Autonomy
As a growing social movement, Whose Diversity? has no desire to seek formal recognition from the University of Minnesota as a student group. We appreciate the administration inviting students to voice concerns over the state of diversity at the University through various public forums. However, the unequal power relations established within these forums leave concerned students and aggrieved members of surrounding communities at a severe disadvantage in their efforts to affect meaningful changes. We believe that these institutionalized dialogues actively stifle difficult and opposing perspectives about what diversity means for us as a University. “What does it mean when diversity reflects not substantive diversity but instead an institutional management of minority difference (the incorporation of minorities into the university’s mission)?” How does the University confront this form of cosmetic diversity? Without wrestling with these important questions the University cannot, in good conscience, uphold its image as an institution committed to community engagement and diversity. We believe that dialogue and negotiations must take place on equitable terms and within spaces conducive to the self-determination of all parties involved. Part of our deep reservations of becoming a subsidiary of the University comes from the sobering histories of other student movements. We have witnessed the potential for earlier movements to become beholden to the broader set of power relations that obstruct substantive efforts at actual diversity within the University. Remaining autonomous protects us from the very real threat of cooptation. We are not solely referring to the cooptation of our efforts as a movement, but the appropriation of our ideas, identities and culture.
Becoming beneficiaries of various privileges associated with formal student group recognition would make us complicit in reproducing a homogenized notion of diversity. While homogenized diversity may seem oxymoronic, it remains a salient part of the University’s identity. Subscribers of this form of diversity are beholden to existing power structures and the interests of university administrators, the majority of whom are not representative of historically marginalized students.
Our decision to remain autonomous is not only beneficial to us as a movement, but also to the University itself. All public institutions require an independent system of checks and balances to ensure that organizations are fulfilling their missions to the people they serve. We have willingly stepped up to be this system of checks and balances to ensure that the University uphold its commitment to diversity. When necessary, we will remind the University that diversity is a process, not an event or moment that can be achieved by sprinkling a few faces of difference on catalogs and advertisements. By assuming this responsibility, we are helping the University fulfill its own mission at broader community engagement and public service. In return for our efforts, we are not asking for University funding or sponsorship. Instead, we ask that the University respond to the mandates of its own conscience by engaging in constructive dialogue with us over our demands and expectations to foster an academic community conducive to the intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth of all individuals.
Becoming beneficiaries of various privileges associated with formal student group recognition would make us complicit in reproducing a homogenized notion of diversity. While homogenized diversity may seem oxymoronic, it remains a salient part of the University’s identity. Subscribers of this form of diversity are beholden to existing power structures and the interests of university administrators, the majority of whom are not representative of historically marginalized students.
Our decision to remain autonomous is not only beneficial to us as a movement, but also to the University itself. All public institutions require an independent system of checks and balances to ensure that organizations are fulfilling their missions to the people they serve. We have willingly stepped up to be this system of checks and balances to ensure that the University uphold its commitment to diversity. When necessary, we will remind the University that diversity is a process, not an event or moment that can be achieved by sprinkling a few faces of difference on catalogs and advertisements. By assuming this responsibility, we are helping the University fulfill its own mission at broader community engagement and public service. In return for our efforts, we are not asking for University funding or sponsorship. Instead, we ask that the University respond to the mandates of its own conscience by engaging in constructive dialogue with us over our demands and expectations to foster an academic community conducive to the intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth of all individuals.