Choi Misrepresents Ethnic Studies

Daniel H. Choi's January 27th depiction of "Multicultural Malaise"--what others know as Ethnic Studies--is, shall I say, "simply, and in order of severity, redundant, narrow, ignorant of history, perverse, and inimical to the very idea of a liberal arts education." Furthermore, it was completely misinformed and unfactual.

First, Choi argues that Ethnic Studies belongs within the liberal arts disciplines, and not in an independent program or department, since there are more courses dealing with Afro-American topics in traditional departments than in the Afro-American studies department. What Choi apparently does not realize is that this is also true of other interdisciplinary departments like Folklore and Mythology, Women's Studies, and East Asian Studies. The necessity of a department does not arise from a need to have a title in the course catalogue, but for students and faculty to have a centralized support network to exchange ideas and to further intellectual discussion and exploration in that particular field.

The 130 courses related to Ethnic Studies, which Choi argues are sufficient to quell any need or desire for an Ethnic Studies program or department, lists only two courses which relate to Asian American Studies. These two courses, to be taught by a visiting professor, were postponed until the '93-94 academic year, and no move was made to replace them. Hence, the token courses offered were taken away, by chance, more or less, and there were no Asian American Studies courses offered for the '92-93 academic year--a concrete program would have prevented this.

Choi then challenges the "insinuating assumption that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are the critical lenses through which one must view everything social, political, and historical." Yet isn't that "insinuating assumption" true? Aren't social aspects of life, such as going to school and going to work, profoundly influenced by affirmative action, for example, and hence by race? Aren't political aspects, like President Clinton's cabinet, which he promised to make as diverse as America, determined by race? Finally, hasn't our history, stretching from the slave history to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1865 to the Chicano-led migrant worker rebellions, been determined by race?

Furthermore, Choi seems to have forgotten that the notion of a well-rounded liberal arts education, especially here at Harvard, which supports a Core Curriculum, is to foster the multiplicity of approaches to knowledge. To establish an Ethnic Studies department is merely to allow the approach through the "critical lens" of race to stand equal to those which have been taught for years in traditional departments. Ethnic Studies would be another offering in the curriculum--it does not force Choi or anyone else to adopt that critical lens of race which he finds so offensive.

Choi then contradicts himself by saying that African-Americanists and Women's Studies feminists make similar assertions that race and gender can be the determining factors in individual and group experiences. They are justified in that they admit to their assumptions, while Choi claims that multiculturalists "cravenly hide behind the fuzzy epistemological and moralistic cove of diversity." Precisely whom Choi is referring to is unclear. I, as one of the "officials of campus ethnic organizations" which Choi refers to, have never claimed that the need for Ethnic Studies is merely a need for diversity. He cannot be referring to "the exact proposal--put forth this fall," since this proposal does not, to date, exist. Regardless, the aim of ethnic studies parallels that of programs such as Women's Studies or Afro-American Studies--to approach the humanities and social sciences within a valid perspective which many students and faculty share. The fact that such a curriculum inevitably increases the "diversity" of Harvard's curriculum does not mean that it is the sole goal of anyone who supports Ethnic Studies. Besides, why is Choi so afraid of "diversity"? It's a fact of life which even President Clinton has acknowledged.

More important, and much more disturbing, is Choi's argument that the "many Chinatowns and barrio border towns in America...are not germinating places for Latino and Asian American cultures that are strongly felt by most Latinos and Asians in America." First, this statement reflects a narrow perception of the lives of Latinos and Asian Americans. Choi can only be describing his personal experience--even here at Harvard there are dozens of students who have grown up in and around those very Chinatowns and barrios. Simply because his personal experience is not touched by Asian American culture does not mean it is not significant.

Second, Choi displays both an ignorance of history and a narrow conception of education when he decides that since we can see at last, in 1993, the great import of the African American experience, but not an equal wealth on the Latino and Asian American fronts, that the former should be an academic discipline, while the latter should be relegated to subheadings under other courses. Choi obviously has no grasp of the United States as a dynamic nation with a constantly changing demography. The Census Bureau reports that from 1980 to 1990, the percentage of population growth of Asians in America is 107.8%, and 53% for Hispanics. Even at Harvard, the class of 1996 is nearly 20% Asian American. Education needs to be pro-active, not reactive, and it would be short-sighted not to prepare for an incumbent future of a, yes Dan, more diverse America.

Finally Choi fails to consider that perhaps the reason he does not see Latino or Asian American studies as valid or significant areas of study is not that they do not exist, but precisely that he cannot see them, because they have been suppressed or superseded by a Eurocentric dominant culture which isn't interested in Ethnic Studies. However, Choi denies the possibility that any group in American history, besides Afro-Americans, have experienced any sort of "enduing political, social, and economic divide."

If Latino and Asian American voices have not been marginalized, then it is doubtful that their presences would be so scant in literary canons, in reading lists, or in course offerings. Within Choi's conception of the un-marginalized position of Latino and Asian Americans, only one explanation can account for the lack of those voices: that those groups are not capable of producing academic work of a quality high enough to be studies at institutions like Harvard. Would anyone dare support a statement so narrowly prejudiced?

Also, rather than seeking to "institutionalize...their own marginalization," the point of a department focused on American ethnic groups is to remove the margin, by promoting it to a position of academic research, study, and access, equal to that of the "center"--the traditional departments and fields which have been dominated by white, European, male hegemony. An Ethnic Studies department would restore the knowledge, perspectives, and voices which have been lost to Eurocentrism by bringing them into the center, where everyone may have access to them.

Finally, Choi Criticizes the movement for Latino and Asian American studies because it appears more apathetic than the 1990 campaign to revive the African American Studies Department. Choi doesn't mention the many ardurous but ineffective attempts at organization which preceded the actual protest. More importantly, Choi does not ask, if Latinos and Asian Americans are apathetic to issues which affect them directly, is it really because they do not care? Perhaps it is rather that they does not know what is at stake, precisely because they have never had no Ethnic Studies course... Amy C. Tang '96   Political Committee Co-Chair   Asian American Association