Samuel Pang – Pomona ’12
I would like to thank Identity Unimportant for responding to my article in the previous issue of the Claremont Progressive. Throughout the past few weeks, I have received quite a few critiques of my article, and even some requests to rescind it or step down from my role as a head sponsor. I will try to address some of the issues that have been raised in response, but would also like to make explicit that I am not apologizing for anything I have said and will neither rescind this article nor step down from my position as a head sponsor. Being in the position of “the most prominent role model of any student leader on campus,” it is my responsibility to be critical of the sponsor program, the larger Pomona College community, and the role that power and privilege play within them. Only through critical reflection on the systems and processes at work within the college can we create a more democratic space for all students, workers, faculty, and staff; to simply ignore possibilities for the deconstruction of privilege would be to do a disservice to this community in my leadership position.
Although I respect Identity Unimportant’s choice to remain anonymous, zir use of the phrase “Identity Unimportant” to address zirself completely ignores zir positionality as a member of the campus community. The ways in which we choose to identify or have been identified by society shape our experiences and interactions with others; to ignore identity would be to deny any privilege we may have, further marginalizing already marginalized students. I am glad that ze is able to identify as white, but there is more to whiteness than just being white.
When we think of white supremacy, we often think of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement. As an ideology, white supremacy is the belief that whiteness is superior to everything else. However, white supremacy is not just practiced by hate groups, but has been institutionalized into every part of the development of society down to the Constitution. We live in a society where to be white is an ideal and goal to be achieved; to be a person of color is to be otherized and stigmatized. Therefore, a culture of white supremacy is not just maintained by white people but also by peoples of color who have internalized whiteness. But for the “largest single bloc on campus,” by being white and not actively living a praxis (theory and practice) of anti-racism is to actively pursue an agenda based on the superiority of whiteness through the silent perpetuation of not only interpersonal but more importantly institutionalized racism present both inside and outside the confines of this campus.
Pomona College, in the way it currently functions within this capitalist society, is inherently racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative, and discriminatory. This country and its capitalist system are founded on the exploitation of marginalized peoples; to function within it without anti-capitalist practice is to participate in this legacy. Through the commodification of education, the college perpetuates the success of already privileged peoples, and the sponsor program, as it has been constructed, is only a tool to help sell the college through the continued maintenance of white friendly spaces, making it inherently opposed to goal of creating spaces safe for marginalized students.
As a student of color who constantly feels the pressure to assimilate into Americanness, or disguised whiteness, I must recognize, actively organize against, and resist this white supremacy by any means necessary; my role as a student leader does not change anything but gives me a more powerful position to do so. My commitment to the sponsor program is not to only inherit its legacy in order to do what my predecessors have done before but to constantly change it to become a safe space for marginalized students to grow and develop; as long as the campus stays a hegemonic, white space, the sponsor program will also be reflective of that space, alienating already marginalized students and increasing the apathy of others. It is necessary for all peoples of color to stand in solidarity and resist institutionalized racism, whether through skewed admissions or hiring practices, unfair labor practices, or discriminatory policies.
As someone who is already the target of institutionalized discrimination, I have no problem attaching my name to these articles. My language is carefully chosen to provoke–to provoke action. I am not here to build and facilitate dialogue on campus between already privileged groups; they have the resources to do so themselves. I am here to call my friends and comrades into action to end racism, sexism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and discrimination. Join me!
You state all these claims, but don’t describe exactly what you’re talking about. You say the sponsor program “is only a tool to help sell the college through the continued maintenance of white friendly spaces, making it inherently opposed to goal of creating spaces safe for marginalized students.” What? I completely disagree. The sponsor program mixes people from all kinds of different backgrounds together to promote dialogue and understanding, not separation and marginalization. I think that your average white, non-sub-free student is the most discriminated against in terms of being picked the be a sponsor, and admissions is easily skewed in favor of minorities, not people who identify as white.
It’s ridiculous that anyone can make claims about whites being white supremacists, being pasty and bland, but if you say anything negative about a minority everyone is up in arms. Also, I disagree with your claims about Pomona College; though I may not be a racial minority, I am a woman, and I challenge you to give me an example of the college’s sexism and patriarchy that I agree with.
Dear Sheryl G.,
1) The existence of “token” minority students who have “made it” within a predominantly white sponsor group, and also the predominantly white campus, is also in a way contributing to what makes this a “white-friendly place”. Having students of color, lower income backgrounds, and first generation college students exist on campus in order to dilute the feeling of privileged homogeneity is one thing, but actually reshaping and improving support programs such as the sponsor program in order to meet the needs of these marginalized students is another.
2) Your belief that the “average, white, non-sub-free student is most discriminated against in terms of being picked [to be] a sponsor” is completely misinformed and rather amusing. First of all, the beginning of that statement casually grouping “average” and “white” together is a clear example of how white prevalence has been built into the system in which we have been taught to perceive things and think (that “white” is the standard and anything else is otherized). Additionally, there are fewer sub-free halls for first years, so there’s no reason why a non-sub-free student would be discriminated against in the sponsor selection process, because there are more non-sub-free halls. To feel that “average, white” people do not get picked for a specific position must entail some form of discrimination is also a problem deeply rooted in your thinking, believing that there’s no possibility for white (and therefore “more qualified”) students to not be picked except for the existence of discriminatin in the selection process. Perhaps it is because these applicants are so “average”, as you have pointed out, that they were not oustanding in their application and interview processes. The sponsor program strives to select candidates who are most experienced, open-minded, and likely to foster an all-inclusive community among their group of first-years, and if the “average and white” applicants you have mentioned do not demonstrate the capacity or potential for filling that role, regardless of whether such experiences are tied to one’s racial identity or not, then the applicant will not be selected.
3) Your statement that “admissions is easily skewed in favor of minorities” is highly problematic, and the ease with which you can make such a statement without any support or backing or any evidence that you have even considered the circumstances around the issue you have raised is alarming. It is a huge misconception that college admissions are skewed in favor of minorities. Private institutions like Pomona do not have to adhere to federal codes of zero identity-based discrimination, and therefore can shape the demographics of an incoming class however we want. Public schools such as the University of California system, must admit students completely without regard to race or other background-related decisions. If you look at the demographic make-up of certain UC’s, the percentage of Asian American students approach or exceed 50% of total students, which is an accurate reflection of statistics/application-only based admissions. The demographics at Pomona (and we are actually ahead of other similar institutions in terms of “diversity” of student population) do not reflect that at all. I will not make a claim as seriously and surely as you have done so in your comment, but one could almost suggest that it is tougher to get into Pomona as an Asian American applicant than as a white applicant. Also: consider the absolute lack of privilege in the case of an ethnic minority inner-city high school student. The chance that this student has even heard of Pomona compared to a white student from a affluent high school with extensive college counseling and many available resources is very slim. The economic and social limitations, as well as a variety of family, cultural, and fiscal issues that most middle-upper class white students do not have to worry about, greatly impacts the student’s chances at academic excellence. And if the student was able to overcome all of these obstacles and was finally able to complete an application to Pomona at the end, that is already the result of overcoming many, many layers of institutionalized discrimination; so please reconsider if you are to ever again think that “admissions is easily skewed IN FAVOR of minorities”.
Lastly, your comment about how “anyone can make claims about whites” while “if you say anything negative about a minority everyone is up in arms” is highly irrelevant to what Mr. Pang is actually talking about in this article. (Also: how did “being bland” come into the picture at all?) He points out that being white supremacists, in this case, is not at all an accusation, but rather just a state of being and social construction that we must grow to be aware of. By Mr. Pang’s definition, anyone can be a white supremacist, including people of minority backgrounds (“a culture of white supremacy is not just maintained by white people but also by peoples of color who have internalized whiteness”), as long as one simply adheres to, instead of acting against, the system into which white favorability has been built in the course of Western civilization and this nation’s history.
Regarding your final comments about Pomona College, I am glad you have not faced any cases of patriarchy or sexism personally that you have identified or can recall. And personally I do believe that Pomona really does strive on that front, as the institution provides resources to encourage students to strive toward a more feminist community. However, as Mr. Pang has stated in this article, the issues is less about the specific problems within a microcosm, whether seen or unseen, but rather the greater system of thought or society out of which the microcosm, such as Pomona, has developed. Sure, Pomona has come a long way since the days when all female first-years were lined up on the steps of Harwood and have their weight, heighth, waist, and chest measured by male upperclassmen, but the continual existence of groups like the Women’s Union, the Feminist Coalition, and a special Dean of Women points to the fact that this bubble we live in has not been completely cleansed of patriarchal and sexist ideology, presumptions, and actions. More importantly, even if an institution is strongly committed to gender equality (not just between the traditional gender binary, but everyone else somewhere along that spectrum or completely apart from the traditional ways of defition), the students within that community may or may not be of the same mind. To have an institution committed to equality but certain students still holding misogynistic beliefs does not make for an environment free of sexism and patriarchy. Which is why Mr. Pang’s point is very important that programs such as the sponsor program must constantly evolve to push for progress, so that the institution’s goal and commitment to bringing about equality can be materialized upon students who may still hold contrary beliefs.
3) Your statement that “admissions is easily skewed in favor of minorities” is highly problematic, and the ease with which you can make such a statement without any support or backing or any evidence that you have even considered the circumstances around the issue you have raised is alarming. [...] The demographics at Pomona (and we are actually ahead of other similar institutions in terms of “diversity” of student population) do not reflect that at all.
Out of curiosity, where is your source for this counter-claim? Does Pomona publish information comparing the diversity of applications to the diversity of students accepted? I assume not.
Dear Daniel,
While the Admissions Office does not publish specific diversity information about the applicant pool, whether it is about racial background, income levels, or other forms of categorization, the information is archived and available. Last year the Asian American Studies program held a joint panel lecture/discussion with AAMP, and the professors on the panel openly discussed the specific percentages and data of admission rates and demographics of the student population at Pomona over the course of the past 2 decades. I am not sure where specifically the professors got their information from, but I also don’t suppose the admissions office would refuse to give out such information if one were to inquire specifically, because it’s not exactly confidential or sensitive information.
Best,
HF
As a graduate of the class of 2011, I am grateful for Samuel’s input on this important identity-based issue, particularly in his role as a Head Sponsor. However, as a member of a class of roughly 395 people from 47 states and 26 foreign countries (WOW!), I have always been under the impression that Pomona’s sponsorship program has indeed lumped and clumped people of similar backgrounds together. In fact, in my freshman sponsor group, two kids from the SAME TOWN and SAME GROUP OF FRIENDS were selected to live together (of course, they objected to this and were matched with another pair from the sponsor group, throwing off the balance of the group… But I digress). The issue of “whiteness” in society and at Pomona College in relation to those from the Racial Realist camp (like Abigail Thernstrom, among others) who’ve made careers out of pointing to the reality of people of color/minorities occupying prominent positions and the halls of elite institutions as proof that ACTUAL, deeply imbedded, and systemic race-thinking continues to live on today. Not only is this apparent in the numerous statistical reports on the ridiculous gap between Black/Latino-White income/education/geographical/prison incarceration–which folks like Thernstrom would have you believe are behavioral, or reflections of a harmful urban culture (among other reasons)–but is an inherent feature of our country’s democracy. As Anthony Marx demonstrates in his seminal Making Race and Nation (in which he comparatively examines the evolution of explicit/implicit racial democracies in Brazil, the U.S., and S. Africa), in any system of government where race-thinking and racial mythology (i.e. whiteness as the ideal, stigmatization of the ‘other[s]‘) are prominent features in the country’s demographics during its democratic evolution, race is an inherent and essential component of the political system. No doubt, to deny this is to distort reality. For discussing this issue, I applaud you.
HOWEVER, and here comes the constructive criticism, as a head sponsor, while it is certainly your prerogative to bring up these issues that are on our thoughtful students’ minds (especially people of color/minorities!!), it is NOT OK to alienate the rest of the community with your tone and the sense of urgency you imbue on the issue. In fact, the best way of approaching this issue is IN THE CLASSROOM (as I have done), through STUDENT DIALOGUE (as we do so much of, informally-in the dining hall, etc.–and formally), and through COMMON SENSE. Certainly, as a public school Jew from a middle class background, I was alienated in my visits to schools like Amherst, Princeton, Williams, etc. where I COULD SENSE an air of entitlement, elitism, and snobbery from a whole other world that I DIDN’T FIT INTO OR UNDERSTAND. I chose Pomona because the vibe was the exact opposite-smart, diverse, open people who would talk about almost anything with few qualms. In my time at Pomona I’ve met and befriended (not to mentioned lived with, in close quarters) people of all color/nationality/socioeconomic background. This is the plus of Pomona. But as a student, to sanctimoniously lecture the entire community on what should be learned through experience, intellectual pursuit, empathy, common sense, and love for one another as members of a community, well, it’s self-defeating. So, here’s my advice, and it’s what President Oxtoby gave us as advice on graduation day: PEOPLE matter, IDEAS matter, and the TRUTH matters. If you’d kindly be more sensitive to ALL of the people involved, ALL of the ideas involved, while also recognizing the core truths of the situation, the Pomona College community would be the better for it. That’s all I ask. The issues you raise are certainly valid, just think how your position, tone, and choice of words/forums matter.
Cheers,
Andrew