DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Additional findings of the Commission on Race and Racism in Anthropology and the American Anthropological Association February 2012 DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY CRRA Report DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Walton R. Johnson Africana Studies Department Rutgers University Racism in the academy can be largely understood as hegemonic control over desired resources rather than as expressions of enmity, hostility, or hatred towards people of color. This conclusion is supported by events at Rutgers University. Specifically, the Rutgers events underscore the lack of entitlement assigned to members of lower ranking social groups and the subordinating consequences of being excluded from infor- mal power networks. The issue of racism in the academy presented itself dramatically at Rutgers in 1995 when our president, Francis Lawrence, declared that African Americans did not have the “genetic hereditary background” to do as well as European Americans on the SAT exam. This was a surprising “slip of the tongue” as Rutgers was recognized nationally for excellence in enrolling and graduating students of color and in bringing African Americans into the faculty ranks. Semester-long demands for Lawrence’s resignation—especially the spec- tacular student disruption of a televised NCAA basketball game — brought the issue of racism in academia to national and international attention.1 Twelve years later, though much less dramatically, my resignation as chair of Africana Studies to protest the department’s continuing dismantling once again highlighted the role of racism in the ivory tower. 1. Many Americans dismissed the utterance as misspeech. Lawrence was not forced to resign in spite of the fact that during the next 10 years he oversaw the elimination of the affirmative policies which had distinguished Rutgers. 79 CRRA Report DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Although “race” is ultimately at the heart of the treatment Social network theory adds another crucial conceptual insight people of color often experience in American institutions into racism in our universities. By calling attention to the infor- of higher learning, unsophisticated ideas about “race” and mal ways individuals are connected and to how these connec- racism fail to capture the multifaceted nature of the forces tions are utilized in social action, social network theory describes which render us second-class citizens in communities which how people enjoying higher social rank interact with one another are supposed to be fiercely egalitarian. Max Weber’s general to pursue their hegemonic inclinations. Being ascribed to hege- approach to human social organization helps us move beyond monic status makes one entitled to “the good things” in the simplistic assessments of our experiences.2 All societies, he society and eligible for full membership in social networks that says, evolve and sustain social groups so that some of their control those assets.4 “Old boy networks,” for example, advance members can monopolize valued economic, political, and the interests of in-group men over all women. Being ascribed social resources.3 Also aiding a more sophisticated conceptual to negative reference group status not only means lack of full framework, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) rightly employ the term entitlement to prized resources but it also means exclusion from “hegemonic group” when referring to the resultant “dominant” the social networks that distribute those prizes. groups and “negative reference groups” when referring to the In 1969, when the Rutgers faculty inaugurated the Depart- “subordinated” groups. ment of Africana Studies, three distinct curricular were Weber’s analysis explains how complex techniques of social subsumed in its purview—African languages and literatures, closure both invent groups and erect barriers to protect them. Africana Studies (sometimes referred to as Black Studies or Gender and age grouping are the most common socially created African American Studies), and African Studies. Because these groups. In addition, though, most societies create groupings on disciplinary areas were not highly esteemed, negative reference more culture-specific criteria. “Race”—like ethnicity, ancestry, group scholars were allowed to control them. Indeed, many nationality, religion, social class, age, and gender—is one of the scholars with hegemonic credentials accepted their inclusion markers that signals relative entitlement and prioritized access in the curriculum on “political” grounds although skeptical or to a society’s esteemed resources. Systems of hegemony gener- dismissive of the intellectual ones. ate ideologies which facilitate institutionalization and legiti- However, when these disciplinary areas became desired mization of these arbitrary pecking orders. Racism is one such by those with hegemonic power at the university, they were ideology. Institutionalization also necessitates a monopoly on excised from the control of their socially lower ranking power and authority by members of a hegemonic group. colleagues. This explains how and why over the decades the 2. See Stone 1995 3. This perspective has been echoed by theorists who emphasized the role of resource competition in human relations. 4. “[To be successful]... you need to have a network and build constituencies.” “... these networks are quite homogeneous and it is difficult for women and minorities to gain acceptance in these networks because they are viewed as outsiders.” Haslam (2004:204) 80 DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY CRRA Report discipline of Africana Studies at Rutgers has been The first major act of dismantlement occurred in the mid- slowly dismantled. 1990s. American culture was tiptoeing towards an acceptance of some “things black.” Africa’s resources were becoming more It is highly instructive that the series of destructive acts important to the United States. Most importantly, individuals towards Africana Studies were not limited to one or two indi- who had hegemonic qualifications developed interests in these viduals. They were undertaken by a wide range of individuals, “black” subjects. Furthermore, although Africans were black, over decades. There was no apparent coordination; it was just acknowledging them in the academy and putting their subject part of the atmosphere. Nor were the consistent assaults acts matter in the curriculum did little to upset the color hierarchy of enmity. They were manifestations of the Weberian thesis governing relations among Americans. So, teaching about Africa that desired resources are garnered by those with hegemonic and Africans became more acceptable in our universities. status. Among otherwise equally qualified professors, “race” was the marker which indicated superior/ inferior social rank In 1996, led by some members of the Africana Studies and greater/lesser entitlement to resources. department, Rutgers made a major commitment to African Studies. The university had the opportunity to become the As “things black” became less taboo in the 1980s, a slow, residential home of the African Studies Association (ASA), the imperceptible dismantling of the Africana Studies discipline very first national academic association to be headquartered began. This included hiring faculty with Africana expertise at Rutgers. So, acquiring the ASA was a big deal in terms of into other departments, approving the teaching of Africana the University’s rankings. There was also the lure of being able courses in other departments, denying Africana Studies the to compete for a Title VI grant from the U.S. Department of opportunity to share in resources intended for departmental Education for a major Center of African Studies. The follow- growth and development, preventing the deserved promotion ing year, although other centers within the university existed and recognition of Africana faculty, and ignoring the inter- within the host disciplinary department, the Center for Afri- ests of Africana Studies when academic decisions were being can Studies was created outside the Department of Africana made. The usual hegemonic validation of these actions was the Studies.5 Naïvely, in order to trigger the university resources need to diversify the other departments. While this was clearly and in a genuine desire to improve the teaching of Africa, the a meritorious objective, there was no consciousness of the Africana Studies faculty agreed to this act of dismantling. destructive impact these actions were having on the discipline of Africana Studies. 5. The Center for African Studies did not succeed in its bid to become a Title VI center. 81 CRRA Report DISMANTLING AFRICANA STUDIES AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY The next major act in the dismantling of Africana Studies that Africana Studies made numerous attempts to establish a occurred in exactly the same way and for the same reasons. minor in African Languages and Literatures—a request which Those with hegemonic status wanted a resource which was was consistently ignored by the Dean’s office because, as we controlled by negatively referenced colleagues. This time, it now know, higher status colleagues were coveting Arabic. was the African Languages and Literatures curriculum. With changing world affairs, in 2006 a thriving program in Swahili and Hausa had been the mainstay of the African Arabic had become a plum. But because it so clearly belongs to language program during the 1970s. Yoruba was added in the an African language