One-Shot

Cultural Geography

Fences have been built between student groups in the EMU. But it's the administration rather than the students doing the corralling.

What is it we think of when someone mentions multiculturalism? How is diversity expressed? What are ethnicities? Who belongs to a culture? These are all questions which have already been answered for he majority of students at the University of Oregon. Decisions about where and how these ideas will be expressed were already made before most of us even started our education here. These expressions are already an integral part of the institutions of this University.

Currently in the EMU, there is a phrase which exemplifies this institutional expression of University policies toward ethnicity and diversity: the "multicultural wing." What does this mean? Why have a single multicultural area in the student union of a university supposedly dedicated to "Cultural Diversity?" Especially in a single hallway of a hard to find area of the EMU. Is this "wing" obvious and accessible to all students of the University? Why does this feel like a "reservating" process?

This multiculturalism has been defined for us as people of color, minorities, or the ethnic student unions. By placing all of these groups in one area and calling it the "multicultural wing" it does not include those other cultures of European, international or issue-oriented cultural heritage. Those other groups are being separated within the EMU by labels like activists, politics, or internationals. Therefore, cultural diversity has been chopped into separated blocks which never fully interact with one another. Doing this weakens our collective student voice if we decide to activate here.

This University defined expression of multiculturalism actually creates barriers to student activism on campus. As in many urban settings in the US, "minority" populations are separated into ethnic neighborhoods. Examples of these neighborhoods can be Black, Chicano/Latino, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Irish, Polish, etc. Who knows whether this segregation is intentional. The fact remains however, that in such a setting many people outside are hesitant to enter many of these areas. I have seen the same happen here, when non-ethnic (as defined by this system) students do not know here the "multicultural wing" is, do not feel as if they belong, and are alienated from any desire they might have had to learn to understand other ethnicities.

Coming form a Native American background, I can understand what it is to be reservated. I am a member of a reservation here in Oregon. On the reservation, there is less access to resources and services, creating an alienation from the rest of Oregon. On the reservation, there is less access to resources and services, creating an alienation from the rest of Oregon. Oregonians do not understand the experiences of Indians because they have few contacts with the remote reservations. Indians remain invisible to Oregonians as valid culture, with equal rights under the law. The needs of reservations are not taken into account by the decision makers in Salem and Portland. If reservations do being to gain some resources, as with the current casinos, they are looked upon with jealousy. This is primarily caused by the lack of understanding of Native American reservations by the larger Oregonian population.

At the University we are in a similar situation. The larger student body does not understand the ethnic or multicultural unions. One example of this is in the "Big Four" debate. The ethnic organizations of black students (BSU), Native American students (NASU), Asian/Pacific students (APASU), and Chicano students (MEChA) are accused of getting more than their fair share of the pie. Add tot his the Multicultural Center (MCC) and the alliance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students (LGBTA), and the illusion is that there is some sort of Multicultural Conspiracy happening, and that these organizations are going to take over the University.

But aren't these groups better off being separated from the rest of the programs? After all, they may feel safer being among "their own kind." I have listened to this debate from many sides. As we continue on in our lives - getting jobs, making careers - we must learn to interact with people from radically different backgrounds. The University is a microcosm of he "real" world. We have many of the same institutions as the outside world. So it seems to follow that how we see the world as we mature into it at the University is what we can expect to see or create when we enter it. This university we are in could be a model of our world. In this world, can we really expect to remain safely among our own kind? Maybe, if we could take charge of our current environment, we will all be ready to interact respectfully with one another in the next environment.

What are people of color? Why can't we just be people? This PC term degrades us by putting a Band-Aid over the issues of color and race,. Those people who have not learned to face these issues find expressions like this helpful. If our communities had more structural diversity, people would have to face these issues. The PC language only further reinforces a policy of institutional reservating.

There is also the issue of "White" culture. I personally believe that "White" is a political and economic designation. The assumption that is made in the EMU is that "White" has no place in the ethnic area. Why not? All people area part of culture. Most know what their ethnic background is, I am part of many cultures outside my Native ethnicity. I can't believe that people of different cultures cannot get along or work together. I see an assumption in the reservation philosophy that either people of different cultures can't work together or must be separated from one another. There are many people who tend to push their values on others, but most people at the University are pretty respectful. The multicultural concept includes all people of all cultures. Only by realizing this can we begin to work together.

Another argument is that it is more efficient place similar to programs in the same area. I wonder who this is efficient for? I have been actively involved in programming with three major organizations - NASU, Programs Finance Committee and the MCC. The current University and ASUO system of bureaucracy is so time-consuming and difficult to get a grasp of that it took four months to figure it out. To get one copy from the Copy Center a person must walk back and forth across the courtyard three times. I really feel sorry for the controllers. They must handle over two million dollars of programming without the aid of a computer. Why couldn't they put it all on a Quicken program? Efficiency in the maze of the EMU is currently a non-reality. The one argument I do recognize as legitimate is that of space. The "multicultural wing" has very limited space and can only hold programs with certain requirements. Ethnic unions conveniently fit into those spaces.

I certainly am not advocating for everyone to live in communes or in each other's houses. Those are different situations which are appropriate to certain individuals. But there does need to be space created in this University environment for people to choose how their environment will look. To allow a single committee to teak responsibility for our University environment does not take into account our democratic right of choice. I advocate that any further decisions about our environment be opened for debate to the general University population. Otherwise we will run the risk of having McDonald's and Taco Bell in the courtyard and Nike swooshes as the door handles.

Cultural diversity demands an understanding of the similarities and differences between all of the different expressions of culture at the University. There is almost no way for a cultivation of understanding to happen if the philosophy of "reservating" continues. Ethnic student unions do desire to be separate and distinct from one another, but not separated from one another. I believe we have come to a point in history when we can interact and create transformations in our understandings of each other. To continue to accept this "institutional reservating" philosophy disempowers our generation from taking control of our futures.

David Lewis, a graduate student in International Studies, is a guest columnist for the Oregon Commentator.