* voices are louder. Also, he said that white students are 
expressing antagonism toward affirmative action policies and 
recipients. He suggested that administrators should be more 
responsible for setting the moral tone on campus against in- 
tolerant and racist behavior. 

Society's failure to Iceep up with change 

Three other causes reflect society's failure to adapt to changing 
conditions. Panelists discussed the effects of simple ignorance or 
insensitivlty, more minority students on campuses, and societcil 
changes and the breakdown of traditional supports. 

Simple ignorance or insensitivlty 

Although national findings show that society Is becoming more 
tolerant of differences than ever before, Mr. Levine said that the 
American Jewish Committee notices that the behavior of high 
school students is " outrageous. They are philosophically tolerant 
and behavioristically outrageous. They are acting out against 


each other. There Is a large-scale lack of respect for each other, 
lack of respect for self, reported everywhere." He said that many 
students have weak self-identities and an inadequate sense of 
group identity that contribute largely to their behavior problems. 

Mr. Levine noted that, although the college years are the "up" 
years of life — the "free spirits" of youth — they are also years in 
which passions are less governable. Students tend to give way 
to things that adults would be able to contain, he said. 

Also, he said that this is the first generation to have missed 
the civil nghts struggles of the 1960s and into the mid-1970s. 
Students question the reasons behind affirmative action, he said. 
They do not see it as a means of giving minorities a fair chance 
to achieve, but rather as a means of taking away opportunities 
from the majority, according to Mr. Levine, 

Mr. Levine also noted that multicultural training and staff 
development is not as prevalent on college campuses as it is in 
elementary and secondary school systems. "It is dlfificult for 
people who are overwhelmed educationally by all kinds of other 
needs and demands to pay attention to something as essential as 
good intergroup relations and healthy group identity when they 
are fearful and there are inadequate possibilities of training them. 
. . . Mixing does not automatically create good will. It helps. 
Intentional programming on group relations creates it." 

More minority students 

Since the 1960s, American college campuses have experienced 
the development of a critical mass of students from a variety of 
minority groups. As those minority groups gain confidence in 
their existence on previously all-white campuses, they approach 
the administrators to make demands. In recent years, when 
these students make demands, conflict has erupted. 

Dr. Ross and Dr. Wilson agreed that part of the problem is due 
to the fact that there are minorities on campus. "There would be 
no problem if they were not there," noted Dr. Wilson. The 
increased numbers of minorities on campuses today compared to 
the early days of school integration allows for the possibility of 
demonstrations, they said. Some of the issues of race relations 
being protested have been on the campuses all along, but only 
recently has there been a "critical mass" to respond. 

Dr. Ross noted that "an attack on one minority will inevitably 
lead to a circumstance in which other minorities become vul- 
nerable. . . . Therefore it is no accident that the increased levels 
of anti-Semitism on campus are directly related to and exist in 
a climate of increasing numbers of instances of racial and ethnic 
bigotry and prejudice on campus." 

Societal changes and the breakdown of traditional 

Commissioner Chan commented that the stated causes of 
conflict on campuses — drugs, alcohol, racism — reflect the causes 
of conflict in society in general. Did the presenters agree with 
the statement? 

Dr. Ross mentioned these elements as causes in his remarks, 
and Mr. Levine felt strongly about the connection, saying that 
"the extremes of acting out behavior flow over into racial, ethnic, 
and religious intolerance. We are seeing a lot of so-called 
innocent acting out that comes from broken family life, beginning 
to become part of the index In this field. We ought to take It 

Mr. Levine noted that there are enormous differences in values 
even among members of similar socioeconomic groups, due to 
differences in child rearing and incredible mlscommunication at 
every level of society. Mr. Levine explained, "We are missing each 
others' signals. We don't speak the same language." 

Competition for limited resources 

All of the panelists agreed that competition for limited resour- 
ces was a factor contributing to the increase in racial bigotry on 
campus. In the 1960s, Federal programs increased resources for 
programs to aid minority access to higher education. That is not 
happening now. 

Mr. Cheng noted that the Federal Government's efforts under 
the Reagan administration to reduce or eliminate affirmative 
action programs have sent subtle messages to college students 
that it is okay to ignore past or present discrimination against 

According to Ms. Flores-Hughes, interviews conducted by the 
Department of Justice's Community Relations Service's staff reveal 
that campus communities feel that the national and international 
causes of racial incidents include the increasing cost of college, 
the restructuring of Federal loans and grgints. and the local 
impact of international Issues. One of the international issues to 
receive a great deal of attention on American campuses, according 
to Dr. Balch. is apartheid in South Africa. 

Competition for limited resources often originates with no racial 
conflict, according to Dr. Ross, but as the competition grows 
stronger, ethnic or racial differences may become an issue. As 
such conflicts become "ethnicized." he explained, they become 
much more dangerous. 

According to Dr. Wilson, there are differences in terms of the 
perception of resources. "Many people on campuses, not only 
white students, but white faculty as well, perceive it as a zero 


sum game. That is, if you get some, I lose some.** The Increas- 
ing numbers of minority students on campuses are seen as an 
encroachment on white entitlement, he said. Part of the resent- 
ment and hostility is due to that perception, according to Dr. 

Another cause is an ignorance of history, especially the history 
of race relations in the United States. Campus administrators do 
not help students understand that policies are intended to redress 
systemic discrimination that has existed since the Nation's 
founding. Faculty and administrators abet white students in 
perceiving distortions in the allocation of resources. They have no 
sense of why certain students arrive on campus through equal 
opportunity programs or with Pell grants. 

Extremist speakers 

Several of the panelists discussed the effect of extremist 
speakers. Dr. Ross proposed that the months of controversy 
leading up to the speech are more important than the speech 
itself. The "swirling" controversy tends to polarize people, he said, 
generating tensions on campus. 

According to Dr. Ross, large numbers of Incidents have resulted 
from extremist speakers, since many enjoy the use of a rent-free 
university lecture hall with an available audience. "If [an 
individual] speaks at the University of Pennsylvania, he is going 
to get much, much more attention than he will by renting a hall 
and giving a speech in inner-city Philadelphia or limer-city 
Chicago or irmer city anyplace else. ... It really ultimately 
doesn't matter whether they actually succeed or not in coming on 
to the campus. What is most important to them is that they get 
months and months and months of free publicity out of it." 

Vice Chairman Friedman inquired about the Influence of 
extremist speakers on race relations, particularly black-Jewish 
relations, on campuses. According to Dr. Ross, the reaction is 
the same on any campus visited by an extremist — the groups 
become polarized, especially the blacks and Jews. 

Commissioner Guess followed up, wanting to know if the 
message given by extremist speakers had any effect on the 
students. Also, do the victimized end up serving as "marketing 
agents" because of the preperformance reaction that is generated? 

Dr. Ross stated that the speech Is often disappointing, but the 
controversy leading up to the speech has already succeeded In 
polarizing people on campus. "Those who perceive themselves 
being victimized by a monger of hate will react to it. By reacting 
to it, they are going to raise the heat, and when you have more 
heat you have more visibility if not more light." 


Chapter 4 

Recommended Solutions 

Since the panelists did not present a single cause of the recent 
incidents of racial violence, they naturally did not present a single 
solution. The panelists' recommendations fell into four categories: 
1) existing resources (both on and off campus): 2) multicultural 
training: 3) Federal support and involvement; and 4) the free 
speech dilemma. 

Existing resources 
Off-campus tools 

According to Judith Kruger of the U.S. Department of Justice's 
Community Relations Service (CRS), the CRS regional offices take 
official notice that tension exists on particular campuses. Some- 
times a conciliator contacts the Institution, but often the institu- 
tion contacts CRS first, she said. To assess an off'icial notice of 
a tension, the regional office completes the following steps: 
determining the issues, the history of the issues, and who was 
involved (how and why): and determining the resources, the 
possibility of solution without outside intervention, and how local 
resources might be developed, Ms. Kruger said. 

She said that each regional office offers three types of assis- 
tance in developing local resources: technical assistance, which 
includes background material from other similar situations; 
conciliation, or improved communication techniques to bring the 
parties together to talk, short of formal mediation; and formal 

In the past, the CRS has provided the following assistance to 
college administrators and populations that might be helpful to 

• assisted colleges in developing reporting mechanisms for racial 
and ethnic incidents on campus; 

• assisted universities in reviewing their policies and other 
written statements addressing racial and ethnic diversity; 

• conducted mediation training; 

• conducted crisis mediation and conciliation between protestors 
and administrators, campus police, local or State police, and 
neighborhood groups; 

• assisted schools In developing their own mediation services, 
ombudsperson offices, and resident assistants' training in dispute 


• provided university communities with current information on 
hate violence; 

• assisted towns or institutions in dealing with organized hate 
groups such as the Klan who express Interest in organizing or 
other activities on the campus or in the town; 

• encouraged universities to assess the propensity for racial and 
ethnic disturbances. CRS has developed a tool to aid administ- 
rators in assessing the racial and ethnic climate of the campus, 
which they will gladly provide; 

• provided training on racial and ethnic sensitivity to campus 
law enforcement officers; and 

• mediated disputes about university expansion and the institu- 
tion's relationship with the neighborhood. 

On-campus tools 

During the briefing, several panelists noted methods of prevent- 
ing and/or dealing with campus bigotry that were developed by 
colleges. These methods Included minority representation, 
affirmative action programs, law enforcement, and student involve- 

In describing methods used on his university's campus to 
address and prevent conflicts among minority students. Dr. 
Dunham noted that Penn State, the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, and the University of California-Berkeley are the top 
three research universities producing black undergraduates who 
eventually earn doctoral degrees in Qie sciences. (This informa- 
tion is based on statistics collected between 1980 and 1984 by 
the National Research Council.) 

Dr. Dunham also noted that Penn State is the second most 
populated university by blacks of 109 4-year schools In Pennsyl- 
vania. From 1982 to 1988, minority enrollment at Penn State 
increased 79.3 percent, while the number of blacks graduating 
from high school in Pennsylvania decreased approximately 15 
percent. During the 1988-89 academic year, more blacks and 
minorities attended Penn State than at any time in the univer- 
sity's historJ^ with more blacks graduating in 1988 from Penn 
State than in any previous year. 

Dr. Dunham stated that Penn State has a campus environment 
team, part of a model, to review systematically Incidents reported 
and to assess the campus environment. He said that the team 
includes the vice president for administration, the vice president 
for student sen^ices. the vice president and vice provost, the 
affirmative action officer, the director of the black studies 
program, the chair of the equal opportunity planning committee, 
the director of the campus life assistance center, the director of 
public information, and the director of university safety. 


Dr. Dunham explained that the team either visits student 
groups or invites students to discuss concerns, as appropriate. 
It addresses urgent concerns and ways to improve the environ- 
ment and makes recommendations to the appropriate offices and 
in many cases directly to the office of the president. Many of the 
programs and activities recommended by the team were being 
initiated this past year. 

According to Dr. Dunham, Perm State's model team is prepared 
to speak out strongly and quickly against acts of intolerance. He 
said that the university's president has strongly supported this 
role by making public pronouncements in newspaper ads, in 
letters to the editor, in radio and television spots, and in public 
forums. The president has also encouraged others to speak out, 
and other community leaders have also expressed their support. 

Dr. Dunham stated that the model is also directed at taking 
action and planning programs to deal with racism and bigotry. 
In this vein, he said, a vice provost will be hired to oversee equal 
opportunity for underrepresented peoples, including women. 

According to Dr. Dunham, Penn State also appointed a 25- 
member advisory commission on racial and ethnic diversity which 
reports to the president through the new vice provost. He said 
that a three-member team of social scientists is advising the 
model team on ways to Improve the climate for minorities at Penn 

By the president's direction, there will be minority representa- 
tion on all of the administration's policymaking bodies, and many 
more cooperative efforts both on and off campus and between the 
two communities, according to Dr. Dunham. 

Dr. Dunham said that the model also seeks to keep the 
channels of communication open both ways, including an 800- 
number hotline available to parents. Despite the model's best 
intentions, noted Dr. Dunham, "confrontation is not always 

Dr. Wilson reminded those present that, although many de- 
nounce affirmative action, no one has offered a better method to 
achieve the same goal. Miami University of Ohio doubled its 
black faculty in just a little over one academic year. "It can 
happen and the slty does not fall," he noted. 

Dr. Dunham quoted a report from Northern Illinois University 
which said that the "renewed trend towards intolerance must not 
be allowed to gain a foothold on college campuses. . . . Colleges 
and universities must take a much more active role in developing 
a climate for minority students' success. ..." 

Mr. Levlne, quoting a report, stressed that clear policies on any 
acting out, any action of bigotry against any racial, ethnic, or 
religious group are needed, with serious and immediate punish- 
ment enforceable by law. He urged administrators to examine 


student campus involvement, see If there are sufficient activities 
that are ethnically and religiously related, but also activities that 
provide common ground for all students. Faculty should review 
the courses and ensure there are sensitive instructors and 
professors, he said. 

Dr. Ross suggested that institutions work from both below and 
above to sensitize faculty, students, and administrators to the 
consequences of their words and actions and to have ad- 
ministrators clearly state and enforce the institution's policies. 

From the students' perspective, active involvement is a key. 
Patrick Cheng, the student panelist, was the first minority 
president in 102 years of Dwight Hall, the community service and 
volunteer activist center at Yale. He was also a member of Yale's 
ad hoc committee examining free expression policies on campus, 
which examined university regulations concerning conflict between 
controversial speakers and the limits of harassment. This 
committee included Yale professors, including several from the law 
school, he said. 

Mr. Cheng also was a founding member of Campuses Against 
Fiacist Violence, a coalition of 40 colleges in the Northeast and 
East that tracks incidents of racist violence and shares informa- 
tion. The group holds conferences for schools to learn how to 
combat racist violence. 

Reference materials 

Several of the panelists referred to One-Third of a Nation, 
published by the National Commission on Minority Participation 
in Education, which discusses what the consequences of not 
dealing with minority education would be for the United States. 
Copies were distributed to all members of Congress, all college 
and university presidents, and to other organizations. 

The American Council on Education issued Minorities on 
Campus in January 1989. It is a handbook of strategies designed 
to help institutions develop programs that will successfully recruit, 
retain, and maintain the minority presence on campus. 
Recommendations are based on actual campus programs that 
have proved successful in affirmative action. 

Multicultural training 

Dr. Dunham urged the Commission not to take as the rationale 
for diversity "bringing in minority students and making them 
white in 4 years." 

Mr. Levlne based his comments on his organization's experience 
on over 75 campuses, and his personal experience conducting 
multiethnic traliiing over the last 10 years In high schools. He 
indicated that the American Jewish Committee (AJC) leads preju- 


dice -reduction workshops with consultants all over the country, 
which have proven that there is "a base of good will among 
students, faculty, and administrators who want to carry on this 
program." However, in Mr. Levine's opinion, the workshops are 
inadequate in responding to the systemic problems that the AJC 
knows about. Mr. Levine said that the AJC is shifting toward 
"systemic institutional consultation," or helping universities carry 
out a total plan in dealing with issues of cultural pluralism. 

According to Mr. Levine, "Itjhere have been 20 years of ethnic 
advocacy. . . . Now, in addition to legitimate ethnic advocacy, we 
need to spend the next 5 years In upgrading the process of coali- 
tion-building and a return to intergroup relations. We need to 
systematize skills training in this field. And we need to transmit 
these skills to young people, and they will buy if we provide it." 

Dr. Short questioned both sensitivity training in higher 
education and requiring all students to take minority studies. He 
objected to "fashioning the curriculum and student life" to mold 
attitudes. Rather, he supported free thought based on "knowle- 
dge, intellectual training, and free and open discussion of 
controversial issues." 

Further, Dr. Short questioned if it is even possible to "mold 
attitudes in a classroom." Students will resent being "manip- 
ulated instead of being educated." Dr. Short favored courses in 
minority cultures that "need not have the specific aim of making 
students more tolerant. They can be Just straightforward, good 
academic studies of their subjects without any ulterior motive." 
He opposed ethnic studies courses that are perverted by "those 
who wish to use them to change society and students' attitudes." 

Dr. Short argued such courses will "create differences between 
whites and blacks where none exist and exaggerate the differen- 
ces that do exist. . . .and it will reinforce the suspicion many 
black students unfortunately have that by succeeding in the 
standard curriculum they are somehow selling out to ^e white 

He also said it is "ridiculous. . .to suppose that black America- 
ns have more in common culturally with Africans than with their 
follow Americans. They share a society with the latter, not with 
the former." 

"Barriers are not broken down by equating culture with color," 
Dr. Short explained, "but by working with people of other races 
on matters of mutual interest, on matters that transcend ques- 
tions of race." 

Dr. Short predicted that "multicultural education will be even 
less effective against real racism than against insensitivity." 

In responding to a rebuttal about sensitivity training. Dr. Short 
explained that he was referring to multicultural education that Is 
offered for college credit and required of all students. Although 


he agreed that racial prejudice and the special problems of 
minorities are legitimate subjects of study, he also feared a 
backlash would occur if student life is organized around activities 
that emphasize their victimization. 

Federal support and involvement 

In response to Commissioner Buckley's request for suggestions 
on what the Commission could do to help alleviate the problem, 
all panelists agreed that the Commission's first Job was to decide 
what the problem is. If the Commission chooses to focus on 
campus racial problems. Dr. Wilson noted, it should "establish 
some kind of model program that it can advise institutions they 
might undertake." Dr. Wilson urged the Commission to not just 
deal with symptoms, but get to the systemic problems and to 
take a "proactive stand on civil rights." 

"We are suggesting," said Dr. Wilson, "that not only should we 
be working on eliminating these problems [minority grievances] 
in the 21st century, but we ought to do something about them 

To prevent more incidents from occurring, Mr. Cheng said the 
Federal Government (especially the Executive Branch) should take 
an active and visible role in saying that racist violence is unaccep- 
table, that college administrators should publicly condemn this 
behavior strongly as soon as it occurs. More minorities should be 
Involved in policymaking on the level of university administrations 
to contribute to more effective operations. 

After incidents occur, Mr. Cheng suggested that coUeges that 
do not act against racist violence should lose Federal funding. 
Mr. Cheng said that Congress should look at schools with long 
histories of racist behavior. Mr. Cheng, however, was against 
banning controversial speakers or tightening the definition of 

Mr. Cheng reminded the Commission that students, as a 
transient population, cannot be expected to handle a problem like 
racist violence alone. They do not have access to the kind of 
financial and communications resources available to government 
agencies, he said. 

Dr. Dunham recommended strong, clear signals from the 
Federal Government and Increased availability of more financial 
aid for needy students. 

Mr. Cheng also emphasized the importance of students being 
educated about the proper charmels for addressing Incidents of 
racial unrest and /or violence. 


The free speech dilemma 

In discussing solutions to visits by extremist speakers and other 
first amendment rights that affect resolving campus bigotry and 
violence, the panelists addressed the dilemma of balancing free 
speech on campus with the quest for an absence of campus 
tension. In regard to extremist speakers. Dr. Ross said that the 
appearances would be less likely to cause problems if they fell 
more into the category of "opportumties for academic exchange 
of views, and less in the way of public rallies." Dr. Ross pointed 
out the interchange between campus tension and community 
tension and how the two build and feed on each other. 

Ms. Kruger said that the first amendment right to free speech 
is being examined by campus administrators and student popula- 
tions in regard to speech that results in physical injury, harass- 
ment, or intimidation. She said that the Department of Justice's 
Community Relations Service facilitates opportumties for college 
presidents and others to explore finding ways to balance protec- 
tion against racial harassment and protection of free speech.® 

Dr. Balch contended that the Commission should address 
incidents that "in any environment would be considered. . . 
criminal. . .acts of personal injury, acts of vandalism and destruc- 
tion of property, particularly where there is some kind of group 
hatred behind them, and also cases of clear discourtesy." Dr. 
Balch warned about balancing respect for civility with avoiding 
suppression or intimidation of people "who had views that were 
either opprobrious to many or in some cases just opprobrious to 
a few." He encouraged a distinction between insults and the 
expression of "ideas that some people didn't like." 

• Judith Kruger, USCCR Briefing. 


CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 
My name is Murray Friedman, and I am the Vice Chairman of 
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission I would like to introduce to you 
the fellow members of the Commission who are here with us 
today to hear the testimony that will be given to us. 

On my right, but only geographically, not ideologically or 
philosophically, is Esther Buckley, a member of the Civil Rights 
Commission, who is from Texas. 

On my left is Melvln Jenkins, who is the Acting Director of the 

On his left is Commissioner Shenvin Chan of California. 

To his left is Francis Guess, a distinguished member of the 
Commission, from Tennessee. 

Thank you for coming here and thank you, members of the 
group who are in front of us, for joining us today to give advice 
and counsel to our work. 

As some of you may know, I have been particularly concerned 
about the apparent increase in the number of incidents of bigotry 
and violence on college campuses. Last summer introduced a 
resolution calling on staff to prepare for us a briefing on the 
subject. The written document that staff produced and which all 
of you were sent pointed the way for further study. 

Again, I introduced a resolution in March of this year to hold 
a formal briefing for the Commissioners. In April we decided that 
a more fruitful discussion could occur if more participants were 
invited, and the Chairman established this subcommittee to 
expand the briefing in a half-day session today. 

That was three weeks ago. I want to both thank and compli- 
ment the staff, Melvin Jenkins and John Eastman, for pulling 
together an extraordinary amount of useful material and develop- 
ing this briefing on very short notice. It is difficult to bring people 
in from various parts of the country in a short period of time, and 
this is exactly what the staff has done and they have done a 
bang-up job. 

I ought to also point out that we have attempted very seriously 
to bring in a variety don't mean those who are for or against 
violence. I mean those who have different perspectives as to the 
nature of the origin of harassment and violence and what it all 

I have here a bundle of material reflecting some of the news 
clippings that the staff has gathered. Most of this bundle is made 
up of news clippings. It is really quite extraordinary both in 
terms of heft and the number of indications of various examples 
of racial and religious harassment, intimidation, and violence that 
has been developing. I believe this body of material reflects a 


bundle that was collected and is not quite brought up to date. 
This is what I received six or seven weeks ago from the staff. 

The problem is that we really don't know what this all means. 
We have a body of anecdotal material. The newspapers tell us 
this is what has happened. It is difficult to put this in any 
perspective, to understand what it means, and of course, most 
Importantly, to be able to think through ways of dealing with 
issues of this kind. It is for that reason that we have gathered 

The Commission is not an enforcement agency. We are not 
here to resolve existing tensions on any particular campus, nor 
are we here to fix blame on any particular individuals. We are 
here to assess what is happening at our Institutions of higher 
learning and we are here to see if perhaps our collective wisdom 
can contribute to a solution of the problem. 

We will be publishing a transcript of these discussions, a 
document reflecting the viewpoints that are expressed here, and 
other materials that we have gathered, and perhaps most impor- 
tantly, will make some recommendations as to what should be 

Before we begin, 1 have been cautioned to urge on you certain 
cautionary comments. Statements that would tend to defame or 
degrade particular Individuals should be avoided. In addition, we 
have much to discuss this afternoon, so please try to limit your 
Initial presentation to ten minutes. My colleagues, please try to 
limit your questions immediately following each presentation to 
those of a clarifying nature. More substantive comments and 
questions are more suited for the roundtable discussion portion 
of the agenda. 

With those brief and Introductory comments, we can go directly 
to the testimony that you are here to make. We have divided it 
generally into three categories. 

The first session will be given over to trying to measure the 
extent of the problem. 

The second session will direct itself toward those individuals 
here who are expert in the area of helping us tiy to understand 
the causes of the problem. 

The third session will be given over to something here that is 
called solutions. We may interrupt that by virtue of some of the 
difficult schedules that one or two of you have, but it will be 
within that order that we will be going. 

I am going to call on Grace Flores-Hughes first, who carries 
the title of Director, Community Relations Service, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Justice. 

Welcome, Ms. Hughes. You have ten minutes. 



MS. FLORES-HUGHES: We at the Justice Department Com- 
munity Relations have dealt with each of the three different areas 
you will be discussing, the extent of the problem, causes, and 

I would like to give my presentation for about two or three 
minutes and then Judy Kruger, who is a field staff person who 
deals with this situation first hand, will give you a little bit about 
the causes and the solutions that we have been working on at 
Community Relations. I have to leave but she will stay here for 
the roundtable discussion. Some of the solutions and causes 
that you will be discussing later on, she can, I am sure, provide 
some input, given her firsthand knowledge and experience with 
the situation. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: May I have her name again? 

MS. FLORES-HUGHES: Judy Kruger. She is one of my con- 
ciliators from the field, and In this particular case, from Philadel- 
phia. She has done a lot of work on campuses and a lot of 
specific work on it, so she will be 

MS. FLORES-HUGHES: Judy Kruger. She is one of my con- 
ciliators from the field, and In this particular case, from Philadel- 
phia. She has done a lot of work on campuses and a lot of 
specific work on It, so she will be ny 
national data. Data, as many of you know, is lacking. We 
collected only based on the alerts that we do at the Community 
Relations Service. So I do want to specify that what I am about 
to talk to you all about Is based on our experience in the field 
and the alerts that we receive. 

Since 1986 CRS's case work involving college campuses has 
Increased significantly. For example. In 1987 CRS field staff filed 
48 alerts involving campuses. In 1988 the field staff filed 77 
alerts. For those of you who may not be familiar, an alert Is a 
formal notification from the field to the headquarters office that 
racial tensions exist at a particular site. It is a formal notifica- 

As I said, there is a lack of accurate statistics on the number 
of racial incidents that have occurred on campuses. 

Based on interviews we have had with students and other 
members affected, what we have found is that national and 
International causes Include the increasing cost of college, the 
restructuring, for example, of federal loans and grants; many 
college officials' fear of minority activism caused by sympathy for 
International Issues. 

We break them up by national and local. 

On the local campus level, many of these causes include per- 
ceived hostile campus environments, isolation of many minorities 
on college campuses, perceived Issues of recruitment and 


retention of minority students and faculty, and perceptions of 
curriculum not inclusive of minority cultures. 

Defunding or de-emphasis of special programs that target 
minorities is another example. 

Perceived institutional discouragement from entering or continu- 
ing academic studies in certain disciplines of minority students. 

Those are some examples of what the students have told our 
conciliators, our field staff. 

Our special interest is the lack of dispute resolution mechanis- 
ms available in colleges and universities and perceptions that 
existing mechanisms are unfair. So while we are worried about 
what exists, another comment that has been brought up Is the 
perception that those mechanisms may not be really helping the 

Again I emphasize that this is based on my staff doing their 
field work and their Interviews with college officials and students. 

Let me hand it over to Judy Kruger and let her tell you some 
of the things that we are doing at the Community Relations. 


MS. KRUGER Thank you. 

I am a conciliation specialist at Community Relations Service. 
I am based in Region III, which is Philadelphia. We have ten 
offices around the country, so we have been Involved In campuses 
all across the country. 

I would like to focus on pragmatic responses to campus racial 
and ethnic tension that our agency has been Involved with. 

First, I want to tell you very, very briefly how we work. 

As was mentioned, we first take official notice that there Is a 
tension. We work voluntarily. We may contact the Institution. 
Often the Institution has contacted us first. We go through a 
process of assessment to determine what the Issues are, what the 
history of the Issues are, who was involved, how, why, what the 
resources are, how good the chances of solution without any 
outside intervention are, and how local resources could be devel- 

ff we have a sense that we could be useful in developing local 
resources, we could offer three types of assistance. 

The first is technical assistance. That may mean a college 
president calling me and saying would you please put together a 
packet of statutes from states on reporting racial and ethnic 
incidents so that I can adopt them for a university setting. 

The second level of assistance is conciliation. Conciliation Is 
any process that Improves communication, that brings parties 
together to talk short of formal mediation. The result of concilia- 
tion is improved communication between different groups. 


Our third resource is formal mediation. We are all trained 
formal mediators. 

We frequently are invited in during a particular tension or an 
incident. We offer assistance in the immediate improvement of 
communication and dispute resolution channels, and frequently 
we develop an ongoing relationship due to the effectiveness of the 
initial response. 

The types of responses that we have provided over the past two 
or three years which I think would be of general use to college 
administrators, in fact all college populations, are: 

• assisting colleges in developing reporting mechanisms for 
racial and ethnic incidents on campus. 

• assisting universities to review their policies and other written 
statements impacting on racial and ethnic diversity. 

We have conducted mediation training: we have conducted 
crisis mediation and conciliation between protestors and ad- 
ministrators, campus police, local or state police, and neighbor- 
hood groups. 

We have assisted schools in the development of their own 
mediation services, ombudsperson offices, resident assistant 
training in dispute resolution. 

We have provided university communities with up-to-date 
information on hate violence. We have had a number of schools 
in the past couple of years where there have been approaches by 
organized hate groups such as the Klan to the university or to a 
university town. We have worked with the town or the institution 
in dealing with those approaches. 

We have encouraged universities to assess their racial and 
ethnic climate. Often we find there is a perception gap between 
groups. For example, administrators will say people are very 
comfortable here: everyone seems comfortable. We find in 
assessing the views of discrete groups that there may be discom- 
forts that administrators are not aware of which lead to incidents 
that they need to become aware of on an ongoing basis. 

To this end, we have developed a tool to aid administrators in 
assessing the racial and ethnic climate of the campus. We would 
be happy to provide that tool. You can contact me later. 

We have provided training to campus law enforcement officers 
on racial and ethnic awareness. We have helped them examine 
their hiring and promotion policies within the department, helped 
them look at improving their relationship with on-campus and 
off-campus populations. To this end, I will be working with the 
Virginia campus law enforcement administrators in June, giving 
them two workshops. 

We have mediated disputes about university expansion and the 
institution's relationship with the neighborhood. 

I think I will stop there. Thank you. 



We will first have the testimony and then we will have ques- 
tions and discussion. 

Incidentally, I am not going to go through the entire biographi- 
cal sketch describing your virtues, accomplishment and achieve- 
ments. We will stipulate that you all are virtuous, achieving, and 
more than competent with regard to these and many other 

The next panelist is Jeffrey Ross, who is from the Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nal B'rith. His role will be to describe the 
number and character of incidents occurring. I have asked Mr. 
Ross to broaden the scope of his examination of these materials 
in terms of outside agitators and individuals often seen connected 
with hate groups who have been coming to campus. 

Dr. Ross. 


Dr. ROSS: At the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith we 
have for some time now been looking at cases of anti-Semitism 
on campus. What we have seen for at least the last five years 
has been basically a steady increase. 

In calendar year 1988 we saw a process going from one of a 
more or less steady increase to one of a dramatic increase. We 
saw a 271 percent increase in the number of campuses reporting 
incidents to a total of 38 campuses reporting Incidents in 1988. 

It always has to be kept in mind that the nature of processes 
on campuses, especially if one goes to small liberal arts institu- 
tions which are not close to any major media center, that you 
have a systematic process In which reporting of incidents tends 
to be distorted downward. Therefore, whatever we see inevitably 
tends to be the tip of the iceberg. 

If one takes the 170 incidents which the Civil Rights Commis- 
sion compiled as something of a baseline, then what you have for 
1988, if I read the data correctly, is a situation in which 22.3 
percent of all the incidents on campuses as we see them involved 
one way or another cases of anti-Semitism. 

What I would like to do is address myself to a variety of issues 
which are both explanatory and also to get to the issue that 
Mr. Friedman suggests, which I think is an Important one. But 
what I would like to do is to go beyond the materials which I 
have provided in the briefing paper which you have before you. 

The first thing I would like to point out is that an attack on 
one minority will inevitably lead to a circumstance in which other 
minorities become vulnerable, and therefore it is no accident that 
the increased levels of anti-Semitism on campus are directly 
related to and exist in a climate of increasing numbers of 
Instances of racial and ethnic bigotry and prejudice on campus. 


The question inevitably arises, are there more cases or are we 
Just finding more cases because we are looking for them? That, 
I think, is an essential question to which a definitive answer at 
the moment is not available. It is my feeling, being someone who 
has worked in this area, that the answer is both. There are more 
cases but we have also been finding more cases in part because 
there is greater attention being given to this subject and victims 
are more likely to come out and speak up. Not in all cases, but 
in many. 

The inevitable next question is, what has there been about the 
last few years which has been conducive to this outcome? If 
there indeed has been more now, or at least if people are more 
sensitive to them now, or if our sense of fairness has been more 
antagonized by what has happened now, why has that been? 

I would suggest a variety of explanations. This is a pattern of 
phenomena in which no one explanation will suffice, but let me 
give several, starting with one. 

What you see in recent years is the development on a number 
of campuses of a critical mass of students from a variety of 
minority groups. Tliere has been some data recently to suggest 
that black enrollments have actually gone down if not peaked. 

Nonetheless, once you develop critical masses of minority 
students on campuses, one is more likely to get incidents than 
in situations where you do not have a presence of minorities on 
campus, and it has to be pointed out that the presence of large 
numbers of minorities on campus is a relatively recent phenomen- 
on. Take Jews, for example, who right now have almost a 
universal higher education access. This is very much a post- 
World War II phenomenon. Before the second world war this did 
not happen. This has happened much more recently for other 

In the Immediate generation of students from a minority group 
who first go to campuses in which they are in effect blazing new 
trails what is likely to happen is that they will in effect bury 
themselves into the campus and see a college education as a 
ticket to the American dream, as most indeed still do. 

Nonetheless, after a generation or two of students, what you 
see is that students come to campus and are not satisfied only 
to achieve an education and to achieve the credentials for success 
in American life. 

What they want to do on campus is to see the campus as an 
environment in which one can er^age in personal and group self- 
actualization. What this is going to mean on campuses is that 
minority groups make demands for the allocation of scarce resour- 

When this happens, what is Inevitable is that there will be 
conflict, and to the degree to which demands are made for 


financial aid changes, for changes of admissions poUcies, for 
changes in curricula structure, and so forth, you are having a 
situation in which existing resource allocation patterns are being 
challenged and also to a certain degree existing value structures 
are being challenged, and what you have inevitably wUl be 

That is one level of explanation. There are others as well. I 
don't mean to suggest that this is anything near the total 
explanation. To be a social scientist for a moment, if it can 
incorporate 20 percent of the variation, I think that is a great 

Let me give you some other observations. 

The first is that what you have on campus for many of the 
Incidents are instances of related pathologies. Specifically, many 
of the instances that you see on campus, many of the most 
egregious instances on campus, involve other pathologies which 
have existed for quite some time. These include drug abuse on 
campus, in particular alcohol abuse on campus, vandalism on 

To a certain degree, these phenomena which have existed for 
some time and which will most likely continue to exist find 
specific minority targets. In looking at the Impact upon minoriti- 
es, one has to look at a background in which you have had 
alcohol abuse, and so forth and so on, on campus. 

Another instance is that many of the cases that you see on 
campus occur and their origins are not out of deliberate bias or 
they are not initially about racial, ethnic or religious hatred. One 
of the things you have to remember about a campus is that it is 
an environment in which people are brought together in relative- 
ly close quarters. 

Often what happens is that individuals will get involved in 
conflict over relatively modest things: a place in line, access to a 
book in the library, access to a closed course, or whatever. In a 
situation of conflict between two individuals. If there are ethnic, 
racial or religious differences, what will happen in a certain 
proportion of cases is that these conflicts which are not about 
ethnic, racial or religious things will become ethnlcized. and when 
they become ethnlcized they become much more dangerous and 
they become something other than what they originally were. 

Another point is that many of the problems that you see on 
campus occur not from deliberate bias, but occur as well because 
of Ignorance, occur also because of insensitlvity. 

Let me point out that many, many people In our society live in 
communities in which their degree of systematic interaction with 
others is highly limited. They go to a college campus. The 
classic student is 17 or 18 years old. For the first time in their 
lives many of them are away from home. This can be an 


academically difficult time for them; it can be a personaUy difficult 
time for them; it can be a sexually difficult time, and so forth and 
so on. Now in the midst of all this they have to deal, quite often 
on an everyday basis, with people from other groups that they 
have never had an experience of dealing with in the past. 

This can create an environment of incidents: it can also create 
an environment of rampant tnsensitivity. I think it is clear to 
point out that people who are 17 or 18 years old are basically 
not those who are best known for being sensitive in intergroup 

We generally tend to look at incidents on campus as invariably 
being majority versus minority. Whereas there are a great 
number of those, we also have to be aware that there are many, 
many cases which involve minority-minority conflict. 

In addition, a dynamic force in much conflict on campus 
Involves intragroup conflict, which then gives rise to intergroup 

Many campus administrations err because they perceive these 
problems as fundamentally public relations problems rather than 
as human relations problems. I think a key to the solution is 
that institutions need to perceive their problems as being 
fundamentally human relations rather than as public relations. 

The question that Mr. Friedman has asked involves extremist 
speakers. The extremist speaker who has received the greatest 
attention, including the greatest attention from us, is (name 
deletedl. But he is not alone. Others include [name deletedl, 
otherwise known as (name deleted), and even the now fired aide 
of former Mayor Sawyer of Chicago [name deleted] has been 
hitting the campus circuit. 

What we tend to do in looking at these instances is to focus 
on the speech itself as the incident and specifically see what 
degree of poison the speaker has spread on campus. 

1 would submit that the speech itself, although it is important, 
is not the most important thing. What is most important is that 
you have months and months of controversy quite often swirling 
around up to the date of the speech and what this controversy 
tends to do is polarize people, to generate tensions on campus. 

Campuses should be seen as communities. When you have 
polarization and tension in a community the bonds of community 
break down and people tend to see each other not as fellow 
members of the community or even as individuals, but as 
members of contending groups. 

So when you have cases of not only extremist speakers, but 
Klan groups and others who try to achieve access on campus, 
you have also situations like the one at Temple University where 
a white student union has been chartered, in which yoii have 
student groups in formation. These sorts of situations polarize 


students who are not personally involved in the issue. It creates 
tension and this tension will exist and persist quite often for years 
afterwards even after the speaker has long since gone and what 
he has exactly said has long been forgotten. 

The implications of these things are great, and I think by 
concentrating only on the speech itself we tend to lose sight of 
the larger issues. 

To conclude, in terms of what do we do, there are many things 
that can be done. 

I think two things need to be pointed out. 

Number one, you have to work from both below and above. 
From below one has to be in a situation working to sensitize 
people on campus, faculty, students, administrators, to the reality 
that words have consequences, deeds have consequences, and 
that when you do certain things other people will be adversely 
affected and one should be aware of that. Quite often what you 
are dealing with is a situation in which people are not consciously 
seeking to antagonize others but are going along with a campus 
environment, a campus culture which breeds intolerance, which 
breeds bigotry, and one has to try to intervene to in effect break 
that culture or at least confront it. 

The second thing, and most important, one has to deal with 
administrators from above. Administrators are those who set the 
moral tone on campus. It is crucial that administrators specifi- 
cally state through policy this is what will be accepted on 
campus, this is what will not be accepted on campus. TTie rules 
have to be clear and the rules have to be clearly applied and be 
seen to be clearly applied. 

Let me stop there. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Dr. Ross. I found your 
comments particularly helpful by putting the incidents in a 
broader context as well as the number and amount of episodes. 

Our next speaker is Dr. Stephen Balch, who is the chairman 
of the National Association of Scholars, a fairly recently formed 
organization, and, I might add, a personal friend as well. 


DR BALCH: Thank you, Murray. 

I am going to speak at the outset from the vantage of my 
faculty role, drawing whatever insights I can. I have for 14 years 
been associate professor of government at the John Jay College 
of Criminal Justice. Though it is not directly my field, this has 
given me a little bit of knowledge about the problems inherent in 
collecting figures about crime incidents, some of which have 
already been touched on by Dr. Ross; also a vsintage on the iimer 
life of an institution with a very heterogeneous ethnic and racial 
composition located in Manhattan. 


With respect to the collection of figures having to do with crime, 
of course most criminal acts are in some sense harder. They 
refer to activities in which, in the most extreme sense, there may 
be a body, in the case of a murder; in which there is property 
damage or theft or something of that sort. These have long been 
known to be very much a function (a) of people's willingness to 
report the alleged offense, with the exception of murder where in 
fact you have usually indisputable evidence of a crime, and (b) the 
willingness of those agencies that collect statistics to report the 
statistics and to publicize them. 

In the state of New Jersey, where I serve as chair of the New 
Jersey State Advisory Committee, one of the things we recently 
did was to encourage the state of New Jersey to systematically 
collect statistics on incidents having to do with hate crimes. This 
will seem to show, I am sure, that there has been a rise in hate 
crimes in the state of New Jersey. We have statistics on it now; 
we didn't have statistics on it seven or eight years ago. That may 
indeed have happened, but there is an appearance apart from the 
reality that has to be taken into account. 

In terms of my personal experience at John Jay, and I have 
been there now since 1974, I don't think it is a particularly 
unusual institution given its geographic situation. There has 
always been a strong undercurrent of tension between students 
of different backgrounds. 

We have many different populations represented in the student 
body. Many of the students get along very well, and of course it 
is always terribly encouraging to see that. There are many 
interracial and ethnic friendships which develop on campus. 

One of the best parts of being at a place like John Jay is to 
see that kind of thing occur. Of course for most of the students 
at the college it is a place to go and to take their course and to 
get a degree and they are probably more or less indifferent to the 
great body of other students. 

But, throughout my experience there, there have always been 
incidents: a nasty word said: allegations of discrimination in the 
distribution of student funds, for example: even things which 
happened in classrooms, with which I have direct experience: 
comments made by students in class. Many of these episodes 
have been uncomfortabe either personally or to hear about. 

Nonetheless, it is not simply a matter of recent history. It is 
a matter of very long duration. If you go into any of the restroo- 
ms at the college, there has always been a profuse supply of 
racist graffiti on the waUs, in the toilet stalls. They are updated. 
They are washed off the walls and they appear again. There are 
dialogues that take place among the graffiti writers. It is a very 
lively, unpleasant aspect to have to bear witness to, but it is 
nothing new. It has been there a long, long time. 


Now it may indeed be the case that these kinds of incidents 
are increasing. I think we have to be cautious in drawing those 
conclusions, but it may indeed be true. I think we have to kind 
of take these limitations on our perceptions of the situation Into 
account. They are functions of things that are apart from the 
actual incidents that may be occurring. 

In examining the possibility that there has indeed been a real 
increase and in looking at the period of time over which this 
Increase has been reported, there do seem, to me at least, to be 
some climatic factors which may indirectly account for It. Some 
of these have been addressed by the presentation just preceding. 

One that 1 would like to take into account occurred in 1984, 
1985, 1986, and that was the fairly massive campaign on many 
campuses around the country to require Institutions to divest 
themselves of holdings in companies that did business in South 

Clearly, these are not racist incidents, but one could certainly 
argue plausibly that they had an effect of sharpening people's 
perceptions of their own Identity as a member of this organized 
group, and also sharpen people's perceptions of the salience of 
racial issues, both in American society, and maybe more impor- 
tantly, on campus, because after all, the chief allegation that was 
made was that the colleges and universities were in a state of 
complicity with racist policies abroad. It was really brought right 
down to the level of the institution itself. 

One really can't plot out all the sequences and relationship of 
causation, but here you have something that did occur right at 
the beginning of the period that we are addressing ourselves to. 
Certainly it is not farfetched to imagine that it brought the issue 
of racism In a variety of ways much more squarely to the campus 
than anything had before. Again, if people's perceptions have a 
lot to do with how they interpret specific things that happen in 
their day-to-day life, it is conceivable that this campaign was sort 
of a watershed. 

Another thing one might say is that we have increasingly 
widened our notion of what harassment and victimization 
constitutes because during the late 1970s and 1980s we have 
multiplied the number of groups and the types of acts that we 
consider to be offensive. 

I am not talking about racial incidents particularly here, 
because I don't thinS: there has been a change on that score, but 
with respect to harassment on the basis of sex. I travel around 
the country and go to a lot of colleges and universities. I was 
absolutely stopped in my tracks when I saw on the wall of a 
professor's office what could have been — I don't know if it was 
or not — a cartoon out of Playboy. He had it up on his wall. 


I could not imagine most professors, whatever their personal 
feelings were, with any mind for their futures and careers doing 
that. I don't know what this man's position was, but ten or 15 
years ago I think the attitude would have been quite different. 

Clearly there has been a change of sensibility on this matter 
and whatever one might think of all of its manifestations, it 
changes the way in which people perceive individual acts. 

The same thing is true when it comes to cases of sexual 
harassment based on what we now say is sexual preference. 
Again, people look at these acts differently. There are also groups 
on campus that are willing to make a case against certain forms 
of behavior that in the past would have been maybe just seen as 
tasteless but not seen as specific effects. That too has to be 
taken into account. 

I have some other things to say about the causes of the 
problem. I am not sure I faU into that category, so I will Just 
limit it to maybe a minute and a half and perhaps I can come 
\)ack to it later. 

Campuses are unique places when we are talking about issues 
of group tension and perceived discrimination and unfairness. 
They are unique places in American society because they are not 
just places where people work together, and students, of course, 
do work together to some extent. They are places where people 
work and live together, and yet strangely enough, they are also 
not permanent communities. They are communities where people 
stay for a while and move on. 

I urge that last point as being of some importance, because If 
you work and live together and you expect you are going to do 
it for a very long time, you have an Incentive to get along with 
people who you are with, whatever you may feel or think. On 
the other hand, if you are going to move on, it is not all that 

So you have people at very close quarters with each other who 
do not have any real necessity to like each other, to form 
enduring bonds. You also have people at a time in the upside 
of their lives, the free spirits of youth; the down side, of course, 
is that their passions are less governable. They sort of give way 
to things that adults would be able to contain. 

All this is taking place in a situation in which for some time 
and increasingly you have a two-tier structure of education, 
particularly as it affects racial and ethnic minorities. You have 
increasingly, though it has been around for some time, differential 
standards as applied to admissions. If you look at the Madison 
plan as an example, which was part of the documents we were 
given in preparation for this, as applied to financial aid; as 
applied to counseling; as applied to a whole series of things which 
affect group success. 


Again, what everyone might think of the merits of doing this 
along racial and ethnic lines, and I have some real reservations 
about it, when you are dealing with a student body that has all 
these other characteristics, which to some degree is competing 
individually for grades and for positions and for entry, it is not 
surprising that some students will perhaps take offense. Whatev- 
er the merit of their feeling about the general policy, oftentimes 
this would be expressed in offensive and abusive actions towards 
individuals in groups to which their resentments may be develop- 

So I think if we want to look at the roots, we might want to 
examine how these policies operate and the kinds of perceptions 
that students have on both sides about the fairness and equity 
of these policies. 


CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Dr. Balch, and thank you, 
members of the panel who have shared your thoughts with us. 

We come now to that portion of this program in which the 
Commissioners may address questions to the panel, or to 
comment or exchange. We will permit about ten or 15 minutes 
on this. 

COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: First of all, I want to thank you 
for being here this afternoon. We are truly concerned about what 
is happening and we appreciate that you have given us the time 
to be here. 

The work that the Department of Justice has done in their CRS 
division is quite impressive. You have covered all three areas, so 
it is going to be hard to Just take "the extent of the problem." So 
I am going to have to overlap. 

You say that whenever you have a situation some of the 
characteristics that you see that lead to the increases in campus 
tension are financial. You say tuition has Increased dramatically 
and rapidly and grant and loan availability and qualifications 
have changed. 

I would ask all three of you. Why Is it that we see it from 
1987 to 1988? Why wasn't it there before? It seems like all of 
a sudden there is a big jump. What would you say is the one 
cause or the one factor that is the straw that broke the camel's 
back? What happened in 1987 that made the difference in 1988? 

I recognize that availability of monies was one of the issues, 
but why the changes? Did it just kind of explode at that point? 

DR BALCH: One of my contentions was that perhaps in the 
years preceding there were some other changes which sharpened 
people's sensitivities on these scores. Once a certain threshold 
is passed and the issue becomes picked up by the national press, 
then the incentive system to report incidents that might have 


gone unreported changes. The interest of reporters is enhanced. 
Those students who for whatever reason feel that it wUl be better 
for them or for their group to talk about the incidents, their 
incentive to report it increases. 

You also have these issues increasingly tied up with efforts to 
change the way in which institutions are governed, recruitment 
processes, curriculum structure 

Groups that feel they have an interest — sometimes these are 
actually people within the highest level of the administration of 
the university or college itself — will also take the issue as an 
illustration of a problem that needs to be addressed in a way that 
they would like to address it: changing the content of the cur- 
riculum; hiring more faculty with certain backgrounds; admitting 
more students; establishing special counseling services. The 
issue has become part of a Idnd of political process within our 
nation's colleges and universities. As an issue does so. inevitably 
people not only become more aware of it. but become more willing 
to talk about it. 

To some extent, there may also be a self-fulfilling prophecy 
aspect. The more people sense that there is racial tension the 
more racial tension actually exists, and so things happen that 
might not otherwise have happened. If I had to guess, and that 
is the best one can do. I would see it in that constellation of 
events and circumstances. 

COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: It Just keeps going like a snow- 

DR BALCH: It doesn't keep going forever. These processes 
generally are self-limiting. Perhaps there are things that we can 
do about it. But within certain limits a momentum tends to 
develop, yes. 

Dr. ROSS: If I could add several observations to this. It may 
well be the fact that there is more attention being given to this. 
Clearly there has been attention given to this by the press, but 
there has always been attention given to this which was not given 
before by campus administrations. 

The fact that now campus administrations are trying to confront 
the problems with all the noise and everything that comes along 
with that can be seen to a certain degree as an indication not 
only that there is a problem, but also an indication that there are 
at least attempts at a solution to the problem. 

Going back to your question itself, there have been a number 
of egregious incidents which took place before 1988. Among these 
have been incidents in 1986. For instance, the infamous case of 
the hazing of the black cadet at the Citadel took place tn 1986. 
The attack of a group of white Boston fans upon blacks who were 
perceived as being Mets fans at the University of Massachusetts 


also took place in 1986. The major events at the University of 
Michigan in terms of the anti-black jokes on the radio station and 
all that emerged from that, sit-ins and so forth, took place before 

If you look at it, one can see an acceleration perhaps of trends 
which have been going about for some time. 

Also, I would like to point out that I think we go astray when 
we look at incidents and that the focus of our attention is upon 
the Incident. In many situations what you have are conditions. 

Take the case of the graffiti, for instance. If we have a 
situation where you have in effect a large graffiti on a public 
building, we consider that to be an incident. But if you have a 
large accumulation of small graffiti in what is otherwise a public 
place, a public bathroom, a library, and so forth, it just grows 
and it gathers over the years. Is that an incident? E^^eiy time 
somebody writes down a graffito, is that an incident? No, it's 
not. It becomes a condition. 

For instance, date rape. Is that an Incident or is that a condi- 
tion? Problems that you have in terms of fraternity hazing, and 
so forth. Are those incidents or are those part of larger condi- 

I think if we look at the larger systems on and off campuses. 
I think we have a better view of these things than concentrating 
on incidents per se. When we concentrate on incidents we tend 
to see them as aberrations rather than as part and parcel of an 
ongoing culture. 

I think to a certain degree what we have had this last year is 
a massive pothole on campus. Potholes are a phenomenon which 
one day you don't see and the next day you come out and there 
is a big hole in the ground. The question can be. well, what 
happened yesterday to create the hole in the ground? The hole 
in the ground wasn't created yesterday. It only appeared today. 
What you have had for years and years is subsurface erosion. I 
think that is really what we have been seeing. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Let's go around the room. 

Commissioner Chan, do you have any questions? 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: I think we all agree that the majority 
of these problems on campus are due to drugs or alcohol, like 
Dr. Ross said. Or race or anti-Semitism. To me it is a reflection 
of the society. They are a group of people who are about to 
enter the real world. They are about to enter the society. When 
they see something, they are very sensitive and they react to it. 

Dr. ROSS: I think what has happened on campus in the last 
few years is that people are reacting to things that previously 
they didn't react to. I think to a certain degree victims are having 
louder voices. 


One more thing I would like to point out as well is that we 
have attention to the concern that a certain number of incidents 
on campus is a reaction to at least the perception of eiffirmatlve 
action policies. I think there is some truth in that. 

It also has to be pointed out that a good deal of what you have 
in society and on campus as well In terms of incidents of hatred 
is not hatred directed against those who one has perceived as 
doing poorly, but rather you have instances which are exacerbated 
when people are perceived as doing well. 

In particular, the large numbers of recent attacks upon Asians 
on campus has to be seen in this light. It is, I think, to our 
shame that institutions seem to be abetting this by their almost 
public concern over the fact that there are too many Asians 
entering public institutions. I think what this does is send 
signals to others to vent their hatreds. This goes back to what I 
said before. It is up to administrators to set the moral tone on 
campus. When administrators fail on this, what you have in 
effect is an amoral if not immoral tone set on campus. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Does anyone else want to comment 
on this? 

(No response.) 

Commissioner Guess. 


CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I would like to ask a question. I live 
In Philadelphia. We have been experiencing a series of visits from 
[name deleted] to the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. 
I think beginning around October of 1986 each year he or a 
member of his staff returns to the campus. Each year there has 
been an enormous brouhaha that develops between the Jewish 
and the black students. 

I want to get a sense from any of you, particularly Dr. Ross, 
whose agency monitors matters of this kind, as to the extent of 
such visits. I derive the impression from the newspapers that a 
considerable number of campuses have experienced this black- 
Jewish confrontation growing out of (name deletedj's visits. What 
are its implications? 

Dr. ROSS: I tried to discuss this before. What this does is 
polarize groups on campus. In particular It polarizes blacks and 
Jews on campus. This ties into other things which are happening 
on campus in terms of relations between blacks and Jews, things 
related to the Jesse Jackson campaign, especially in the last year, 
which has generated tensions, and also tensions relating to the 
fact that at least a portion of black activists on campus have 
taken up the Palestinian cause as a cause which they see as 
something akin to their own. ff you add these things together, 
what you have are clearly exacerbating tensions. 


In terms of numbers, you have large numbers. A very disturb- 
ing reality has come about now. You have extremist speakers. 
What extremist speakers want to do is to get publicity and to get 
an audience. 

There are two ways to do it. One way to do it is to go to 
various places and rent a hall and hold a meeting. 

But there is a better way. What they can do is get themselves 
Invited to campuses where they don't have to rent the hall. They 
are also not only provided with a forum, but they are quite often 
paid very excellent speaking fees in order to do it. 

What you have now is a situation in which a number of 
extremist groups have found in the campus a way of most 
effectively disseminating one's message into the society and 
maintaining one's notoriety. 

The fact is that if [name deleted] speaks at the University of 
Pennsylvania, he is going to get much, much more attention than 
he will by renting a hall and giving a speech in irmer city 
Philadelphia or inner city Chicago or inner city anyplace else. 

You see other groups getting in on the bandwagon. You see 
in a number of states KKK groups petitioning to come on campus. 
By the way. it really ultimately doesn't matter whether they 
actually succeed or not in coming on to the campus. What is 
most important to them is that they get months and months and 
months of free publicity out of it. One is always reminded of the 
old truism of the Hollywood starlet: there is no such thing as bad 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Commissioner Guess. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Has anyone conducted any post- 
(name deleted] visit assessment to determine what Impact his 
message has on the students? 

Dr. ROSS: I would argue that the message isn't the message. 
In a number of instances the speech itself turns out to be much 
more mild than people had been led to expect, [name deleted]'s 
most egregious comments are now well known. Before the speech 
these things are preprinted and discussed endlessly on the 
campus. The fact is that the real speech itself is generaUy 
antlcllmactlc. He or the others are not going to say anything that 
people haven't already read or seen on video tape or imagined In 
their own minds. To a certain degree these things tend to be 
disappointing. The problem is that the controversy leading up to 
the speech polarizes people on campus. Fairly or unfairly, you 
have that polarization and the polarization continues thereafter. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Are you suggesting then that Jewish 
Americans are the ones who in fact serve as [name deleted]'s 
marketing agents because of the pre-performance reaction that is 


Dr. ROSS: In just the same way that black Americans serve 
as KKK marketing agents, and so forth and so on. Those who 
perceive themselves being victimized by a monger of hate will 
react to it. By reacting to it they are going to raise the heat, and 
when you have more heat you have more visibility if not more 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Are you suggesting that one way we 
may be able to nip this in the bud is to deal with the reactors? 

Dr. ROSS: I think there are ways of dealing with this. This 
gets to the next point when you talk about extremist speakers on 
campus. Campus administrations are in a dilemma. The 
universities don't invite [name deleted). It is student groups on 
the campuses who invite [name deleted). The universities find 
themselves very uncomfortably in the middle. On the one hand, 
they would like to dump a problem that they didn't originate. At 
the University of Pennsylvania they were able to sidestep the issue 
through the question of a security bond. 

On the other hand, there is an academic commitment to free 
speech. The question then becomes, how do you balance the 
two? I would argue that if the appearances on campus became 
more of what they are advertised as being, which is opportunities 
for academic exchange of views, and less in the way of public 
rallies, then perhaps we would go some way toward ameliorating 
the circumstance. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Did you want to comment. Ms. 

MS. KRUGER: Yes. I would like to add to that point that the 
First Amendment right to free speech is very, very much being 
examined. I think there are many people who have a strong 
feeling that the legal standard allows for the type of speech that 
results in physical injury, harassment, intimidation. I wanted to 
say that the Community Relations Service will be rescheduling to 
the fall a forum for college presidents to be discussing issues as 
difficult as free speech versus its possible results. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Examined by whom, please. Ms. 

MS. KRUGER: By many members of campus populations. I 
have seen it in student newspapers. I have heard college 
presidents talking about it. Two days ago in The New York Times 
there were three letters in one day about the First Amendment 
and campus free speech. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Is it safe to conclude from that that 
the Justice Department is also going through this examination? 

MS. KRUGER: That is not our function. Our function is 
mediators of disputes. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: I mean in terms of interpretation of 
the First Amendment. 


MS. KRUGER No, not that I know of. 

Dr. ROSS: If I could also add one more point. When we focus 
on these events our focus should be broader than the campus 
itself. The term "tension on campus" is perhaps an incorrect one, 
especially when you deal with a case of extremist speakers. One 
could talk perhaps of tensions focusing on the campus. 

In the cases of extremist speakers who are coming from off the 
campus on to the campus, what you have is a building dynamic 
which involves groups on the campus with groups off the campus. 
In some instances you have cases of speech on campus in which 
the problem isn't so much for the groups on campus, but you 
rather have a problem for people in the larger community. 

So therefore the question of interchange between campus 
tension and community tension and how the two build and feed 
on each other is a very important one which should be considered 
as well. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I want to turn next to the second 
session. Before I do so, I am going to call out of turn our 
colleague Irving Levine who has been gracious enough to Join us 
today even though his organization and my own organization is 
in national session at the Marriott. 

MR LEVINE: This meeting Is so fascinating, I might be forced 
to stay. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: We will put you ahead anyway. 

Mr. Levine is the head of the National Affairs Department of 
the American Jewish Committee and a very distinguished 
intergroup relations professional, and again, a personal friend. 

MR LEVINE: Thank you, Murray. 


I am very happy to be here. I am delighted that the U.S. 
Commission is holding this hearing. It is absolutely necessary 
that we know more about this phenomena. 

I think you have heard some terrific presentations. I identify 
with them. They seem to strike a familiar note in terms of our 

Ms. Kruger, we are delighted with the system that the Com- 
munity Relations Service seems to have. Our only advice is, 
please start to communicate it to racial and ethnic organizations 
a little bit better. We really need much more consultation. We 
know your New York outfit and we are very friendly, but we do 
need to talk a little bit more about it. 

I want to relate some material from studies we have done and 
also from experience on over 75 campuses and many, many 
experiences over the last ten years that I have myself had in 
doing multi-ethnic training in high schools, and only recently 
getting warmed up to getting out of my office, have started to go 


Into colleges and begun to do what I call systemic consultation. 

I say that because we have run numerous prejudice reduction 
workshops with our consultants all over the county. While they 
have been satisfactory experiences and have proven to us that 
there Is a base of good will among students and among faculty 
and administrators who want to carry on this program, we have 
found that they are inadequate in responding to the systemic 
problems that we see. 

The American Jewish Committee is beginning to shift its 
priorities to systemic institutional consultation, that is, helping 
universities carry out a total plan in dealing with Issues of 
cultural pluralism, something that we find they are incredibly 
deficient in and, sad to say, not competent and barely organized 
except for some excellent places which are the exception to the 

I recently spoke to a large group in California, about 150 
people. Fifty were faculty members of major universities in the 
Los Angeles area. I asked those 50, if a racial, ethnic or religious 
incident took place on your campus, would you know the address 
for taking care of that incident? Not one person raised their hand. 
Let me summarize some of our experiences that come out of high 
schools. We are convinced that some of the statistics we have on 
national surveys of tolerance, intolerance, acceptance of differen- 
ces, that they are largely correct: that is, the society is surprising- 
ly becoming more tolerant of differences than ever before. It 
seems to be a contradiction. At the 

same time, we are finding that the behavior of the kids is 
outrageous. They are philosophically tolerant and behavioristi- 
caUy outrageous. They are acting out against each other. There 
is a large-scale lack of respect for each other, lack of respect for 
self, reported everywhere. A lot of ethnic bashing verbally and 
done sometimes with fun. Much self-denigration. That Is, black 
kids call themselves niggers. Other kids use similar epithets for 
their own group. 

The issue of female Jews who are called JAPs begins In the 
Jewish community and floats out into the larger community and 
has become, in our opinion — I think the ADL is with us on this 
— one of the most Important and new phenomena of classic anti- 
Semitism. Since anti-Semitism has become un-kosher it is much 
easier to bash Jewish women. So you hit two targets at one time. 
And I will say there is collusion among Jewish men in this attack. 
Some of it unconscious, some of it venal. 

I also head something called the Institute for American 
Pluralism of the American Jewish Committee which is doing some 
systemic studies on the psychology of group identity. We cannot 
avoid the implication that many, many kids have weak self-iden- 
tities and the findings constantly are that a weak self-identity, an 


Inadequate sense of group identity, contributes largely to their 
behavior problems. Those kids who have a strong group identity, 
we are convinced, are less likely to act out against others in a 
prejudicial way. 

All of the calls from blacks and other minority groups, and 
lately from Jews, to have public institutions play a role in 
strengthening group identity is a very, very important basic call, 
inadequately responded to. 

There is a great deal of controversy, as you know, on campus 
today as to how much cultural diversity ought to be encouraged, 
what kind of course work ought to be developed, what do you do 
Informally. Are you segregating young people if they are staying 
in their clubs? Don't you have to mix them? and so on. All 
these are very controversial issues. 

There is a tremendous amount of self-segregation, but we find 
in the self- segregation there are inadequate positive group identity 
activities. The self-segregation would be less harmful if there was 
content that developed around that self-segregation, and we find 
some places there is and many places there is not. 

We did a study just coincidentally because we were doing a 
large-scale study of ethnic images in the media. We just hap- 
pened to pick John Adams High School, which became, two or 
three months after the study, the place where those Howard 
Beach kids came from. These were largely white ethnic kids. 
We were interested in seeing what we would find when we took 
a differential look at the ethnic groupings in that school. 

We studied the responses of black and African Americans, 
Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Asians. That's about it. We discovered 
a very, very mixed pattern of responses. Those of us who think 
the black-white dichotomy defines American ethnic relations had 
better take another look. It is extraordinarily complex, both in 
the manner in which kids identify positively with their own group 
and how their own identification impacts on their response to 
other groups. 

We found, in order of seriousness, that Asian kids, Jewish kids, 
and then black kids thought that they had the greatest problem 
of prejudice and discrimination. One would have thought it was 
the black kids who would have come out first on that. That was 
not the case. 

We discovered that there were various tolerance levels, depend- 
ing upon group identity, with extreme differences based upon 
cultural background. 

We found Italian kids denigrating their own group, black kids 
denigrating their own group, Hispanic kids denigrating their own 
group. As a matter of fact, the group's own description was as 
bad usually in terms of the stereotype as the description at- 
tributed to that group by others. 


Tliis raises a big question about how complex we are In our 
anafysls. I would say we are being driven by media Images rather 
than our own Intellect and our own observations. We are 

quite frightened, frankfy, of the truth of multlculturallsm, which 
Is really what the norm Is. I think one of the Interesting things 
that Is taking place Is In areas where the anafysis has been rather 
poverty stricken In terms of traditional non-white minority groups 
and whites, we are finding when you break whites down there Is 
an extreme differential. We are finding that white kids are 
reacting against the strengthening of group identity of so-called 
people of color negatively. 

There is a new policy enunciated in the New York City Board 
of Higher Education. Eiveiy school must now do work on 
multlculturallsm and pluralism. They must have consistent 
policies In this area. The new New York City Board of Education 
policy Is the broadest and most far-reaching that we have seen. 
Of course it came about because of a historic coalition of blacks, 
Jews, Hlspanics, et cetera. It took 20 years to foige that coali- 
tion and get it dowri There Is some encouragement there. 

There are some programmatic and policy Implications of all 
this. The Commission must look broadfy at the pluralistic nature 
of the population that exists. It must include all groups, even 
white -Ajiglo-Saxon Protestants as an ethnic group in American 
society with cultural derivations and value differences. 

We have done studies recentfy of sophisticated middle and 
upper middle dass professionals In terms of their values. We 
find enormous differences, depending upon child rearing. WASP, 
Irish, Italian, Jewish, black, Hispanic, AsiaiL Enormous differen- 
ces. That has to be taken into consideration in any new studies. 
What we are finding Is Incredible mlscommunlcation at every level 
of society. We are missing each others' signals. We don't speak 
the same language. We do not understand whence we come. So 
that has to be tScen a good look at, and we are b^lnnlng to have 
more systemic studies in that area. 

We have to take a look at the Inadequate skills of people In 
our educational system. We are doing a lot of miilticultural 
training and staff development. There Is Incredible resistance In 
this field. The whole history of Intergroup relations goes back 40 
or 50 years on elementary and secondary levels. It hardly has 
developed yet on campuses. It Is just a new thing on campuses. 

We have found that you get a bridgehead and a beachhead In 
elementary and secondary education — cultural, pluralism, or 
whatever you call it; race relations, or whatever it has been called: 
or brotherhood — and it dies. We have been doing psychological 
studies on why all of these well motivated movements for reform 
have such a short life. 


We are convinced now that anything related to ethnicity, race 
or religion operates psychologically in the same way as sex, death 
and money: enormous resistance, ambivalence, fear, avoidance, 
and controversy. 

It is difficult for people who are overwhelmed educationally by 
all kinds of other needs and demands to pay attention to 
something as essential as good intergroup relations and healthy 
group identity when they are fearful and there are inadequate 
possibilities of training them. Our experience has been that once 
the fears are broken down there is enormous growth in the 
capacity of teachers to implement good programs. 

Kids respond positively to Intentional intergroup relations, 
multi-ethnic and self-identity programs. They like it. I would 
say they love it. Nobody is asking them who they are. Nobody 
is giving them an opportunity to rap about their real lives. They 
are not being taught towards their identity. They are being 
taught outside of their identity. Most teaching is alienation. 
Teaching to identity is something quite necessary. 

Schools have had enormous success in attempting to change 
a racial, ethnic and religious climate once they have implemented 
an intentional system-wide program. 

The history of desegregation indicates that it was not true what 
some of us so-called Uberals said. Mixing does not automatically 
create good will. It helps. Intentional programming on group 
relations creates it. So if you are not programming for it, you 
are not doing it. That is true on every level of education. 

We have also discovered that youth serving agencies which 
played a strong role in this field. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, other 
groups, have diminished their budgets. They tell us that they get 
money only for special problems, and one of the special problems 
is no longer prejudice; it's drugs, it's alcohol, it's teenage pregnan- 

We need some legislation in this country and we need restora- 
tion of training money In this field. The United States Civil Rights 
Act gave off enormous amounts of money for school desegrega- 
tion. Along with It, human relations training. Much of that 
money has dried up. 

There are many, many trained consultants out there who are 
coming to the rescue of schools in this field, but there Is no 
budget. Thank God that some of the school systems are coming 
up with the dough. The New York school system just allocated 
$900,000 for multicultural training and has created a competition 
among its 30-odd districts with $50,000 to each district. That 
is the kind of stuff we need. Much will flow from that competi- 
tion. I have seen the proposals and I have seen the programs. 
There are people in all of our cities who are trained In this field. 


who can give assistance, and they need to also be brought into 
this framework. 

I will conclude on that. There have been 20 years of ethnic 
advocacy, and I have been part of that movement. We need five 
more years of coalition building, return to intergroup relations: 
we need to systematize skills training in this field; and we need 
to transmit to young people, and they will buy if we provide it. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Levine. I hope you 
can stay for the end of this session so that you may be subjected 
to some questions as well. 

The next person on our list is Dr. Reginald Wilson, who is 
described as senior scholar. Office of Minority Concerns, American 
Council on Education. 


DR. WILSON: I have a formal statement. Copies can be dis- 
tributed and you can read it at your leisure. 

I think as you have already found out from the previous com- 
ments it is very difficult to separate this into three neat areas of 
the extent, the causes and solutions. Everybody has had a crack 
at causes and I think much less on the other aspects. 

I would certainly agree with Dr. Ross that part of the creation 
of the problem is due to the fact that indeed there are minorities 
on campus. There would be no problem If they were not there. 
I think there is a considerable difference between what happened 
on campuses during the 1960s and what Is happening now 
during the 1980s. 

Certainly I would agree with Dr. Balch that there hasn't been 
a significant change in the expression of racism on predominately 
white campuses. It has always been there. I have been around 
on campuses for an awful long time and have seen it over those 

I think there is a qualitative difference in the expression 
because of the nature of circumstances, such as the antiapartheid 
movement that you talked about and some of the other current 
things that have caused some exacerbation of tensions on 
campuses over particular issues, but certainly in terms of the 
expression of blatant racism on predominately white campuses. 
It has always been there. I went to predominately white univer- 
sities for all of my degrees and I certainly saw it there. 

I think the fact that often you let some things go by is due to 
the fact that there were not sufficient numbers to do anything 
about it. For example, at the University of Michigan during my 
day about the only minority people who were there were athletes. 
There were not enough to hold a protest at the University of 
Michigan. Now you have got enough to hold a protest. Some of 
the things that are being protested are things that have been at 


the University of Michigan all along. So the critical mass is 
certainly an aspect of the difference in the way in which minority 
students are responding. 

You also have some differences in terms of the perception of 
resources. Resource allocation is a key factor in terms of the 
way In which people perceive what is happening on campuses. 
In the 1960s much of the action that had to do with race 
relations was not happening on campuses: it was happening In 
the general society. As a consequence, there was a good deal of 
unification between black students and white students because 
the problem was out there, not on campuses. 

I took large numbers of white students from Brooklyn College, 
from Michigan State, from the University of Michigan down to the 
South to work on voter registration campaigns and to work in 
Virginia on setting up alternative schools when segregated schools 
were closed down rather than to integrate them. They were very 
eager to participate in these kind of activities even at the risk of 
their lives. But it was a problem that was out there. It didn't 
have anything to do with the campuses that they came from 
because those campuses were almost totaUy white. 

I think what you see as a significant difference in the 1980s 
is that these problems are on the campuses, and that changes 
the d3niamic. You are talking about the resources on those 
campuses being seen as finite, or at least they are portrayed that 
way. As a consequence, many people on campuses, not only 
white students, but white faculty as well, perceive it as a zero 
sum game. That is, if you get some, 1 lose some. As a result, 
the presence of increasing numbers of black, Hispanic, Asian, 
2md Native American students on these campuses is seen as an 
encroachment on white entitlement. Part of the resentment and 
hostility is due to that perception. 

It is also due to student ignorance, which Mr. Levine talked 
about. The knowledge of most of your 19- or 20-year-olds goes 
back about three and a half years in terms of knowledge of 
history despite coming from many of our best schools. 

Because our leaders on campus — I include the faculty in that 
— have for years not taught the history of this country to their 
students, they have come to campus not only ignorant of what 
the intent of many programs on campuses are about, but often 
in many cases are encouraged by faculty to distort their percep- 
tions of that history, the history of racism, the history of legal 
segregation in this society, the history of segregation sanctioned 
by practices of the Federal Government, state governments, and 
institutions who colluded for many years to systematically exclude 
American racial minorities from their campuses. 

What you see now are feeble efforts on the part of these cam- 
puses to redress some of these grievances and often the leaders 


of those campuses, faculty and administrators and presidents, do 
not portray that as what it is indeed, a redressing of systemic 
discrimination that has existed in this society since it was 
founded and have not explained to white students that that is 
what they are about. 

Indeed, they tend to abet white students in perceiving that this 
is a distortion from what ought to be. So students are perceived 
as undeserving who come on campus: they are perceived as 
getting privileges which are not "coming to us" as white students; 
students coming through EOP programs, coming In with Pell 
grants, and so forth, are considered as being treated with some 
kind of special circumstance which is not available to students 
who are in the majority, and they have no sense of why that is 
being done. 

As a consequence, the frustration is abetted by the practices 
of the faculty and of the administration. The lack of leadership 
Is startling In that regard. When you see Its absence on cam- 
puses. It is a conscious practice; It Is not an unconscious one. 
Our curriculum has been swept clean, washed clean of any sense 
of the kind of discriminatory practices that had existed In the 
society of which these efforts are an attempt to redress. 

You also had expanding resources In the 1960s, so people felt 
that they could share. You had the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. You had the pouring of millions of 
dollars Into programs that seemed to add to access for people. 
As a result of that and a very positive national leadership, that 
is, a presidential leadership which encouraged that, which created 
a climate of support, and which also created a climate of enforce- 
ment, enforcement to the extent of saying this Is what you must 
do. Institutions were scrambling to do It. 

Being one of the products of that period, I recall that the way 
of recruiting of faculty In many Instances was not through your 
normal search processes, which all professors now hold sacred. 
In the 1960s, when they were told to clean up their act, I received 
a call from the chair of the department of psychology at the 
University of Michigan inviting me to come and be an assistant 
professor at U of M. 

Many others who came during the 1960s came In that way, by 
institutions scrambling to change what had been systematic 
discriminatory practices. That no longer Is happening. They 
thought the laws were going to be enforced, that the Federal 
Government was going to Insist that they change their practice, 
so they were scrambling to do so. Now you find that they have 
not only stopped those kind of aggressive recruitment practices 
for faculty and students, but they are indeed going in the opposite 


Very little recruitment of any kind is going on in graduate 
schools and in professional schools, and the numbers are showing 
that. In 1975 there were 1.213 doctorates awarded to black 
Americans. In 1987 there were 725. Institutions are not making 
any significant efforts to recruit minority scholars. I think it is a 
circumstance that is nothing less than disgraceful. I think it is 
a symptom of what is now being perceived as a situation of finite 
resources, of a zero sum circumstance, and that they are aiding 
and abetting in many Instances the students* and others percep- 
tions that there is something wrong with minorities being on 

So the lack of leadership is certainly a major problem. The 
lack of educational programs to educate students, sensitize them, 
as Mr. Levine said. I do not think are accidental. It is not as 
though we don't know about these things. 

He and I and many other people worked during the 1960s in 
school desegregation programs, working with training teachers, 
working with people in communities in dispute resolution. Those 
skills are all around. There are still some of us not confined to 
wheelchairs who know about those skills and are very able and 
available to teach them. 

I don't think institutions want them. I think they are not 
feeling any particular urge to do so. I think the only thing that 
Is causing them to act at this point in time is the fact of these 
embarrassing incidents. I think that puts a black eye on the 

I don't think that the University of Michigan would have made 
any significant attempt to increase the number of its doctoral 
students which in the 1970s were over 400 for blacks alone and 
in the 1980s were less than 200 and are now just beginning to 
go up again. 1 think that the only thing were those marches on 
campus at U of M and at other schools that Insisted on some 
changes in university policy. I think it's a mark of the impact of 
those student demonstration that last fall the University of 
Michigan hired 18 black tenure track faculty, which Is more than 
it has ever done in the history of that institution in any one 
academic year. 

Most do not have any clear policies or sanctions against this 
kind of behavior, and in fact are ambivalent about whether indeed 
they need to develop them. You have the difference between 
Stanford taking incredible amounts of heat from the academic 
community for offering a course in world civilization, which is 
mild at best, and the University of Michigan voting down by its 
faculty the offering of such a course. 

So there is a great deal of ambivalence on campuses as to 
whether in fact these issues ought to be addressed head on. One 
would expect that campus leaders would hope that it would 


simply go away. Much of what is happening is a consequence 
of great denial. 

We have a difference in terms of the national climate that 
existed in the 1960s. There was a positive climate: there was a 
positive sense of enforcement. We do not have that positive 
climate nor that kind of leadership coming from the federal level, 
nor do we have that sense of enforcement. I think the fact that 
it is not being enforced has a great deal to do with the decline 
of the minority presence on campuses in many instances. 

There is no question that there is intragroup as well as inter- 
group conflict. After listening to the discussion of the last several 
minutes, we want to forget that indeed the major topic that we 
are discussing here is incidents of racial activity against racial 
minorities. That is what it is about. That is where it began. The 
majority of those instances are against blacks. There are 
subsequent tiers of instances. Independent of how people feel, 
the level of racism is in society as it is visited on their particular 
group. Nevertheless, any look at the compilation of statistics 
either by the Community Relations Service or by the National 
Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, or the Institute on 
Towson State campus, would all attest to that fact, that we are 
dealing with incidents against primarily black Americans, subse- 
quently against Asians and Hispanlcs, and against Jews. 

I think the focus ought to be on where those efforts are being 
directed, what it is causing in disruption in society, and what it 
is doing in making the campus climate inharmonious for racial 

Finally, let me share with you a document published by the 
American Council on Education last year that was intended to 
raise this issue to the level of national consciousness. The 
National Commission on Minority Participation in Education, 
which ACE established, published "One-Third of a Nation" and 
talked about what the consequences of not dealing with this 
problem would be for our country. Copies of that document were 
distributed to all members of Congress, all college and university 
presidents, and to many organizations like this as well. 

In addition, we have developed a document which was just 
issued in January of this year called "Minorities on Campus." 
which is a handbook of strategies designed to assist institutions 
to develop programs that will successfully recruit, retain and 
maintain the minority presence on campus. 

They are not theoretical recommendations but are based on the 
actual programs on campuses that have been proven to work in 
affirmative action. 

Despite affirmative action getting a rather black eye from some 
circles, I have yet to hear critics offer a better program for achie- 
ving the same aim. So as flawed as it may be, nevertheless some 


institutions have been able to develop successful affirmative action 
programs at the faculty and at the student level. 

Miami University in Ohio, for example, doubled their black 
faculty in just a little over one academic year. Despite that being 
investigated by the Department of Justice, they found no cause 
for complaint about the effectiveness, the fairness and the legality 
of their affirmative action practices. It can happen and the sky 
does not fall. 

Institutions also have been successful in their student recruit- 
ment programs. It may very well be true that there may be two- 
tier structures for admitting students into the academy. The 
question is, do they meet the same standards when they come 
out? That is what I thought the purpose of an education was. 

There is no question that part of the redress of the grievances 
of minorities in the society who have been systematically denied 
education is how do you make up for that. What I find most 
academics and institutions say is you don't do nothing about It; 
it's tough, but I'm sorry; and let's wait until maybe the 21st 
century and see what happens. 

We are suggesting that not only should we be working on 
eliminating these problems in the 21st century, but we ought to 
do something about them now. 

In order to do something about them now, we may in fact have 
to have different admission criteria for various groups in order to 
bring them into the academy. The question I ask is, what is the 
quality of their degree when they get out? That, it seems to me, 
is the standard of justice. As they say, the guy who graduates 
at the bottom of his class in medical school is still called doctor. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Dr. Wilson. I 
think it is very Important to have your Input, particularly In view 
of the varying points of view that we are bringing to the table. 

Our next panelist brings a special perspective. He's someone 
who presumably is able to share with us some of these Issues 
from the perspective of the campus student body. Patrick Cheng 
is a member of Campuses Against Racist Violence and will 
present this from the perspective of the student. 


MR CHENG: Thank you, Mr. Friedman. My name is Patrick 
Cheng, and I just finished my junior year at Yale University 
yesterday. I really appreciate the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
having this hearing. I think it is important that students are 
heard with regards to this issue. 

I thought I would give the subcommittee a perspective on where 
I come from in terms of my work with people of color. It might 
help your questioning. 


I was one of the cofounders of Campuses Against Racist 
Violence, which is a coalition of 40 colleges in the Northeast and 
the Eastern United States. We keep track of various Incidents 
of racist violence as well as learn from each other. We hold 
conferences for schools to get ideas from other schools how to 
combat this. 

I have also been involved as president of Dwight Hall at Yale, 
which is the community service and volunteer activist center, 
which involves 2,500 students at Yale. My involvement with 
minority activities stems from the fact that I was the first minority 
president in 102 years to hold that slot at an institution like 
Dwight Hall. 

Finally, I have Just finished my term as a member on Yale's 
Committee on Freedom of Expression in terms of the conflict 
between controversial speakers and what constitutes harassment. 
I spent the last seven months talking with Yale law professors 
about these First Amendment issues. 

What I want to talk about today is not necessarily to argue 
about whether the perception of racist violence has gone up or 
whether it has actually gone up. None of this medieval philosoph- 
y, how many angels fit on the tip of a pin? I think the fact Is 
that we do have evidence of these things happening. I want to 
focus my comments not Just on the affirmative action issues, but 
also specific racist violence, physical violence and verbal violence, 
on people of color, women, religious minorities, and sexual 

In terms of causes, I would Uke to raise some causes that people 
have not necessarily talked about. These come from talking to a 
lot of students in the last several years. 

One of the main things that students feel is that the reversal 
of the in loco parentis policy that universities have taken recently 
leads to increased violence. Universities used to take more care 
of the students, being responsible for their actions, acting as their 
parents. Once the Supreme Court did away with that structure, 
the universities are saying, well, our only responsibility is to hold 
these people legally accountable: you can take them to the court 
system and do that. In other words, they are saying to a lot of 
campus bigots that "we're not going to do anything about it: you 
have to find a solution, an alternative way." That is one of the 
main problems. 

Another problem, I think, is that we are the first generation not 
to have personally experienced a lot of the civil rights struggles 
that have gone on in the 1960s or in the mid-1970s with Boston, 
with the busing, riots, and so on and so forth. 

Dr. Balch raised a good point. The students are starting to 
question the gains that we have made in the last couple of years. 
They don't understand the reasons behind affirmative action. 


They see It only as something that exists. What happens is they 
don't view it as something that is bringing us up to an equal level 
to have a fair chance. Rather, they see it as taking away from 
them. That is where I think a lot of hostility from students comes 

They misunderstand support services and the need for ethnic 
houses. They always complain about minorities having black 
tables or Asian tables. But then what about all those artsy tables 
or jock tables that people never think about? And what about all 
those white tables? How self-integrated are they? It is easy to 
spot a group of minorities together, so people use that as a 

Also, in terms of admissions policies, we hardly hear about 
people complaining about athletes getting preferential treatment, 
but when it comes to minorities, that is a different story. 

So I think in terms of hostilities and misconceptions, that is 
another Important cause. 

A third cause that 1 was hoping someone would raise is in terms 
of the leadership of our government in setting the agenda. It 
comes from the top down, from the Oval Office down. Last year 
we saw a paralysis of a lot of people in terms of dealing with 
these issues. What kind of message are you sending to 18-year- 
old kids when the solicitor general is in the Supreme Court every 
other day arguing against affirmative action? What kind of 
message are you sending when the Supreme Court is stacked 
with justices that have written scathing opinions about these 
programs that were enacted? What kind of message are you 
sending when the Executive branch does not give attention to 
minority issues and is silent? 

The silence is greeted by these students as sort of a tacit 
approval. If you don't say it is not okay, then we will go ahead 
and do it. That is what one of the biggest problems stems from. 

I think the Asian violence issue has been covered. I think we 
are in a weird position. We are attacked on either side because 
of the model minority myth, and also a lot of the perceptions that 
people have about Asian Americans. 

I would just like to briefly talk about solutions both before an 
Incident has occurred and after it from the student's point of 

I think it is clear that the government has to take an active role 
in sending a message. It is not enough to look at these small 
things, but on the level of "just say no" or the AIDS education 
program. President Bush has got to go out there and say, look, 
our nation will not put up with this. I am talking about incidents 
of minorities that get their heads beaten in and spit upon. 

What we need is more like Senator Simon's hate crime statistics 
bill. I just read a couple of days ago that only 44 Senators 


support that bill. It just does not seem to me that something 
that deals with this issue is ideologically charged. 

Similarly, on a college level it is important for college presidents 
to set the goal. I think President Gregarian at Brown has done 
an Impressive job after that scrawling incident on the bathroom 
walls recently. He sent out a letter to all the parents saying, 
look. I will not tolerate this: if we find them, we are going to expel 
them, and we are doing this. this. this. 

People need to be voced and students need to hear that in order 
to shape our opinions. Students of color need to be on decision- 
making bodies and committees. Not because we are students of 
color, but because we have had experiences that can help legislate 
more efficient running of the university. 

In terms of after the incidents, another thing that I was sort of 
hoping that someone would mention was in terms of money talks. 
That is about the only thing that universities listen to. In terms 
of the federal programs, they need to shut off federal funding. I 
think a lot of times the current programs are inefficient. 

I was reading over the procedures for Title VI and Title IX com- 
plaints. You have to go to the attorney general and file a formal 
complaint and then go through all the government red tape. 

I think there should be a sort of congressional commission or 
something that could look at schools that have had patterns of 
racist violence and say. look, ff you don't correct these, we are 
going to shut off funding, and you are going to have to tell us 
what sort of steps you are going to take. Sort of like an affirma- 
tive action plan in terms of racist violence. Not just hiring. For 
schools that have had problems, you are going to tell me what 
you are doing before we give you back the funding. 

In terms of solutions for this, the answer is not to ban con- 
troversial speakers on campus or to put more restrictions on 
defining what harassment is. I think Stanford's recent incident 
with the lips drawn on Beethoven, they had their committee look 
at these things. When you try to make the definitions more 
strict, people look for loopholes. It's a double-edged sword, 
because then those same principles of censorship can be applied 
to minority groups. What is not acceptable, though. Is to say 
that you can harass other people under the disguise of free 

From reading over this report, I have three points that I would 
hope you would take into consideration. 

It was suggested to the Commission that you define the scope 
of what racist violence is. I think that goes along with the idea 
of precisely defining things. You need to emphasize the educa- 
tional aspects and the informal mechanisms more than making 
the stringent definitions. You naturally have to say that harass- 


ment is not okay, but I don't think the answer is to go down and 
break that down. 

Also, I think the summary unfairly summarizes the causes for 
the increase in violence. We don't know if it is due to just 
increased perception or actually more incidents. To use phrases 
like "such claims are merely perceptions'* or "it is not at all clear," 
my perspective in talking to hundreds of students is that there is 
a problem and that we need to get the statistics services. You 
have approached the Congress twice. Do it 200 more times until 
a bill gets passed through. It is important that you stay with it 
and not say, well, we have already done it. 

We, students, although the work that we do is beneficial in 
terms of educating and supporting ourselves, we can't hold the 
burden. Trying to do something like this in terms of funding, 
communications with other students, with the turnover is almost 
impossible, and it is frustrating. You have to educate people 
every single time you meet someone over again. I think the 
burden needs to be an active burden, either on your Commission 
lobbying for more changes, or through the Congress itself. 

Finally, when your statement says you are wondering about 
whether gay students should be included, I think it would be 
hypocritical for this Commission not to acknowledge the factors 
that involve gay students precisely for the reasons I have raised 
before. Where do you draw the line? Once you condone a certain 
kind of violence against a certain minority group, who says that 
can't be applied to other groups? 

My feeling in talking to most people is that violence towards 
gays is going to be a major issue in the next five or ten years. 
That is something that is brewing. Just because it is not under 
Title VI or Title IX doesn't mean that you can ignore it, or If it's 
a politically charged thing. 

I appreciate your work. I hope you take these into considera- 
tion. If we don't fight this, who will? 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cheng. 
Your comments have been particularly helpful. Perhaps it is 
appropriate that we turn now to Dr. Thomas Short, who may 
have somewhat differing points of view with regards to some of 
these issues. 

Dr. Short is associate professor of philosophy at Kenyon College 
and will assess the effect that affirmative action programs and 
cultural studies may have had In exacerbating tensions. 


DR SHORT: Thank you. 

I was actually asked to do this at the last minute, and my 
understanding of my responsibility is a little different from yours. 


but the parts of this problem do Interconnect so Intimately that 
It doesnt make much difference. 

I thought I was asked to speak particularly to the way In which 
coD^e curricula might be used to combat racism, and so I will 
talk about that. I should like to approach that topic, however, 
through some reflections on campus radsm in general. 

Everyone agrees on distinguishing between radal hostility and 
mere InsensltMty. In almost eveiy account of campus racial 
problems I have read both are mentioned, but little is made of 
the distinction. Hostility and Insensttlvity are distinguished yet 
lumped together. This, I think. Is a mistake since their causes 
are not the same and the treatment should not be the same. 

Insensitivlty of whites toward blacks is rooted less In prejudice 
than in unfamillartty and curiosity and simple lack of tact Insen- 
sttivtty has existed since the day when the first black student set 
foot on a predominately white campus. Every since I began 
teaching, which was not in that day, I have hesid black students 
complain in private, rarely In public, imtll recently, about white 
students who either stereotype them or exhibit an annoying 

A white girl with the best of Intentions asked a black girl to Join 
a singing group. The latter replied that she couldnt sing. You 
can probably guess the reaction "But I thought all you people 
could sing," the white girl responded, genuinely surprised. Again, 
when the topic has to do with civil rights or slavery or jazz or 
when a black person Is on television, black students become 
conscious that their reactions are being examined by their white 
peers. This obviously makes them uncomfortable, and the whites 
ought to know that, but they don't They're kids. 

Ignoraixje and curiosity unmodified by tact are what these kinds 
of insensitivity amount to. If there is more insensitivlty now than 
before, I suspect It is do to an additional third factor, an exag- 
gerated fear of giving offense. As everyone's attention Is directed 
to race and as whites become more aware of black resentment at 
Insensitive treatment, we shall see white students nervously 
bumbling even more than before. 

We shall see, too, another manifestation, not exactly of insen- 
sitivity, but of strained racial relations: namely, whites avoiding 
blacks for fear of saying or doing the wrong thing. We already 
see that and black students already complain of being treated as 
tf they were invisible. 

I do not mean to downplay the seriousness of tnsensitivtty. I 
know tiiat there Is much of it and I know that it presents real 
problems to black students along with the other problems they 
undeniably have. 


By the way. I am focusing on black students, not other minority 
students, but what I have to say probably applies to others in 
some degree. 

I do not mean to blame the victim by saying that black readi- 
ness to perceive a slight where none is intended makes a bad 
situation worse. Black students are sensitive. Maybe sometimes 
oversensitive. It does make a bad situation worse, but the 
situation is bad to begin with, and that is not their fault. That 
is in fact how they came to be sensitive. 

What I am driving at, however, is that as far as insensitivity is 
concerned, on both sides there are no real villains. No one is 
acting out of bad motives and it is counterproductive, therefore, 
to label insensitivity as a form of racism, implying that those who 
are insensitive are somehow of a tjrpe with Bull Connor. This 
will only get white students' backs up, making them resentful of 
false accusation, and 1 might add, rightly resentful, though in 
saying that I do not mean to condone the ways in which that 
resentment is likely to be expressed. 

So what should be done? If the ultimate source of insensitivity 
is ignorance and curiosity and lack of tact, then shouldn't we 
teach tact through sensitivity training sessions and remove 
ignorance and satisfy curiosity by requiring all students to take 
courses in minorities' cultures? I think not. For two reasons. 

Let me first say that I was very impressed with what Mr. Levine 
said and so far as possible I would Uke to put myself on his side. 
Given what I am going to say, it will be very difficult to do, 
because I seem to be contradicting him outright. The way I would 
like to pull that off is by suggesting that what is good and will 
work at the lower levels of the school system would be inap- 
propriate and won't work in higher education. 

At least in higher education the attempt to use our schools to 
mold attitudes, however good we believe those attitudes to be, 
subverts the educational enterprise. Of course we hope that 
knowledge, intellectual training, and free and open discussion of 
controversial issues will result in all manner of good things, 
including better citizens with better attitudes. But that is a far 
cry from beginning with a conception of the attitudes we deem 
desirable and then fashioning the curriculum and student life to 
meet that specific goal. 

Such a curriculum, designed to achieve a specific attitude 
change, makes a mockery of academic freedom and reflects a 
totalitarian desire to impose uniformity, to control even the 
thoughts and feelings of others. 

Furthermore, sensitivity training and minority studies will not 
work. Can you really mold attitudes in a classroom? Again, I 
am thinking more of higher education than the lower schools. 
Can you mold attitudes when it is quite clear that that is what 


you mean to do? Even if students cannot articulate the principles 
of academic freedom they will resent being manipulated instead 
of being educated. Thus one reason why attitude adjustment 
won't work is because it is wrong in principle and will be seen to 
be wrong. 

Courses in minority cultures, however, are not the same thing 
as sensitivity training. Such courses need not have the specific 
aim of making students more tolerant. They can be just straight 
forward, good academic studies of their subjects without any 
ulterior motive. 

I have nothing against such courses. However, in the present 
environment ethnic studies are being perverted by those who wish 
to use them to change society and students' attitudes. As soon 
as they are taught with that purpose — and only such a purpose 
explains why they are now being suggested as requirements for 
all students — then their intellectual integrity is destroyed. 

There is a further reason why minority studies or ethnic studies 
or multicultural education, call it what you will, must fail to 
correct racial insensitivity. and that is that it will in fact exacer- 
bate it. It will foist a spurious cultural urJty on black students 
who are in fact not all of one subculture; it will create differences 
between whites and blacks where none exist and exaggerate the 
differences that do exist; it will make black students objects of 
curiosity to white students even more than they are already; and 
it will reinforce the suspicion many black students unfortunately 
have that by succeeding in the standard curriculum they are 
somehow selling out to the white world. 

The idea that black Americans have a different culture from that 
of white Americans is somewhere between very misleading and 

It goes to the ridiculous when African American cultures are 
associated with African culture as something belonging to the 
Third World and as standing outside of the white majority's 
supposedly Eurocentric perspective. Without denying the African 
roots of some aspects of the lives of many black Americans, 
without denying the African roots of some of the greatest con- 
tributions black Americans have made to our common culture, 
It is ridiculous nevertheless to suppose that black Americans have 
more in common culturally with Africans than with their fellow 
Americans. They share a society with the latter, not with the 

They share the last two centuries of history more or less, with 
their white fellow citizens, and not with their remoter African 
ancestors. Even though the history is one of slavery, injustice, 
prejudice, discrimination, and so on, we are bound together by 
it. Then, too, let us not forget that it was the ideals of the Anglo- 
American tradition which led whites to demand an end to slavery 


and later it forced whites to agree with the demands of the black 
civil rights movement to end discrimination. There was no 
principle on the basis of which that could be resisted. 

And black Americans share language with white Americans and 
not with most black Africans. How can they be supposed to 
share a culture with those with whom they cannot converse? 
This idea could have gained currency only through some mystique 
of race. Even when not carried to that racist extreme, and it isn't 
always carried to that extreme, so-called multicultural education 
still categorizes people by color and treats Individuals who are 
very different by their talents, interests and experiences as being 
the same and people who are very much the same in terms of 
their talents, interests and experiences as being different because 
of their color. This is supposed to teach mutual toleration, the 
proponents of this say, but of course it will do nothing of the 
kind. It will only accentuate the racial lines that are already too 
well drawn on our campuses. 

Let me go back to what Mr. Levine said. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I thought you were agreeing with Mr. 

DR. SHORT: As I say, I would like to. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I would like you to, too, but it doesn't 
sound like it. 

DR. SHORT: I think what he said about the strength of a 
person's self-concept and the dependency on that of group 
identification, the importance to that of a positive concept of the 
group, all that makes sense to me in terms of younger kids and 
what could be done with them and for them in the lower schools. 
But when we are talking about higher education, I don't think we 
are any longer talking about culture in the same sense. 

Consider the testimony of the black footbaU player at Oberlin 
College, who said that "he has come to know whites because he 
has worked closely with them on the team" and "he feels more 
hostility from some of his black classmates." He is not denying 
that he feels some hostility from whites at Oberlin college, but he 
makes the point he feels more hostility from some of his black 

This student shows how racial barriers can be broken down. 
Barriers are not broken down by equating culture with color, but 
by working with people of other races on matters of mutual 
Interest, on matters that transcend questions of race. 

This student's experience with some other black students reveals 
also a problem that exists already that will be made worse if the 
assumption that blacks are culturally different from whites gains 
greater currency. This problem is the pressure some black stu- 
dents impose on other black students to conform to black self- 
segregation. This greatly interferes with education for black 


students, particularly when it is translated into currlcular terms. 

Furthermore, most observers agree that segregation on campus 
is a major cause of the incidents of insensitivity and hostility 
between the races. How could the false doctrine that there is a 
black culture distinct from white culture be expected to improve 
that situation? Obviously it rationalizes segregation and thereby 
reinforces it. 

I can take a bit of strength here again from Mr. Levine who 
points out the importance of the vast number of ethnic subcul- 
tures among whites. I would imagine that there are also differen- 
ces among blacks. There is a black middle class, for example, 
that is very different, and blacks in the South must have a very 
different kind of experience from blacks in northern cities. 

Indeed many proponents of the so-called multicultural education 
know full well that the invention of differences or merely their 
exaggeration will foster minority militancy and racially biased 
political movements. 

It is no accident that on my own campus it is white radical 
faculty who have initiated the demands (being heard on many 
other campuses also) for a minority cultural center, for a special 
orientation for black students, for coordinators of minority affairs, 
for ethnic studies requirements, and so on. 

In this connection, I would urge the Commission to remember 
the difference between rhetoric and reality, between the words, 
even of those who are well meaning, and the way those policies 
will be implemented on individual campuses. 

In conclusion, let me make two brief comments about genuine 
racism expressed by hostile acts as opposed to insensitivity. 

First, while attitudes cannot in our legal system be punished 
and shouldn't be punished on campuses, administrators have not 
in general been sufficiently swift and firm in punishing actions, 
especially violent acts or threats of violence. I would agree whole- 
heartedly with everything that has been said on that topic. 

Second, hostile acts are increasing as an expression not always 
of the prejudice whites bring with them to college, but as an 
expression of the prejudice they learn there out of the resentment 
of preferential treatment being shown minorities and the resent- 
ment of being falsely charged with racism. I don't mean to say 
those two things are the only causes. There is also, obviously, 
a lack of prior commitment to the genuine Ideals of equality. 

One can oppose affirmative action, for example, as in principle 
wrong or unwise without expressing that in any racist form. 
Conversely, of course, those who do oppose it should not be called 
racists unless they express their opposition by racial Insult. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Dr. Short. It seems to me 
you have joined the Issues on several fronts. 


We really had planned to have three sessions, but by virtue of 
moving Levine up front, who presumably had to get out of here 
very early, I am going to ask the last speaker to speak now and 
then we can have a broader discussion with all of us joining in. 

Let me introduce for the last report or panel discussant. Dr. 
Robert Dunham, who is Vice President and Vice Provost of Perm 
State, who will describe the model program that Penn State has 
developed to prevent incidents in the first place and to alleviate 
tension once an incident has occurred. 


DR. DUNHAM: I am not sure I care for the word "model." It 
is one way of doing it. It is not necessarily the best, but I am 
not sure what is the best. 


DR. DUNHAM: Let me talk about a case study. Since you may 
have read or heard about Penn State in many public media, let 
me set the context. 

We are a large university In a fairly small white rural area of 
the middle of Pennsylvania. Out of 109 four-year institutions in 
Pennsylvania, the second most populated university among blacks 
is Penn State. There are 2,580 blacks enrolled, which is not 
nearly as large as we would like, but nevertheless that is what 
we have. Temple is the only school tn the state of Pennsylvania 
with a higher black population, including Lincoln and Cheyney. 

Minority enrollment at Penn State has increased 79.3 percent 
between 1982 and 1988. This is in contrast to a total enrollment 
increase of only 9.3 percent during the same period. 

Between 1982 and 1988 the number of blacks graduating from 
high schools in Pennsylvania decreased approximately 15 percent. 
During the same period the number of blacks attending Penn 
State did not decrease, but in fact increased significantly. 

There are more blacks and minorities attending Penn State this 
year than at any time in the university's history. More blacks 
graduated from Penn State in 1988 than In any previous year, 
the third consecutive year of new record black graduates. 

Penn State along with MIT and the University of California at 
Berkeley are the top three research universities producing black 
undergraduates who eventually earn doctoral degrees in the 
sciences. That was between 1980 and 1984, according to the 
National Research Council. 

I say that only to set the context for the comments I am going 
to make right now. 

This has been a most interesting and troubling year. At colleges 
and universities all over the country acts of racism and bigotry 
have been experienced, and we have heard about those today. At 
Penn State they have taken the form of racist slurs and posters, 


racial harassment, and alleged racial intimidation; anti-Semitic 
remarks. gralTiti and posters and harassment and threatening 
statements towards lesbians and gays. The most repugnant and 
threatening statement, entitled "Why Should One Kill Homo- 
sexuals" was sent via computer network to all parts of the 
country and some places abroad. 

There is no way when we look at all of these to measure the 
extent of these activities against a national yardstick, but I am 
confident that our environment was far better than it was 
depicted in big city media. The state attorney general's staff 
which came to our community for about two months this past 
semester has shared information that would tend to support this 
conclusion. However, any act of intolerance in our community 
is a reason for us to support those affected and to continue our 
vigilance against racism and bigotry. 

Penn State has in place a model which deals with environmental 
concerns. A campus environment team has been meeting every 
week this year to review systematically the reported incidents and 
to assess the campus environment. This team includes the vice 
president for administration, the vice president for student 
services, the vice president and vice provost, the affirmative action 
officer, the director of the black studies program, and chair of the 
equal opportunity planning committee, the director of the campus 
life assistance center, and the director of public information, and 
the director of university safety. 

As appropriate, this team either visits student groups or invites 
students in to discuss concerns. It also addresses urgent 
concerns and ways to improve the environment and makes 
recommendations to the appropriate offices and in many cases 
directly to the office of the president. Many of the programs and 
activities initiated this past year were recommended by the team. 
In my Judgment, its role is invaluable. 

A second feature of the model is to speak out strongly and 
quickly against acts of intolerance. The president has been very 
willing to fulfill this role. He has made public pronouncements 
in newspaper ads, in letters to the editor, in radio and television 
spots, and in public forums. 

The president also has been instrumental in encouraging others 
to speak out. The mayor of State College, for example, the 
superintendent of the State College area schools and other 
community leaders have spoken out against racism and bigotry 
on radio and in newspaper ads. 

I might add, the mayor was just challenged recently for speaking 
out by a write-in candidate, but two days ago the mayor held out 
and won that election. 

They also joined the president in hanging the banner "United 
Against Racism and Bigotry" on Old Main and also at the 


Intersection of town and gown. The local radio stations have 
donated over 500 radio spots and the local newspaper has 
donated several full-page ads to this purpose. 

Other community groups have also Joined this chorus. The 
People's National Bank purchased and distributed over 20,000 
"United Against Racism" buttons, and they went in a very short 
period of time. 

The United Methodist Church leaders in the region placed an 
ad in the local newspaper condemning racism. 

The Downtown Business Association passed a resolution con- 
demning racism and tied yellow ribbons on the doors of their 

The leaders of the Presbyterian Church issued a pastoral letter 
condemning racism and bigotry. 

The State College branch of AAUW passed a resolution. 

The Alliance Christian Fellowship featured a message: "Racism 
has no place in the church." And so forth and so on. 

The university faculty senate unanimously approved a resolution 
condemning the raciaJ incidents. 

The Graduate Council passed a resolution and the board of 
trustees passed a resolution. 

You may think these are token gestures, but I must say that all 
of those together throughout the community added a great deal 
of support and influence. 

A third part of the model seeks to move beyond pronouncements 
and encourage all parts of the university and also community 
groups to take specific action and to plan programs to deal with 
racism and bigotry. There have been many actions taken this 
year. Let me mention a few. 

After years of insisting that affirmative action is the respon- 
sibility of all units at Penn State, we are about to hire a vice 
provost whose principal responsibility will be equal opportunity 
for underrepresented peoples, including women. 

This, incidentally. Dr. Short, is different from what appeared in 
your article. We did not hire a vice provost for pan-African af- 

We have appointed a 25-member advisory commission on racial 
ethnic diversity which reports to the president through the new 
vice provost. I am confident that this group will add significantly 
to the university's efforts toward a more diverse community. 

We have engaged a three-member team of social scientists, all 
external to Penn State, who are advising us on matters relating 
to Improving the climate for minorities at Penn State. One 
member of the team was selected by the African American 
students, one by the administration, and one was selected Jointly. 
They presented us with an interim report in March and the final 
report is forthcoming any day now. 


A director of university safety and the chief of poUce in State 
College met with about 350 African American students to discuss 
precautions for their safety and to discuss areas which needed 
to have increased security. 

A mobile escort service was also Initiated: a reward fund was 
created and announced: a new hotline was established to improve 
the climate and deal with rumors. 

The president has asked each dean and executive officer to 
assure that there is a minority representation on all of their 
policymaking bodies. We have initiated a new diversity com- 
ponent in the required freshman testing, counseling and advising 
program beginning next week at all locations enrolling freshmen. 
Over 95 percent of our new freshmen participate in this program 
with at least one parent. 

We have met on numerous occasions with top officials of local 
media and community leaders and organizations and with student 
groups to encourage them to plan activities and programs. The 
president sent a letter to all student organizations urging them to 
plan programs for next year. So this is not just one semester and 
over, but a continuing concern that we have. 

I can't begin to cover all of them, but let me give you a flavor. 
The State College Hotel /Motel Committee of our Lion Country 
Visitor and Convention Bureau met recently to address diversity 
issues and to plan their activities. 

The Downtown Business Association is working with Penn 
State's University Relations Office to initiate at least two diversity 
workshops this summer for employees of downtown business 
establishments, and they will focus on behaviors of employees. 

Sigma Phi Epsilon, a white fraternity, and Kappa Alpha Psi, a 
black fraternity, met recently to discuss how two fraternities could 
deal with racism and with each other. If I had time, I could tell 
you all the details. I thought it was a marvelous evening, and I 
wish more student groups would come together like this. 
Sometimes 1 think if administrators got out of the way students 
could solve a lot of the problems. 

Another feature of the model is to keep the channels of com- 
munication open both ways. It is very important for central 
administration to communicate with student groups of all kinds 
and with faculty and staff groups and with families of students. 
This required those of us in the president's office to be available 
to students quickly and often. We have talked and listened to 
hundreds of students and with numerous student, faculty and 
staff groups this year. 

The distribution of a family newsletter to families of all under- 
graduate students at all locations, the parent meetings in 
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrlsburg during spring break, and 


the 800 number hotline were attempts to keep those channels 
open with parents. 

Despite the attempts at open communication, confrontation Is 
not always avoided. Such was the case late In the spring 
semester. A group of African American students relnstituted some 
of the demands of a year ago. Although they had been responded 
to before, some of our answers were no, and that was not well 
received. Nevertheless, we responded again and to inform the 
broader community printed our response in a paid ad in the 
student newspaper, the town newspaper, and in the weekly 
university publication. We hope we can get beyond these 
demands of a year ago and look to the future. 

E^ren with the significant accomplishments towards sensitizing 
our community, there is no doubt in my mind that the political 
agenda of some African American students — and I emphasize 
some, because you cannot put them all in the same box or group 
— but some of the African American students is exacerbating our 

It has fostered a white backlash and we believe it is causing 
more moderate African American students to look for a university 
setting with less group intimidation. This at a time when those 
same African American student activists criticize the university 
for not attracting more African American students, and of course 
there are other underrepresented minority students standing in 
the wings, waiting for consideration. 

And don't overlook the lesbian and gay students, faculty and 
staff. They could have the hottest issues for this coming year. 
I don't think it is going to be five years. I think it is right here, 
right now. 

Finally, a recent report published by Northern Illinois University 
concludes by saying "The renewed trend towards Intolerance must 
not be allowed to gain a foothold on college campuses. It 
demeans Individuals, creates barriers for equality of opportunity, 
and fragments the learning community. Colleges and universities 
must take a much more active role in developing a climate for 
minority student success, promoting an appreciation for diversity, 
and communicating through action an unwavering intolerance for 
discrimination." And that is precisely what we are about at Perm 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Thank you. sir. 

I must say this is one of the most enlightening and most 
exciting of the briefings that we have conducted in my tenure at 
the Civil Rights Commission. I think we have had a multiplicity 
of points of view. I think many issues have been Joined. I hope 
there is enough energy for a lively discussion. There certainly 
should be such a discussion. 


I am told that Messrs. Ross and Short have to leave somewhat 
early. So I am going to suggest to the Commissioners that they 
address their questions first to them and then we will have us 
all join in in a group discussion. 

First we will take a short recess. 


CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to 


Let's start with Commissioner Chan. 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: I must say I have received an educa- 
tion today from all of you. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I am going to urge you to make your 
questions short and single. 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: I have some notes here, but I will 
make some short comments. Dr. Ross mentioned that on the 
campus the problem is drugs, alcohol, majority versus minority 
and the solution is to work from below. What do you mean by 
work from below? 

DR. BALCH: Dr. Ross is gone. 

MR LEVINE: Dr. Chan, let me say something about the 
antisocial behavior that we see taking place. There is much more 
of it in general, the drugs, alcohol, and sexual acting out. It does 
have an impact on bigotry. The extremes of acting out behavior 
flow over into racial, ethnic and religious intolerance. We are 
seeing a lot of so-called innocent acting out that comes from 
broken family life, beginning to become part of the index in this 
field. We ought to take it seriously. 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: I have two more short questions. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Let's have one each time. Then we 
want to get into a roundtable discussion. 


COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Let me preface this by telling you 
that I am a high school teacher in a high school in Texas. We 
do happen to have a very large minority population, but the whole 
city has a large minority. 

We have looked at the regional forums and the changing demo- 
graphics and how we prepare for the future. A great part of this 
is going to be education. 

In this particular session this afternoon what I have picked up 
on is that we have a need now to educate the different genera- 
tions. There are different ways and different methods we are 
going to have to implement. There are a lot of children out there 
that we are going to have to establish mores and tell them this 
is not acceptable behavior. 


I also have heard from you that we need more people doing 
more of this. Probably if CRS gets more funding they can go put 
out more workshops like the one they had in April. That would 
be one way. 

What do you see as the first priority area that we as a Commis- 
sion should be trying to address? I know the crisis is on the 
campuses. Is that where we go first? Is that who we go talk to? 
What do you recommend we do at this point? 

DR WILSON: I think the Commission ought to make some 
decisions as to what it perceives as the problem. You have had 
a wide spectrum of opinion here, going from the problem is the 
minorities themselves to maybe this is something we ought to do 
something about. That doesn't make it easy to come to some 
agreement on what kind of position you have. 

Assuming that through some startling Intellectual exercise you 
come to some recognition that indeed there might be racial 
problems on our college campuses, then it seems to me as though 
the Commission ought to establish some kind of model programs 
that it can advise institutions they might undertake. Certainly 
the Perm State experience is the kind of program that the 
American Council on Education has been recommending and does 
recommend in its campus handbook, a comprehensive effort that 
does not address Just the issue of the racial incident, which is 
what most institutions do: "Oh, somebody put a piece of graffiti 
up on the black counselor's door. Let's find out who did it and 
deal with that." 

That is not the problem. That's a symptom of the problem. If 
we recognize that it is a symptom of a broader problem that is 
systemic to the institution, then it seems to me the Commission 
can very well identify some model elements of programs. 

We do identify a number of institutions in that handbook that 
have also done outstanding jobs. The Commission could build 
on those kind of activities that we have initiated to be able to 
advise institutions on the various kinds of things that Ms. Flores- 
Hughes talked about in dealing with recruitment, retention, 
campus climate, environmental assessment, and all of those 
elements that need to be dealt with. 

That is the kind of leading role, which is one I mention In the 
formal testimony that I have submitted to you, that the Civil 
Rights Commission could play, that is — I know this is dangerous 
— taking a proactive stand on civil rights. 

MR LEVINE: If you take a look at any system, higher education 
or elementary or secondary schools, one has to say that the issue 
and the problem has to be touched at every level. When we are 
advocating a systemic approach, we are talking about something 
like this. We are talking about clear policies on any acting out, 
any action of bigotry against any racial, ethnic or religious group. 


Those policies to be published in a handbook and become part of 
the enforceable law of the institution with serious punishment. 
Immediate punishment. We always say if there are extenuating 
circumstances, punish the crime and save the chUd, but punish 
the crime first. 

We are talking about a review not only of policies, some of 
which, by the way, are dictated by federal and state law and 
which many people on campuses are unaware that they are not 
obeying the law in certain places, but we are talking about an 
analysis of student campus involvement. 

We advocate ethnically related and religious related activities. 
We think it is Important for self-enhancement. But we also say 
that on many campuses where you have activity that is involved 
on that level you do not have common ground. The question is, 
can you have both ethnically identified, racially identified, sexually 
identified special activity which is legitimate but you must also 
have common ground, that these kids have to have a place where 
they meet together. It is unbalanced if you have one without the 

One other suggestion on faculty. Faculty must review courses. 
I disagree totally with Dr. Short. There are magnificent intellec- 
tually significant courses that do lead to changing attitudes. My 
attitudes about life were changed dramatically by greater educa- 
tion. It doesn't hurt if those courses are taught by sensitive 
instructors and professors who also know how to relate to what 
the educators call affective education. 

Nothing like what you say has ever happened in any situation 
that I have been involved in. So I do think you build some straw 
men. I will give you an example. We use a technique called 
ethnic sharing. It doesn't tell people what kind of attitudes to 
have, but by sharing anecdotal stories about your life and your 
family and your background, it teaches by inference and by 
connections and by communication appreciation of each other. 
It is quite simple to do. It is quite replicable, quite harmless, and 
does not confront on the deepest level the fears that people have 
about just regurgitating attitudes. 

There is a pedagogy over here that has been developed that is 
not being used, but there are a lot of myths about the pedagogy 
that is holding us back. I do believe you did spread a few myths. 
Dr. Short. That Is not what sensitivity training does at its best; 
that is not what multicultural courses do at their best. You were 
giving us a worst case possibility. Anything is possible. What 
you are saying happens does not happen in most cases. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Francis, I want to give you an oppor- 
tunity to ask any questions. If you feel so disposed. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: I do feel so disposed, but I would 
like to reserve my questions. 


COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: I think Dr. Balch has a reply. 

DR. BALCH: I think Tom probably should reply since he has 
Just been challenged. 

DR. SHORT: I think what Mr. Levine Just said is true up to a 
point, as a criticism of me. I have featured the worst case and 
I don't mean to deny that there is a best case also. I plead 
ignorance on the question of sensitivity training, but let me talk 
about multicultural education in the form of courses offered for 
college credit and if many get their way are required of all 

In the first place, I don*t deny that attitudes can and should be 
changed in college. What I fear is the plan that we will organize 
our facts and our arguments and our theories around is the aim 
of changing attitudes in a particular direction. Certainly my 
attitudes were changed in college. I am not surprised that Mr. 
Levine 's attitudes were changed in college. I wonder, however, 
whether his teachers had planned that particular change that 
took place in him. 

MR LEVINE: I hope they did. 

DR. SHORT: As far as the worst case scenario is concerned, let 
me Just quote something that I wrote about the Kenyon College 
"University proposals." It shows that the worse case is certainly 
not untypical. 

In the interest of exposing the real thrust of the "cultural 
diversity" movement, I will not describe the proposals contained 
in the 1987 "Report to the President" by Kenyon's Task Force on 
Diversity. The entire report is 8 single-spaced pages, plus three 
pages of appendices, containing 63 proposals grouped under five 
headings: "Curricular Concerns," "Student Concerns," "Faculty 
Recruitment." "Staff Recruitment," "Student Recruitment." The 
three recruitment sections propose specific goals and strategies 
for increasing the numbers of minority, especially black, persons 
on campus. Nothing conceivable is omitted: there is even a 
demand for more minority Janitors ("a slightly lower priority 
issue"). Yet the 45 proposals in these sections contain no real 
surprises: that black faculty should be hired to teach Afro- 
American studies, and enticed to come by being offered higher 
salaries or reduced teaching loads, is as predictable as it is 
objectionable. Similarly, the proposals under "Currlcular Con- 
cerns" are familiar to all who have read about the developments 
at Stanford. It is the proposals grouped under "Student Con- 
cerns" that are revelatory. 

First of all. a nasty edge is present throughout. For example, 
a multi-cultural center is suggested as "the physical focus of this 
issue on campus [my emphasis)." No antecedant for "this issue" 
can be found in the text, but clearly its authors are thinking of 
the center as a place to raise "issues." and not as a place to 


foster the appreciation of cultures. Similarly, a student group is 
proposed that will "promote awareness" — not, as you might think, 
of diverse cultures, but — "of racism." Again a forum is proposed 
in which minority students can "articulate grievances," and events 
are sugested to "heighten awareness of minority issues." In all of 
the nine proposals in this section there is no suggestion that 
anything cultural might be celebrated. Instead, the object is to 
teach that minorities have been victimized by American society 
and are still oppressed by their fellow citizens. 

In many like documents produced at other colleges and univer- 
sities, there is a similar emphasis on investigating alleged 
instances of bias or insensitivlty, particularly on the part of 
faculty. This past Spring (1988). the President of the University 
of Vermont signed a 16-point "agreement" with a group of minor- 
ity protestors in which he committed the University to the usual 
list of curricular changes, minority recruitment goals, and 
innovations in campus life, including that "a disciplinary 
procedure with punitive sanctions" will be established for anyone 
who even "insinuates racist remarks or actions" and that "the 
evaluation of faculty members includes an opportunity to 
comment on (their) inappropriate references to race." Further- 
more, "Faculty will be evaluated on aifirmatlve action" — presumab- 
ly their willingness to implement its provisions. Also, participa- 
tion in "a program in racial awareness and sensitivity" wHl be 
"considered as part of the evaluation process for all faculty . . . 
in reappointment, promotion and tenure, . . . and for annual 
salary review. 

In addition to their emphasis on minority grievances, the Kenyon 
"diversity" proposals provide remarkable institutional support for 
the information, even enforcement, of racial and ethnic identifica- 
tion. They call for a separate program for minorities during fresh- 
man orientation, wherein "ties" among minority students will be 
formed. In addition, they proposed the creation of a new adminis- 
trative position. Administrator for Minority Affairs, whose duties 
include counselling minority students in "maintaining their own 
cultural identity." Woe to the black student who doesn't like jazz 
or soul food and wants to study Chaucer and Spenser rather than 
Eldrldge Cleaver and Alice Walker. 

The importance of having an administrative officer whose Job 
depends upon the continued separation of minority students from 
other students has not been lost on minority militants; such 
positions have been proposed at a wide variety of institutions. 
At the University of Wisconsin at Madison the proposal is for a 
vice-chancellor for ethnic /minority afalrs; the president of Penn 
State has agreed to appoint "a vice president for cultural affairs 
for black students:" and so on. If past experience, for example. 


at Cornell, is any guide, militant minority students will determine 
who is retained in these administrative positions. 

Moreover, it is well-known that minority militants have often 
exerted tremendous pressure on other minority students to cleave 
to the minority group and to shun students and studies not 
identified with that group. The institutional support now being 
urged for separate minority organizations and minority facilities 
will further advance the political goals of minority militants. For 
they invariably dominate such organizations and control such 
facilities. The Vermont "agreement" begins this process early, by 
requiring the Minority Student Panel (on which no one may serve 
but minority students and two minority faculty) to be actively 
involved even in the recruitment of minority students and to be 
given "all appropriate information" on those admitted. 

Despite the rhetoric of "pluralism" and of learning to appreciate 
cultures different from one's own, the real meaning of "cultural 
diversity" is racial politics. Not everyone who has Jumped on this 
bandwagon understands the aims of the radical faculty who have 
nailed it together, but those aims are apparent on reflection: it 
is to build radically and ethnically separatist political movements, 
to fuel those movements by heightened resentment of (partly real 
yet greatly exaggerated, partly invented) oppression, and to 
produce a climate of acceptance for racial politics by eliciting 
"liberal guilt" in everyone else. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Steve, did you want to get on this? 

DR. BALCH: Yes. I wanted to enter a caveat to what I saw as 
some of the rather inclusive strategies that are being suggested 
here. I think it is very important when the Commission defines 
its terms of inquiry that it looks at problems which in any 
environment would be considered, if not criminal, at least a serio- 
us lapse from accepted norms of civility and not try to reach to 
those aspects of college and university policy which deal with the 
essential intellectual freedom and intellectual dialogue that makes 
these kinds of institutions not only unique, but singularly 
productive in advancing our own thought even when many of the 
things that are said from time to time are things that we would 
strongly disagree with. 

Obviously the things that the Commission should be concerned 
with are acts of personal injury, acts of vandalism and destruction 
of property, particularly where there is some kind of group hatred 
behind them, and also cases of clear discourtesy. I think, 
however, one has to make a distinction. We have to constantly 
keep reminding ourselves as a matter of self- discipline both as 
people who care for the life of the mind and as citizens of a 
country which values free speech almost above everything else 
that there is a distinction between expressing ideas that people 


very much disagree with and that may even be wrong and 
personal insult. 

If that is the line that can be drawn and if that is a distinction 
in force with common sense and good will, then I am all for both 
as a matter of institutional policy and a matter of the Commis- 
sion's concern and emphasis on the importance of maintaining 
a civil and courteous life within our academic communities. 

There are and have been a number of instances in recent times 
and probably many more that have not been well documented 
where that kind of concern has been carried further and has led 
to if not suppression, at least intimidation of people who had 
views that were either opprobrious to many or in some cases just 
opprobrious to a few. 

For example, there is an instance at Harvard where a professor 
has withdrawn from teaching a course having to do with American 
Immigration history because a small number of students in his 
class objected to certain characterization that he made — 
certainly not in any insulting language. The man is a distin- 
guished scholar — about ethnic history in the United States, 
They did it on the grounds that he had been Insensitive and they 
had somehow experienced an atmosphere of harassment and 

WeU, all sorts of people are offended by all sorts of things, but 
as soon as that becomes an offense, as soon as that becomes 
something that draws penalties or even leads people to undergo 
tremendous pressure from their peers and others In the university 
community, you really have a problem. 

A similar situation at the University of Pennsylvania. An 
adjunct professor made comments, basically fairly Innocuous 
ones, but perhaps not altogether tactful, and was forced to 
withdraw from teaching for a semester and then finally as a 
condition for reemployment had to do public penance. 

We were not dealing with Insults In these cases: we were dealing 
with simply the expression of Ideas that some people didn't like, 
ff we lose sight of that distinction, then we are on a very slippery 

As far as teaching courses are concerned, I have taught lots of 
courses In the social sciences and I often teach It with an 
emphasis on history. I do, of course, make judgments from time 
to time. I let my students know my judgments are fallible. I 
cannot present material without characterizing It in some way, 
and I guess there Is a hope way, way back in my consciousness 
that when the course Is over the student will be closer to my 
belief than he was before. I do try to present a varying array of 
views on most Issues in the realm that reasonable people can 


I think we are getting in very big trouble if we begin to see 
university instruction as basically a tendentious act, as an 
opportunity to promote right thinking rather than as far as we 
can see it present a truthful account of what happened, and even 
when we are dealing with ethics and morality, a truthful inter- 
pretation of what happened. 

Reality is very complicated. When it is reduced to a simple 
formula that is supposed to lead people in the right direction, 
you have a coarsening of intellectual life and I think ultimately 
a distortion of the standards on which intellectual life must rest. 

It is clear that if you are talking about the history of the United 
States or the history of western society, meaning, I guess, Europe, 
you have to talk about slavery. You have to talk about a variety 
of other forms of exploitation. On the other hand, I noticed at 
this very meeting when Dr. Short said that slavery was brought 
to an end on the basis of certain Anglo-Saxon principles of 
individual rights and freedom, I heard expression of disbelief, as 
if somehow that wasn't true. 

I would refer anybody who is interested in the subject to a very 
interesting work by an Afro -American socialist at Harvard which 
documents the pervasiveness of slavery throughout the world, on 
every continent. In fact, in some cases surprisingly recent and 
aggravated in the 19th century. In Korea one third of the 
population were slaves. The Arab slave trade, largely preying on 
Africa, continued well into the 19th century, long after it had 
been abolished in the Atlantic. 

The unique thing, it would seem to me, about western civiliza- 
tion is not that it had slavery but that it abolished slavery. 
Obviously it is a complicated question. When we start to present 
issues on the basis of fairly simple formulae whose purpose, it 
seems to me, is often to shame people, shame people perhaps for 
a good reason, to a higher and more sensitive consciousness, 
when we start using that as a device to shame people, I think we 
are not only breaching a very important rule of intellectual life, 
but I think we are going to have counterproductive results. 
People are going to realize that this is not true, that this is 
distorted: they are going to feel resentful. 

MR LEVINE: You are saying that there is no legitimate 
literature in the field of bigotry. I will challenge that. There is 
a lot of social science; there is a lot of social psychology in the 
field: there is a lot of practice in the field: there is a lot of 
knowledge in the field. 

DR BALCH: I didn't say that. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Irving, we have to give other people a 

DR BALCH: I will yield the floor. 


DR. DUNHAM: I would like to respond to the question I heard 
about what do you do next. 

First of all. I think stronger and clearer signals from the Federal 
Government would help all of us. Right now people out there are 
saying we are not quite sure what the government Is doing or 
wants to do and It makes our job more difficult. 

Second. I think we need to educate the general public on the 
rationale for diversity. In an Institution like ours it is more than 
Just bringing in minority students and making them white in four 
years. That is not what diversity is all about, but I think that is 
the perception. The booklet that was talked about earlier. "One 
Third of a Nation." has been an excellent document for us. We 
use it in about every speech we make. I think that is worth 
getting out to the public. 

Third, if we could get more financial aid for our needy students, 
If we could get aid to every student at our university who has 
need for it. then we wouldn't have the students grousing about 
who gets aid and who doesn't get aid. The fact is we don't have 
enough money from the Federal Government and the state 
government and the university to fund all needy students at Perm 
State. If we could solve that problem alone, that would help us 
a great deal in dealing with diversity. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I promised Commissioner Guess an 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: Mr. Cheng has a comment. 

MR CHENG: Thank you very much. 

I heartily second what Dr. Dunham said. I think the federal 
component is really very Important and that is something that I 
think the Commission can do. 

Also, I was wondering if the Commission would be able to 
educate us. the students, in terms of what you can do. I 
consider myself fairly versed in these matters, but still I am 
cloudy as to who you can talk to in the Executive branch or 
Legislative branch, and what powers you have. 

I think other students need to know also if something happens 
to them where they can go. I would encourage that on an 
educational level directly to students you should encourage 
universities to let them know where to go If something happens. 

DR WILSON: I wish it were possible for universities to live 
outside of the society of which they are a part. Unfortunately, 
they do not. The mythical descriptions that I have heard today 
about the pristine life of the mind and about the prejudicing of 
the educational process sounded to me like something that exists 
in a country that I have not been a part of. 

I live in a country in which the educational process has been 
politicized since the day that Harvard opened in 1636. I have 
lived long enough to see faculty members dismissed from their 


classes not for what they taught but for who their friends were 
and what political parties they belong to. This all went on while 
academics stood silently by and allowed it to happen to their 
fellow academics. 

To now talk about the purity of the academic enterprise as 
though to even raise questions of racism in American society as 
something that trashes the purity of the academy is bullshit, if 
you will pardon my putting that on the record. 

To say the line must stop with the Commission only talking 
about people beating up other people or people writing "niggers" 
on doors or people committing criminal acts but leave the rest of 
it alone as though that has nothing to do with the enterprise is 

If you are really serious about dealing with racism on college 
campuses, you must deal with it root and branch where it exists, 
in the administration, in the faculty, in the curriculum, and in 
the practices that all of those individuals engage in. That is 
where it begins and that is where attitudes are created. As my 
friend Bud Hodgkinson said, it is all one system; it starts in 
kindergarten and it goes through graduate school, and each one 
of those institutions have a role in rooting it out. 

If you are only going to talk about criminal acts or uncivil acts 
or acts of impoliteness, turn it over to the legal authorities or the 
local police and let them take care of it. Tliere is no reason to 
hold these hearings. I suggest what is going on on college 
campuses pervades the entire campus. 

I am pleased to see the leadership at Kenyon College, Phil 
Jordan, moving in the spirit of changing things and I hope as 
those things change dramatically. Professor Short, that you will 
be there when that new vision of higher education being non- 
racist appears on your campus. 

MR LEVINE: For the record, I want to say that the American 
Jewish Committee one hundred percent supports what Dr. 
Reginald Wilson has just said. It is absurd that in the field of 
prejudice reduction people believe that courses that are related 
to dealing with prejudice, dealing with multiculturalism, dealing 
with the history of the major social issues in our society around 
race, ethnicity and religion will automatically be illegitimate. That 
is absurd to me. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: This whole thing is getting very 
interesting now as we are about to close down. Commissioner 
Guess has his shot next. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: I just wanted to make the observa- 
tion there is a continuing and ongoing conversation between the 
chair of the subcommittee and myself pertaining to self-selection, 
pertaining to perceptions and how one perceives one's place in 
society and what expectations we offer for our young people as 


they come into the ranks of educated men and women. One of 
the things I have trouble grappling with is particularly as it 
relates to the American Jewish Committee. I have been trying to 
become a candidate for a position in the American Jewish 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Send us a resume. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: You keep telling me. though. Mr. Vice 
Chairman, that I am not qualified because of the fact that I am 
not Jewish, that there are no non-Jewish executives within the 
American Jewish Committee, that its purpose is to promote to 
Jewish values as it relates to bigotry and prejudice, but yet one 
has to be Jewish in a self- selection process in order to advocate 
these values. To me that borders on the brink of hypocrisy 
unless someone can show me something different. 

MR. LEVINE: I didn't know that that was on the agenda. Just 
for clarification, there is a history In the bylaws that go back to 
1906. Maybe that is what you ought to argue with. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I am not going to come to grips with 
this other than to say that there are no Jews as priests in the 
Roman Catholic Church. 

COMMISSIONER GUESS: And I would not expect to be a 
candidate to be a rabbi either. Mr. Vice Chairman. I'm not going 
to let you get away with that. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: We will have to solve this one, Francis, 
outside of the discussion of campus bigotry and racism. 

MR LEVINE: I hope this is not in the record as a part of this 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: It is being taped, but we can handle 
it. The world won't come apart from any of this comment. 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: Do I get a chance to say my most 
Important comment? 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: The Commissioners always get the last 

COMMISSIONER CHAN: I have been taking notes. We all agree 
the problem exists and there is more than one part responsible 
for this. 

I would like to address this especially to Mr. Cheng. As far as 
I am concerned, the government also should be greatly respon- 
sible for this. We have the Department of Education. Department 
of Justice, and also other departments. They are all responsible 
for civil rights. 

Dr. Dunham has gone, but during the five-minute recess I had 
complimented him on the beginning of this action by the institu- 
tion administration. I thought that was at least a beginning. 

The third one is to educate the public. Let's start with the PTA. 
from the bottom up. It should start from the grade school, high 
school, and college, and so on. 


I want to give Mr. Cheng a message that I am getting an educa- 
tion here but I also use these data banks and I have feedback, 
and this is my reaction. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we promised to 
break this at five. I have exercised a great deal of restraint. I 
have not asked any questions or commented myself. Can you 
spend a few more minutes? I am prepared to spend a few more 

I am going to call on John Eastman, who may have the 
responsibility of trying to make some sense out of all this. 

MR EASTMAN: Continuing on the issue of free speech that we 
are grappling with defining. I would like to pose two anecdotal 
stories that we have heard reported in the briefing we put 

The Young Americans for Freedom placed posters around one 
of the campuses in Pennsylvania arguing against homosexual 
behavior. They did not tear similar posters arguing in favor of 
homosexual behavior down, which would have been an act of 
vandalism, but they put those up. Joan Weiss' group, the 
National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, has classified 
that as an incident. 

The second case is in the teaching of course work on the 
American Constitution. I have seen a number of classes that 
teach that the Constitution was a racist document because it 
treated blacks as three-fifths of a man. When I have raised 
objections to that, that it rather made the distinction between 
free people and slave people — and there were free blacks — and 
that was the intent of that, that is accused of being a racist 

In light of those two questions, where does the line from free 
speech end and the one from racism start. 

MR CHENG: We had tried for about five months to come up 
with anecdotal incidents, saying this is harassment, this is not. 
The problem with that is you cannot draw the line specifically. 
There are some principles that we have come up with. People 
hold a right to put up a poster saying we disagree with gay people 
and this is what we thirik. When it fringes upon personal harm, 
when you say I'm going to bash in your head because you're gay, 
that is an entirely different thing. 

I think the best strategy is to say that harassment is not permit- 
ted. You will find that legal scholars will agree you can't draw the 
specific line, but there are certain things, like threatening speech 
and other things like that that are clear. 

MR ElASTMAN: Let me pursue that. Then you are saying that 
one Incident that I described would not have been an incident, 
yet it was defined as such. 


MR CHENG: If you say something about a group, that can't 
be held against you because you are entitled to that thought no 
matter how distasteful it is, but if it is transferred on to an 
individual or if you stand up in a crowded movie theater and 
shout "fire!" and incite violence in that sense, that is not protec- 
ted either. Stanford tried saying, well, if you say things about 
race or whatever, and the whole campus just fell apart. They 
had to revise that. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I want to raise a question with this 
panel. Maybe it is two questions linked together. 

There are some extraordinary contradictions and complexities In 
this issue. I think John has very accurately described one 
complexity. One of our major experts in this field described the 
episode that John has described to us as an act of harassment, 
and she is one of the important players in this game. The issue 
I want to address is the question of teaching group identity and 
how that can impinge upon antiracial or anti-Semitism feelings. 

A number of years ago I interviewed Bayard Rustln on the 
subject of anti-Semitism in the black community. He made an 
observation to me that makes rather difficult the exchange 
between Short and Levlne. His argument was that throughout 
the evolution of the black struggle as it evolved through Its 
various forms whenever there was a growth of nationalism there 
you would find a growth of anti-Semitism. He focused on the 
Integration aspects of the black struggle. 

DR WILSON: He's wrong, but that's all right. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: These are Issues that are debatable. 

The point is, if you teach group identity, which we all wish to 
do, which then begins to move off into a pattern sometimes of 
group nationalism — 

MR LEVINE: It doesn't have to at all 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: It doesn't have to. 

MR LEVINE: As a matter of fact, there is a real contradiction 
over there. You are defining group identity wrong, Murray. 
Teaching group identity is when we say to a high school literature 
teacher, if you have 25 black children in your class in a worksho- 
p, what black novels have you assigned to those children and 
other children? We say, look, one of the things you must do in 
order to relate to the child's group identity is to make sure that 
in your literature course they read something that relates to 
themselves and their background and their group and that they 
also read another novel that relates to somebody else in the class. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: That's the nice part of group identity. 

MR LEVINE: That's not the nice part. That is what we are 
talking about in terms of group identity. What you are talking 
about is not what we are talking about. 


CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Stay with the argument and please 
don't get upset. The point is we want people to read novels about 
other groups they are not familiar with. We want people to read 
The Fortunate Pilgrim so they learn something about Italians. 
That is the easy and nice part. 

MR. LEVINE: No, it's not easy, because they are not being 
assigned. That is why we are insisting that they do it. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: We like that and accept that. But as 
the group identity experience moves forward you often are 
confronted with issues of group separatism. Groups begin to 
form their own eating, residential, et cetera. 

DR. WILSON: That is not a natural outgrowth of group activity. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: It can be part of a continuum. 

DR WILSON: Then say it can be a part of it, but don't say that 
is a natural outgrowth. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: It is not automatic. I know, but it can 
be part of a continuum. I think the issues get a little bit 

DR. BALCH: I think there is a problem In assuming that 
teaching a certain kind of subject is going to lead in a particular 
direction. It may well be that in teaching about the different 
cultures of various groups those who are not part of the group 
will develop sympathy and appreciation for various things that 
other groups have done, but they may also find some of them 
alien and foreign. They may see in the history of the group 
patterns of aggression and exploitation directed at their own 
people. Knowledge does not necessarily make for sense of 

When I hear the kinds of characterization of western civilization. 
I frequently found not only in our university but outside of it that 
the people who hold those views about the West (a) claim to know 
something about it and (b) don't like it. 

Maybe they are right, but If they are right, they are an illustra- 
tion of the fact that studying of a society does not make you feel 
better about it. and they would also be an illustration of the fact 
that if they taught their views in the classroom they would proba- 
bly not get the people who came from that background to either 
sympathize with their view or, if they were won over, to feel better 
about themselves. 

A white student who is constantly told that his culture is not 
only in the past but in the present largely pervaded by racism is 
either going to end up feeling very hostile to the person who 
brings them that message, or he is going to end up feeling very 
guilty about himself. 

If someone believes that is true and they are teaching it, I think 
that it is their duty to present that, but it should not be taken 


as an assumption that talking about these Issues will necessarily 
make people feel better. 

I also agree that to the extent we want to socialize our new 
generation into values of tolerance and brotherhood. I think that 
kind of character building process is going to be effective and 
most appropriate at the lower grade school levels and not in 
institutions which are designed to try to figure out the ways 
things are. 

Truth was somewhat also pooh-poohed a little while ago. If it 
is going to be pooh-poohed, if you don't really care about what 
is true and what is not. 1 don't know what we are doing here 
presenting our views to the Commission. I assume we are not 
feeding you a line. I assume we are trying to tell you how the 
world actually works. 

DR. WILSON: It would be interesting to find out who around 
this table, unless they are gone, is pooh-poohed too. 

DR. BALCH: 1 heard that everything was political and that my 
defense of the university as a place where truth was sought was 
naive. I suspect that Is not giving truth its due. 

MR LEVINE: Dr. Balch. if you were teaching a university 
course on the Holocaust, would you then anticipate that those 
who are learning about the Holocaust would automatically assume 
that western civilization was horrible? 


MR. LEVINE: If you taught the Holocaust and they assumed 
that, would you worry a great deal about their assumption or 
would you applaud them for their intelligence? 

DR. BALCH: On the other hand, if I were teaching a course in 
German studies and I made it nothing but the Holocaust, I would 
think (1) it was dishonest and (2) my students would have every 
right to be offended, particularly if they were German. 

MR LEVINE: Would you say that teaching about the Holocaust 
is illegitimate academically? 

DR. BALCH: No. Teaching about slavery isn't illegitimate either. 

MR LEVINE: Can it do some good? 

DR. BALCH: Yes. It should be part of every curriculum 
because it is a real fact and because we should know about it. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: Commissioner Buckley. 

COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: The only thing I wanted to say 
was part of the sensitizing of individuals and the community and 
the people to this problem is going to have to be that when we 
present these Issues we have to be careful about the frame of 
mind in which we present it. You can present facts, but you 
present both sides of the issue. It works in the classrooms now. 
They are telling us how to do it as educators now. It can work, 
but we have to be able to control some of that emotion that gets 
involved and gets in the way of being able to talk about it. 


DR. BALCH: If I taught the Holocaust. I would not present both 
sides of the issue because I don't think there is another side. It 
depends on the issue. Nor would I do that with slavery. 

DR. WILSON: Then the pursuit of truth does not necessarily 
mean presenting all of the aspects. 

DR. BALCH: No. It means what is true is true. 

DR. WILSON: You Just answered my question, and that is that 
the academy is as politicized as every other institution and you 
ought to deal with that. 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I think that is as far as we can go 
today in the resolution of these questions. 

I want to thank all of you. We have much to chew on. I think 
the project is manageable, unlike some of the projects that we 
have at the Civil Rights Commission. I think we can take the 
material you have given us and the literature that has been 
developing in this field, the discussion, and I think we can come 
up and say something useful and helpful in terms of programs 
that can be undertaken. 

Thank you again for Joining us. 

(Whereupon at 5:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.) 



Papers and materials presented at the May 18, 1989, briefing 

are listed below: 

Tntroductoiy Remarks," Honorable Murray Friedman, Vice Chair- 
man, U.S. Commission on Ctvll Rights and Chairman. Subcom- 
mtttee on Campus Bigotry. 

Testimony," Grace Flores-Hughes, I>lrector, Community Relations 
Service, U.S. Dex)artment of Justice. 

"Contemporary Antl-Semltism on Campus," actual testlrrx)ry 
presented. Dr. JeflSiey A Ross, Director, Department of Campus 
Afialrs/HJgher Education, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. 

TIpdate materials to December 1988 report," submitted In 
absentia by Joan C. Weiss, Eixecutive Director, National Institute 
Against Prejudice and Violence. 

Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 
the Judiciary for hearings on the Commission on RaclaDy 
Motivated Violence Act of 1988. July 12. 1988," Reginald Wilson. 
Ph.D., Director, Qfiftce of Minority Concerns, American Council 
on Educatioa One Dupont Circle, ^AV, Washlngtoa DC 20036. 

"Oatllne for Briefing on Bigotry and Violence on College Cam- 
puses," Patrick S. Cheng, Junior, Yale College, and member. 
Campuses Against Racist Violence. 

"A "New Racism* on CampusT* Thomas Short, Associate Professor 
of Philosophy. Kerryon College. 

"Racism In the Reagan Years: Resurgence or ReaflOrmatlon?' 
lrx:luded wtth permission of Frederick A. Hurst. E:sq., Commis- 
sioner, Massachusetts Commission Against DlscrlmlnatiorL 

"The New Bigotry on Campus," irx:luded with perr"lssion of the 
late John Adams Wetteiigreen, Professor of Political Science at 
San Jose State University ^id member, California Advisory 
Committee to the U.S. Commission on CMl Rights. 

"Outline for Remarks." Irving M. Levlne, National Afialrs Director, 
American Jewish Committee. 

The Recoloring of Campus Life: Student Racism, Academic 
Pluralism, and The End of a Dream," trxluded wtth permission 
of Shelby Steele, Associate Professor of English at San Jose 

The following organizations are sources of additional information 
about campus bigotry and vlolerKe. 

Center for Democratic Renewal. P.O. Bck 50469, Atlanta. GA 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Campus Violence, Towson 
State Untverstty, Towsoa MD 21204-7097 

National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence. 31 South 
Greene Stineet, Baltimore, MD 21201 


AnU-Defamation League of B'nal B'rtth. 823 United Nations Plaza, 

New York, NY 10017 
Southern Poverty Law Center, 400 Washlngtoa Ave., 

Mon^omeiy, AL 36104, or P.O. Box 50469, Atlanta, GA 30302 

^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990-277 -4 47 ,2 0941+