Asian Wisconzine Section/Heidi M. Pascual
Editor: Below is a double-column written by the late Paul Kusuda and published by Asian Wisconzine in 2009, whose content is still appropriate today.
Melting Pot/Diversity Revisited
In a previous column, I discussed how deeds are not always commensurate with words and used as example in the part of the Declaration of Independence proclaiming so eloquently that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Missing from inclusion within this definition of “men” were slaves and women. It took three Amendments to enable much-needed clarification in the U.S. Constitution that merged intentions and reality. In the meantime, of course, many suffered, some more than others. Some were not even aware that any problem existed.
Melting pot and diversity are societal models used to help conceptualize the apparently simple concept of “all men are created equal.” Of course, governmental intercessions such as Affirmative Action, Older Americans Act, Fair Employment Practices, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Opportunity, unionization protections, Social Security, Fair Housing, public education, etc. help to define what is meant by protection, interpretation, and assurance. The underpinning or foundation requires societal acceptance of basic concepts involved in equality. Without that acceptance, “equality” would be but an empty word.
The “diversity” paradigm or model appears to be strongly based on the premise that each of the four major ethnic groups (African American, Hispanic American, Native American, and Asian American) requires a critical mass before constituents of each group can effectively move to assimilate, integrate, or otherwise fit into mainstream American society. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, following a large-scale demonstration, Kwamme Salter and others (as I remember) were instrumental in establishing the African American Studies Program. Soon after, two other ethnic programs were initiated – Native American and Hispanic American Studies Programs.
The Asian American Studies Program was established last, and I was a Madison community representative on the committee that successfully obtained authorization and funding for faculty, other staff, and other resources (supplies, housing, etc.). The UW Chancellor and Dean of Students were strongly supportive, and the Asian American Studies Program came into existence. My involvement resulted from two factors. First, I could not understand why there were no programs for Asian UW students. Second, I bought into the idea that after Asians got to know other Asians different from themselves, they could gain social strength to sally forth into mainstream American
society. In other words, I thought the “critical mass” idea had credence. On the face of it, that idea made sense. After all, “In numbers, there’s strength;” “Let’s all hang together so we won’t hang one by one;” “One straw is easy to break, but a bundle is not,” etc.
I also thought that eventually, the four studies programs could be merged into a single Ethnic Studies Program, and even later eventually that this program would be dissolved and made part of the College of Letters of Science in which each program currently resides. I discussed the latter concept with then L&S Dean Phillip Certain and then L&S Associate Dean Joanne Cantor. Both said that politically, that could never happen. How about in 20 or 25 years, I asked. The response from Dean Certain was a smiling, “Not possible.”
I persisted by pointing out that since the African American Studies Program was the only one with a doctoral program, that this could be used as one rationale for merging four monolithic programs into a single entity that could later be absorbed into L&S. The answer, “Not possible.” I haven’t discussed the possibility with current Dean Gary Sandefur.
So, I was part of the multicultural group that helped establish one of the four monoliths. Of course, I meant well. Also, I was looking ahead toward a goal of diversity as a social mechanism so that diverse ethnic groups could ease into the mainstream. That was one of the reasons I joined with some Asian American state employees to create opportunities for people of various Asian backgrounds to get to know one another. Eventually, those efforts, involving both Madison and Milwaukee, morphed into what is now known as the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans (WOAA). A few of us were interested in the socialization part, a few in the “strength in numbers” part.
One hope was that the invisibility part of being Asian American could be reduced. Another was that a modicum of political strength could result. So, what appears to have been the result? What good can come from the idea behind developing a monolithic structure for Asian Americans? Will the diversity paradigm operate better than the melting pot paradigm? I’m not sure my take on this is correct or sufficiently thought out; however, I’ll pursue this a bit more next month.
Conclusion of my thoughts about “melting pot” and “diversity” societal viewpoints with
reference to how racial minorities fit into the larger society’s everyday doings.
The process may be described as integration, acculturation, acceptance, tolerance, assimilation, fitting in, being one of the gang, entering-in or interacting with mainstream society, etc. Tolerance is probably the least acceptable concept because that infers involvement of a less-than-desirable trait, characteristic, or similar definitional term.
Well-meaning people try to overcome ideas of social barriers by developing and carrying out ways to promote their well-intended paradigms (or models) of human behavior. Many in the real world accept and try to do their best on behalf of their fellow human beings. Unfortunately, obstacles seem to grow despite all good intentions. Some are foreseeable while others, not.
In the case of “melting pot,” the mix never did develop. Key to the concept was that racial minority group members would gradually become like and merge into the societal framework of majority societal living. That did not occur; members of neither groupings fully accepted the necessary requirement of homogeneity because it just did not exist.
Recognition that the “melting pot” idea did not produce a uniform pot of brownness led to the “diversity” model. The possible beginning was the relatively short-lived “Black is Beautiful” phase that had strong support. When I was in Chicago in the late 1940s, the movement gained much support as did the Black Muslim movement and “rap” talk (from “rapport,” I think). Young Black Americans in the streets challenged each other rhyming: “You tall; an’ you gonna fall” and “You brown; an’ you goin’ down.” The youth were sharp-witted and were able to continue the dialog in rhythm without music.
The focus of “Black is Beautiful” was to increase feelings of self-worth and pride. Some discarded “slave names” in favor of African language-based names. Others chose Muslim-related names. The eventual goal was to encourage Blacks to appreciate their heritage and to convert that knowledge and pride into improved self image and group progress economically and other aspirations.
The basic concepts took hold; race pride began to replace feelings that Whites looked down on them because of color differences. The evident positives were viewed by those interested in social behavior, including academicians and public bureaucrats, to be an effective replacement for the failed “melting pot” paradigm for social change. The approach worked so well for Black Americans, why not for other racial minority groups? That’s how I think “diversity” came about.
The University of Wisconsin, other educational institutions, and racial minority groups latched on to the evidence-based model for American society to move to help resolve many of the obviously visible disparities between the mainstream and non-White components of the populace.
As noted in a previous article, I thought the melting-pot approach failed, and diversity appeared to be a much better approach. So, I bought into the approach and even joined efforts to help establish the Midwest’s first Asian American Studies Program (AASP). I really believed that the development of AASP would be a way to help Asian American students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison become more appreciative of their heritage and similarities among various groups of Asian backgrounds, thus gaining more strength to become integrally involved with mainstream American society.
Unfortunately, it appears that only part of the diversity approach is developing according to the overall paradigm. Asian and Asian American students at UW-Madison have begun to bond, building bridges among different Asian backgrounds (e.g., Chinese, both Mainlandand Taiwan; Korean, both South and North; Japanese; Hmong; Vietnamese; Laotian; and Cambodian) to form a grouping called Asian. It seems as though a heretofore missing in-group identity was only minimally stressed. The focus of entering into the mainstream of American society appears to be but an illusory end to the means of directing efforts for participants to know about and be Asian.
If my observation is accurate and applied to the African American Studies Program, Hispanic American Studies Program, and Native American Studies Program, a question may be raised as to whether diversity programs are working or are, contrary to purpose, creating divisiveness. Is the diversity paradigm exacerbating a social situation it’s intended to ameliorate?
The diversity model requires re-examination, re-evaluation, and reorganization. Efforts should be directed toward developing a strategic plan that includes an overall vision, goals and measurable objectives, and definite timelines for achieving end-points related to specific goals. Staff responsible for diversity programs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and at Madison Area Technical College would not have to collaborate in the review; however, each institution may want to rethink how diversity can be used as a useful tool in the development of students and to help them enter mainstream American economic and social mileau with a better understanding of the many facets comprising diversity.
I recognize this will take effort and time, but at least it will reduce or eliminate the appearance of a “front-office minority” façade.
