Survey blurs racial lines

At times the quest for diversity, for all its good intentions, can be fertile ground for tension.

In this case, an administration-sponsored survey focusing on discrimination and inter-group relations, meant to help the office of human relations apply a strategy toward a more inclusive campus, is being called discriminatory by some faculty in ethnic studies.

The survey, currently being conducted, asks 1,000 students and all staff and faculty at SF State a series of questions regarding their personal feelings, experiences and reactions on several issues: race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion and sexual harassment.

When results are in, survey analysts will interpret the data to see if there is significant tension between groups which may warrant extra attention by the administration in the form of education or other directed efforts -- so the tension does not become discrimination and conflict. A final report is due in January.

Some ethnic studies faculty applaud the survey's intention. The problem, they said, is its limits.

The survey groups minority subgroups into single, broad categories. For instance, in survey questions, Chicanos, Hispanics and Latinos are treated as one umbrella category, as are some Asian subgroups.

By encompassing multiple minority groups, faculty argued, the survey fails to recognize tension within each broad category and, at the same time, contributes to the simplistic perception of racial or ethnic conflict as within what are called the four major groups: African-American, Asians, whites and Latinos. The simplistic perception, they said, assumes there are dominant groups and subordinate groups, making healthy dialogue about inter-group relations impossible from the start.

"They (the administration) don't want to deal with internal group issues. What they care about is black vs. white, white vs. yellow, and yellow vs. black," said Marlon Hom, chair of the Asian American studies department. "When you don't break it down, you don't have to address the specific needs of each group."

Survey participants can identify themselves from nine categories: American Indian; black or African-American; Chicano or Mexican; Chinese; Filipino; Latino or "other Hispanic"; "other Asian"; Pacific Islander; white; and "other" (Fill in blank on form). They can mark more than one category.

"No research is perfect. But given the population of the groups on campus, that is an oversight," said Phillip McGee, dean of the college of ethnic studies, referring to the 196 self-identified Japanese students on campus who could identify themselves as nothing more specific than Asian on the survey.

The Public Research Institute, the company SF State contracted to do the survey, said the survey's focus is to see how Pan-ethnic groups relate to a dominant group.

"In terms of relationships between Pan-ethnic groups and the dominant group, you have to use Pan-ethnic labels," Barron said.

Pan-ethnic labels are useful when investigating discrimination and racism, PRI investigators said, because most people, when they discriminate, use broad stereotypes.

"I think we start with categories real to people. (People) generalize about other people we (they) are not accustomed to," Newton said. "And there is no survey that will accommodate all those different perspectives."

"Frankly, most people don't discriminate beyond general groups. They don't recognize the differences," said Joe Julian, university dean of human relations, whose idea initiated the survey.

Inter-subgroup tensions was not in the scope of this survey.

Tentatively-planned future surveys would address specific inter-subgroup relations, Julian said.

But those reasons still do not answer the more subjective charge by ethnic studies faculty who said the survey perpetuates discrimination because it is based on a dominant group perspective. "It validates that people taking the survey have those limitations," said black studies lecturer Joanne Gearring, who said such an approach assumes people are ignorant of the depth and complexities of human relations.

Gearring also pointed to what she called "inconsistencies" within the survey.

"They didn't make up their mind what they wanted to use -- color, nationality, ethnicity, culture," Gearring said. She said she would not know what to do with her survey because Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Latino and Pacific Islander designate a place of origin, while black and white are colors.

"There's no such thing as a white race or ethnicity," Gearring said. "Are we saying white people have no place of origin?

"If you're going to have a survey, it should represent some racial and cultural understanding of its own. This is an academic institution," Gearring added. "Shouldn't we be looking for appropriate methods of discussing issues of discrimination?"

The office of human relations and lead investigators for the survey at the PRI, the SF State auxiliary contracted to conduct the survey, acknowledge its limits in regard to subgroups, but defend its value as a useful gauge of campus tension.

"It's a limitation of the survey," said Jamie Newton, the lead survey investigator.

Among several reasons why the survey does not include more specific breakdowns is there are simply not enough students from minority subgroups to form a meaningful representative sample, said Mauro Barron, an investigator with the PRI and a La Raza instructor.

For example, out of more than 25,000 students, only 241 identified themselves with Korean ethnicity on their SF State application, based on fall 1995 undergraduate demographics.

Out of 1,000 students surveyed, Barron estimates that about 14 Korean-identified students would be in the sample group -- too few to make a strong analysis because the margin of error would be too high, Barron said.

He said 500 students in each category are needed to get a representative sample.

Some subgroups with less than 500 students were included. According to the fall 1995 data on ethnicity breakdown on campus, there were 155 undergraduate American Indians at SF State, and with 563 students, Central Americans were placed in one group because the survey is being conducted in relation to a dominant group -- which the survey calls whites.

The office of human relations, the office of the president, and the PRI lowered the survey budget eight times from $96,135 to the current budget of $31,006.

More money would have allowed for more detail in the survey and more self-identity options. Barron said a university-wide survey of all students, faculty and staff would have cost more than $100,000. "This study is the maximum of proficiency given the funding," Barron said, adding that $12,000 cut from preliminary budgets was pegged to pay four focus groups made up of SF State professors, who would have added input toward the formulation of the survey, he said.

A nearly identical survey was the 1990 "University Commission on Human Relations: Focusing on Racism and Other Forms of Discrimination."

Barron said they need to follow the same methodology used in a 1990 survey so result comparisons can be made to see if sentiments on campus have evolved for better or worse over six years.

At the same time, few ethnic studies faculty would argue the university does not make an effort toward encouraging diversity, positive inter-group relations and fighting discrimination.

The "University Commission on Human Relations" made 10 recommendations to the administration, one of which was to establish the human relations office, which opened in July 1995.

Also recommended was an increase in outreach and retention efforts to increase graduation rates of minority students, as well as a dedication by the university to hire, retain and promote administrators and staff who work well with people from diverse backgrounds. Since 1985, the number of staff who identify themselves as an ethnicity other than white has increased more than 50 percent.

The Commission on University Strategic Planning used the 1990 commission report to start a planning group called "Combating Discrimination," and a Human Relations Advisory Board made of students, faculty and staff who will contribute to reports sent to the president.

Even with all the efforts, Julian said fighting institutionalized racism is an endless battle.

"With diversity comes the tension. That's the challenge: to value diversity and promote inclusiveness," Julian said. "We would hope there would not be any negative consequences of this."

[ Golden Gater Online October 22, 1996 ]

[ Top]