I've actually had a discussion similar to the one Kumashiro addresses while working at UWM's Writing Center as a tutor. This past semester, the issue of race and ethnicity was a frequent topic during our staff meetings. We read through the essay prompts given to English 095 students (who are required to work with the Center for their class), leading us to the question of whether the Writing Center itself is a racist institution. One of the tutors concluded that it was, for a number of reasons:
- There's one black guy working amidst a legion of white tutors.
- The Center doesn't employ any multi-cultural/multi-ethnic tutors, in spite of having a large percentage of clients from outside the country.
- The vast majority of English 095 students (those who failed to pass the basic competency test) are either black or Hispanic.
Looking at these, I could understand where my fellow tutor was coming from. However, that in turn raises other questions. Is this somehow our fault, and what are we apparently supposed to do about it? For instance, the Writing Center hires its tutors based on recommendations from professors, in order to be sure that the tutors are qualified. Although race would hopefully not be an issue when it comes to getting such a recommendation, the white/non-white tutor ratio can't simply be ignored. Eliminating that requirement could possibly improve the ratio.
However, is that really the solution? Is it more important that we hold our tutors to standards, or that we meet a multi-ethnic quota? Does lowering the standards in an attempt to make things more "fair" make the Center better at its purpose: teaching people how to write? Although fairness is a worthy goal, so is doing your job well; pursuit of one can compromise the other.
Similar issues are raised by Kumashiro's article; while we can appreciate his concerns, it's hard to be certain that his solutions will actually make things better. One example is his discussion of homosexuality, saying that the teaching of alternative lifestyles must have a more prominent place in our curriculum, rather than only being reviewed during a designated week each year. He suggests that the history of famous activists should be a more prominent part of our teaching. However, does that actually result in a more accurate understanding of our history? Did these activists have an impact prominent enough to justify the change? Or is the change simply a case of education being modified by a political agenda (albeit one of "fairness" rather than bigotry)?
