In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., I attended the showing of a documentary entitled “Shattering the Silences.” This movie was shown at 1700 hrs in the Joyce Powell Leadership Center located in the Memorial Union. The showing was followed by a discussion of the film. The audience that was in attendance really didn’t seem entirely enthusiastic about being there. Before the movie began, the instructors had us each state our name and why we were there. For the most part, the people in attendance were there for classes, or were the boyfriend/girlfriend of people in attendance. There was a good mix of gender, not weighted in favor of one or the other. However, for the most part, the audience consisted of whites, although I noticed at least two African Americans there as well. Overall the group was fairly quiet but seemed interested in the film.
“Shattering the Silences” addressed issues and concerns of college or University minority faculty. One of the most prominent difficulties faced by these individuals was a lack of time for their own business. Since they were a minority, many students felt more comfortable coming and talking with them instead of the typical white educator. As a result, minority faculty spent much of their time with students, discussing issues and acting as guidance counselors. If they were not dealing with students, then their time was consumed with either teaching or research/writing for their publications. There is a great deal of pressure for the minority faculty to get their tenure, so the first few years of their teaching career is very stressful. All of this leaves very little time for anything outside of work. One educator in the film said that if it came down to either having a family or continuing teaching, she would choose her work.
The film also addressed the issue of minority faculty feeling isolated. Not only is most of their time consumed with helping students, teaching, or researching, what little time is left is usually not spent with many other faculty members. It was mentioned in the movie that 90% of all higher education faculty are white males. This would mean that minority faculty, along with women faculty, would have to be included in the remaining 10%! It’s little wonder that a person could feel isolated, especially if the other faculty don’t accept you.
The discussion that followed showing of the film was really not all that enthusiastic. There were a few sparse comments made and questions asked, but for the most part, it was the instructors speaking and posing ideas to the group. But of this post-movie discussion, there were some topics that were discussed in more detail. The first question that was asked was “is a diverse faculty was good?” The general answer from the audience was yes. It brings a broader perspective to higher education, as well as different backgrounds and ways of thinking. The follow-up question for that was “is this a benefit for everyone?” Again the answer was yes, because it gives people a broader perspective, and maybe a different way to look at/learn something.
Following along this same line of thought, it was asked if a diverse faculty would be as important for areas such as engineering. Ideas were split about this question. The group who said no believed it wouldn’t make a difference because students are only learning numbers, not more abstract ideas. Those who responded yes thought is was important because of the different teaching styles the varied ethnic backgrounds would bring to the classroom. If certain students learn in a different style, a new perspective may work better for them than a traditional way of thinking.
The next topic discussed was Affirmative Action. An audience member brought up the controversy that employers hire less qualified people over higher qualified people to fulfill “quotas”. It was generally agreed upon that this policy is wrong and is not the goal of Affirmative Action. It is simply the most qualified person who should be hired, regardless of ethnicity. It was also mentioned that it is not wrong to have biases, but if you do they shouldn’t cloud your judgment, and the best person for the job should be hired, regardless of whether he/she belongs to a minority group.
To be able to determine who is the better qualified, testing practices were discussed. A standard test is not an accurate way to judge a person’s ability to perform the job effectively. The results are quantified, and people cannot be reduced to numbers, though they often are. There are also assumptions that are still being made, whether consciously or unconsciously, about people due to his/her name and/or gender, regardless of the resumes that are presented to the employer. A study was done in a psychology department in which two sets of resumes were handed out to educators. One set was a man vs. a woman, each with identical qualifications. The other set was a resume with two different names, one that sounded African in descent, the other a “typical” American name, each with identical qualifications. It was then asked of the people evaluating the resumes to say which one they would recommend. The results showed that the man was almost always chosen over the woman, and the “typical” American name was also almost always chosen.
The next item of discussion was why ethnic studies are devalued. One opinion was that minorities have been devalued in every other way, why not this, too. It was also expressed that academia tends to be influenced by popular culture, and this might be another reason of the devaluing.
This led to the discussion of our final topics for the evening, which are as follows: Oregon’s history of racism, more discussion of the film and isolation of minority faculty, the traditional Affirmative Action, and the meaning of the SAT scores. We were left with the question of how can we devise a system to be able to accurately predict who is going to be successful?
Back to ANTH 251 Essays.
