Professors and Their Politics

9. Activism and the Academy: Lessons from the Rise of Ethnic Studies

The twentieth century witnessed numerous profound transformations of the academy, ranging from the rise of the American research university (Vesey 1970) to the global expansion of higher education (Frank and Gabler 2006) and its increasing integration with the for-profit sector (Powell, Owen-Smith, and Colyvas 2007). One important development was the proliferation of disciplines and areas of study (Brint et al. 2009). In addition to the ever increasing complexity of science , the growth of new academic programs was driven by political and social trends such as the civil rights movement, which instigated ethnic studies. The appearance of ethnic studies and other identity-based fields of study raises some important questions. How, exactly, did ethnic studies activists succeed in forging a new discipline? What are the long-term consequences of establishing a field that defined itself in both intellectual and political terms? What lessons should scholars draw from studying the institutional development of ethnic studies? This chapter addresses questions about ethnic studies from an organizational perspective. Higher education is a system of organizations and practices that regulate work within these organizations. A new type of academic unit, the ethnic studies program, can be established only if proponents successfully navigate this bureaucratic system. Thus, the creation of ethnic studies is a political and bureaucratic process. It is political in the sense that students and scholars are using political tools such as campus protest to obtain a new academic unit. It is bureaucratic in that an ethnic studies unit can survive only if it can satisfy the goals of the university and successfully obtain resources such as staff, students , and funds. Consequently, scholars interested in the institutional development of ethnic studies have often adopted a process model of program adoption (Clark 1968; Rojas 2007b; Yamane 2001). This chapter is organized around the different stages in the implementation of ethnic studies programs and the issues raised by this process. c h a p t e r n i n e Activism and the Academy Lessons from the Rise of Ethnic Studies fabio rojas 244 Institutional Change and Its Limits Ethnic Studies: Definitions and Debates “Ethnic studies” denotes the field of study that examines the history, culture, and social organization of ethnic groups. This area of study usually focuses on American racial groups, even though many adherents have called for a “diaspora” perspective situating American ethnic groups in a global perspective (Gilroy 1993). Ethnic studies is sometimes cast as an interdisciplinary area that draws from more established fields, such as history, to describe the life and culture of African Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities. The field is organized into subdisciplines focusing on a single cultural group, such as African American studies or Asian American studies. Sometimes there are academic specialties focusing on more specific groups, such as Puerto Rican studies or Filipino studies. The first ethnic studies units were proposed in 1966 when students at San Francisco State College asked the administration to create a department of black studies (Rojas 2007b, 2010; Rooks 2006). This new unit would act as an organizational umbrella for traditional courses and student-run courses that explored African American topics. This proposal was not accepted or implemented until students staged a strike on behalf of ethnic studies in the fall of 1968. The College of Ethnic Studies, which included black studies, was started in the fall of 1969, an event that triggered student strikes for ethnic studies on other campuses . Almost two hundred black studies programs were started in the next decade, as were dozens of programs in cognate fields such as Native American studies, Asian American studies, women’s studies, queer studies, and gender studies (Rojas 2007b, 170–71). Ethnic studies programs were motivated by two conflicting political ideas. Many activists thought that ethnic studies could encourage racial integration, a core goal of the civil rights movement (Rojas 2007b, 140–43). Both white and nonwhite students could attend ethnic studies programs and be exposed to different cultures. Activists also relied on ethnic nationalism to justify their proposed reforms. By “ethnic nationalism,” I refer to the theory that ethnic groups should retain their autonomy by exerting control over cultural, educational, economic, and/or political institutions (Dawson 2001). Within the context of the late 1960s, many civil rights activists became disappointed with civil rights and thought that the white mainstream would not cede resources or status to African Americans or other minorities. The response of ethnic nationalists was to claim that ethnic...