From diversity to justice April 10, 2016 4 Comments Share tweet Lily Zheng Columnist By: Lily Zheng | Columnist I was going to write this week’s column on diversity before I realized that I had unfortunately already written that piece back in January (I knew there had to be a reason why it was so easy to think of a title, for once). In that article, I talked about how the vagueness of the term “diversity,” when divorced from real, concrete efforts for change, was often a promise devoid of meaning. I talked about how uncritical understandings of diversity’s “benefits” play into centuries-old dynamics of the privileged many becoming “enriched” through the experiences, labor and knowledge held by the marginalized few, with little heed paid to the bigger picture: racial justice, queer liberation, an end to class/wealth inequity and state violence. At the time of its writing, that column wasn’t particularly relevant to any current events on campus. Now, given the massive show of student support for the student coalition Who’s Teaching Us and the accompanying ingredients to make a campus issue a big deal (a controversial piece in the Review, administrative response, student rallies and the special sauce: media coverage), diversity is most definitely in the spotlight. We talk often about what diversity is, and what diversity looks like. But the tough questions are elsewhere — namely, why diversity? And how can we get there? If it were January again, I would have said that many people on campus — and perhaps in organizations and institutions across the country — would answer the first question by arguing for diversity for diversity’s sake. How many times have we heard administrators and leaders saying that they are committed to more diverse schools, more diverse teachers, more diverse everything… yet provide little to no explanations as to why? Once in awhile, scientists find some sort of “benefit” to diversity so that they can make neoliberal arguments for its value: diversity makes teams more productive, for example, lowers prejudice or even “makes us smarter,” perhaps skimming over the fact that our institutions do not naturally reflect our diverse population for historical reasons ranging from slavery to genocide to war and imperialism, and the ripple effects caused by these historical injustices. And then President Hennessy, in a letter to the Who’s Teaching Us Coalition, pointed straight at “racial and socioeconomic justice” as reasons for diversity and I had to hold my tongue for a bit. Of course, there is much, much more than “racial and socioeconomic justice” to fight for and I expect to be long graduated before I hear a university president say anything like “collective liberation.” Nevertheless, it is no small feat to have the “why” of diversity be something that student activists and administrators virtually agree on. The “how” of diversity, the specific tactics and strategies Stanford as an organization can use to arrive at the future we want, is thus the crux of the topic at hand. When I think of an ideal Stanford, I think of a place where hardworking and passionate students, regardless of their backgrounds, identities or experiences can come to gain the skills and knowledge to better the world. I doubt this is a particularly contentious ideal. From it comes a relatively simplistic line of analysis that points to inadequate funding for community centers, a lack of representative faculty and other shortcomings at Stanford that suggest starting points for improvement. I doubt that this, either, is a controversial set of suggestions. But this goal was framed wrongly from the start — it is not an ideal Stanford we want, it is — in President Hennessy’s words — racial and socioeconomic justice (and justice for all marginalized groups; thus, collective liberation). There are clear and obvious things we can do to make Stanford as an institution the best it can be for its students, and I have no doubt that the administration is already taking steps to move towards this goal. But, as I said on Transgender Day of Remembrance, and will say again, It is not enough for Stanford to be the eye in a global storm. It is for this reason that I support Who’s Teaching Us as a coalition and a movement — not simply because it fights for “diversity,” but because it recognizes the key necessity of looking outside the Stanford bubble, past the ivory tower, to the larger set of systems that must be fought. This is why, in the Who’s Teaching Us demands, calls for faculty diversity accompany calls for “divestment from violence against marginalized communities” — because Stanford has this key power to influence the world towards a just and equitable society, and diversity on campus is only the tip of that iceberg. As the Stanford Review so curtly pointed out, “If WTU really cared about who was teaching us, perhaps they would show the restraint to restrict their discussion to [the issue of diversity], rather than sixteen others.” And in a sense, they have a point — because Who’s Teaching Us has long been about more than just diversity statistics and representation — it is a nuanced and critical movement seeking to link the injustices that students face on campus to larger injustices in the world. It is a movement, borne by many students and communities towards a better future, which I feel lucky to see in my time as a student. Contact Lily Zheng at lilyz8 ‘at’ stanford.edu. "Justice" diversity Stanford Who's Teaching Us? 2016-04-10 Lily Zheng April 10, 2016 4 Comments Share tweet Subscribe Click here to subscribe to our daily newsletter of top headlines.