Paul Kusuda’s column
Melting pot/Diversity revisited
Melting pot/Diversity revisited
Part 2
By Paul Kusuda
Last month, I discussed how deeds are not always commensurate with words and used as example
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.
By Paul Kusuda
Last month, I discussed how deeds are not always commensurate with words and used as example
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.
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.