A conceptual framework for understanding the institutional dynamics involved in a university’s response to an allegation of racismAnne Bishop, Dalhousie University, Canada

ur adult students face some important boundaries drawn along lines of race, class, gender, and

other human rights categories. For centuries, the university evolved under the assumption that only white, able-bodied, apparently heterosexual men from the comfortable classes had a place in higher education. During the past century, once-excluded people are challenging the boundaries of academe. Once inside, however, they find a complex set of interlocking systems, assumptions, principles, and practices that still exclude them.

O

Like Raymond Williams, I have spent the past ten years of my working life in the ‘borderland’ between a major Canadian university and marginalised communities. My work is primarily off-campus, non-credit, adult education programming. Its success depends on the trust I have built up with the communities that form my constituency. Because of this trust, I am often called upon to support individuals from excluded communities who decide to pursue their dreams on campus.Over the years I have observed the patterns of interaction between students from excluded groups and the University. All too often, they are forced to choose between swallowing the frustration of exclusion, or taking the risk of speaking up. Sometimes they speak up alone, and their comments are worked out, for better or worse, between themselves and their professors. Sometimes, however, as the numbers of non-traditional students in a given area increase, they gain a ‘critical mass’ and can make their voices heard on an institutional level. Those who hold power in the university then face a choice: work toward institutional change at a deeper level, or label those who speak up as ‘troublemakers’ who must be ‘dealt with’. I want to understand the factors that make university decision-makers react one way or the other.

Origins of this studyTwo years ago, I experienced a particularly painful conflict on my own campus when a group of four students challenged the racism they experienced in the University, and began to organise toward change. One was African-Nova Scotian, one a recent immigrant, and two were Native. All were low-income and female. They were labelled ‘troublemakers,’ and in spite of their good records as students, they were accused of trying to cover up mediocre performance. One never did finish her degree, one finished late, and one ended up with a lawyer’s fee she had great difficulty paying in order to successfully defend herself against a disciplinary action. The only Native faculty member in the school supported the four students in their organising efforts, and after a year of severe harassment by the administration, lost her job. Most of university administrators involved were also female, making it somewhat easier to isolate race as an equity factor.Just before this series of events came about, I had published a reflection on oppression and privilege, where I examined the position of individuals who hold privilege in certain situations because of historical discrimination (Bishop 1994). I quickly realised that my understanding of oppression/ privilege relations among individuals was not enough to explain the institutional response I witnessed.I searched the literature for others who have written about similar institutional situations, and found very little, most of it about gender rather than race.1 At that point I decided to devote my Masters thesis to an exploratory-descriptive qualitative study of the situation I experienced. Its purpose is to better understand the institutional dynamics involved in a university’s reaction to allegations of racism, particularly the

1 The literature I did find analysing instances of response to allegations of racism in a university setting include: Bankier 1996, Graveline 1996, hooks 1994, Prentice 1996, Sabattis 1996, Rau 1995, Williams 1991.

46 27th Annual SCUTREA conference proceedings 1997

Crossing borders, breaking boundaries Research in the education of adults

assumptions and perceptions of those who hold the power and responsibility to make decisions.Mapping the storyThe first step in the study was to gather the stories the five central players. I interviewed them, and wrote a joint account from their perspective. They are currently editing their portions of the story, and their changes will be included in a final version. Meanwhile, I began working with the literature and the draft account to develop a conceptual framework for the study. First I ‘mapped’ the story, using time as the horizontal scale, and the hierarchical levels of the University as the vertical scale. A pattern quickly emerged. Over time the five key players made a series of appeals for support, moving upward through the Director, Deans, and Vice Presidents, ending finally at the level of the President. The appeals came first from the students, later from the faculty member as well. There were four supportive responses, one to the faculty member, and three to the students. There were nine responses that could be labelled ‘blaming’ or ‘punishing.’ One of these was directed at the students, and one at the University’s Employment Equity Officer, the source of two of the supportive responses. The other seven were aimed at the Native faculty member. It was very interesting to me that although the students originally made the allegations, they garnered most of the support, while the faculty member who supported them received most of the ‘blaming’ responses. Some remarks from other faculty in the school demonstrated how responsibility for the whole situation was placed on the one Native faculty member; for example: ‘She coerced the students into saying those things’, and ‘We never had trouble with the Black and Native students before she came here.’The scapegoatAt this point I began to explore the concept of ‘scapegoat.’ The scapegoat first appears in the Bible:

He shall bring forward the live goat. He shall lay both his hands on his head and confess over it all the iniquities of the Israelites and all their acts of rebellion,

that is all their sins; he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness in charge of a man who is waiting ready. The goal shall carry all their iniquities upon itself into some barren waste and the man shall let it go, there in the wilderness. (Joint Committee on the New Translation of the Bible 1970, Leviticus 16:20-22)

In other words, collective ‘sins’ are projected on to the goat, and the goat carries them away, ‘into the wilderness.’ The image became even more powerful in light of the fact that the Native faculty member was forced to leave over this situation. In the literature on this topic, there is a major difference of opinion about the scapegoat’s role. Some consider the scapegoat a necessary outlet for the natural violence in human society.2 Others do not see human violence as natural, and understand the role of the scapegoat to be one of taking the blame for structural injustices, thus leaving them invisible and intact.3 I am one of those who do not believe that violence is inherent in human nature, and therefore I tend to fall into the latter camp. I have been comparing the literature on scapegoats with the literature on tokens, that is, those who are the only one, or one of two or three of their kind in an organisation.4 I am coming to the conclusion that tokens make ideal scapegoats because they are both visible and vulnerable, in a setting where the historical injustice opposing them is invisible and deeply rooted.The context of institutional power-holders’ decisions and actionsI had re-defined the ‘blaming, punishing’ responses I witnessed as scapegoating, and entered a process of reflection on the role scapegoating plays in preventing an organisation from achieving more just relationships. At that point, I turned my attention back to my original quest: to understand the institutional dynamics involved in a university’s response to an allegation of racism. How do those who carry the power and responsibility for decision-making in the university make the choice between change or preservation of

2 Leading this group is Réné Girard (1977)3 Leading this group is Walter Wink (1992)4 The original classic on tokenism is Kanter, R. M. (1977)

47 27th Annual SCUTREA conference proceedings 1997

Crossing borders, breaking boundaries Research in the education of adults

the status quo? I needed to define concepts that would help me understand the position in which institutional power-holders find themselves when they make such a decision. With the help of a graphic artist, I developed a picture of the forces acting on a decision-maker in a situation such as this. It is reproduced as the illustration in this article.The diagram shows an institutional power-holder faced with a person from a group traditionally excluded by the institution. Sometimes in the first instance the decision-maker is called in to resolve a conflict between people of relatively equal power, except for the equity factor. In other situations, the person from the traditionally-excluded group is directly challenging the power-holder. For simplicity’s sake, the drawing shows the latter situation. The pressures on the decision-maker are the same in either case.At the first level, the conflict itself, the equity factor is rarely completely clear. It is usually complicated by personality factors, cultural factors, the complex interweaving of oppressions experienced by both parties, personal and collective past histories, and the compounded effects of oppression. For example, the person from the traditionally-excluded group may have low self-confidence from internalised oppression when faced with a person from the dominant group, or academic skills affected by an earlier inferior educational experience. Both players come to the conflict with their own dreams and aspirations, and behind that, their own experiences of injury and support from family, community, and their unique interweaving of oppression and privilege. The institutional power-holder will almost always have more experience of privilege than the person from the traditionally excluded group; he or she may have an equally harrowing experience of oppression, but rarely in the present.The decision-maker, however, holds far more than a personal history and motivation, He or she also holds a role, with certain power and responsibilities on behalf of the institution. Shown surrounding the two initial players, this body brings to the picture its

27th Annual SCUTREA conference proceedings 1997 48

Crossing borders, breaking boundaries Research in the education of adults

Diagram 1 Institutional Power Holders

49 27th Annual SCUTREA conference proceedings 1997

history, structures, assumptions, culture, and need for self-preservation. Its culture may come from a structural view of the world, either conservative or progressive (although the latter is very rare in institutions), or an individualistic or liberal view of the world. If it has a structural view of the world, it may be aware of the discriminatory assumptions encoded in its history and structures. If it has an individualistic view of the world, its assumptions, particularly the discriminatory ones, are more likely unconscious, even actively denied. The institution’s culture may have a tradition of being open or closed. The institution has great power to punish and reward those within it, and can both choose and shape those who play its designated roles and represent its interests. Its power often comes from its role as a gateway to certain extremely important conditions of life, for example well-paid, respected jobs and professions.Behind the power of the institution is a history of power generally, for those who hold, or have held, power in the society, have shaped its institutions to perform certain functions in their interest. This history of power also has a role to play in the personal history of the institutional power-holder, and possibly to a less extent, on a smaller stage, the personal history of the excluded person as well.The person from the traditionally-excluded group also brings to the picture a history, but this time of oppression. It plays a huge role in his or her position in the institution and personal history. As said above, it plays a role, although usually lesser in the present, in the personal history of the institutional power-holder as well.Faced with the conflict at Level 1, the institutional power-holder must make a decision. Here he or she faces a personal choice, although it is severely limited by the reward and punishment powers of the institution. The choice is informed by the person’s own assumptions, which come from his or her world-view. This world view can be structural, or individualistic. The assumptions associated with a structural world-view are:

· history is always with us;· an institution is a structural entity

that functions to reinforce its own status quo, particularly its traditional power relationships;

· all institutions and individuals in a discriminatory society reflect that discrimination;

· intentions don’t count, only results;· conflict is the means to growth and

is therefore desirable;· privilege is invisible, therefore, the

word of those who experience a certain form of oppression are given more weight.

The assumptions associated with an individualistic, or liberal world-view are:

· you can always make a fresh start;· an institution is made up of the

individuals in it;· the institution and the people in it

are basically fair-minded and free of discrimination;

· good intentions are enough;· comfort is important; therefore,

conflict is undesirable;· all voices are equal.

With assumptions from a structural world view, an institutional decision-maker will see the situation as a systemic one, a result of the oppression and privilege configuring the situation. The allegations will not be taken personally, nor will conflict itself be seen as a negative thing, but as an indication of where the systems need change. There will also be an understanding that discrimination is a matter of effect, not intention.Based on structural assumptions, the institutional power-holder will believe the word of the traditionally-excluded person, react with curiosity, and proceed to explore the situation, analyse it, and engage in collective problem-solving, involving all parties. At Level 4, ‘Results,’ this process will lead to new solutions, and learning at both the personal and institutional levels. The traditionally-excluded group will continue to be included, and eventually the process will result in changes to the institution. This process can, however, be stopped at a higher rung of the hierarchy by a decision-maker with more individualistic assumptions. In that case, the lower-level decision maker risks institutional punishment along with the traditionally-excluded person. The fear of this punishment alone is sometimes enough to prevent a lower-level decision-maker from supporting institutional change, even if he or she believes it is the right course of action.

With assumptions from an individualistic, or liberal, world view, the decision-maker will not see the histories of power and oppression working in the situation, and may not even recognise or admit his or her own power-base in the institution. There will be no distinction between intention and effect, and conflict will be seen as a negative thing in itself. The institutional power-holder will perceive the situation as an unjustified personal attack, especially if he or she has played any role in admitting the traditionally-excluded person into the institution in the first place.The result of these assumptions will be a reaction of injured innocence and fear, leading to self-defence. The action taken will usually be scapegoating. This distracts all attention from the systemic conditions that gave rise to the conflict in the first place, and the result is the perpetuation of oppression in the instit-ution. Nothing changes at the systemic level, and the pressures begin, almost immediately, to build toward a repeat of the same process with different individuals further down the road. The pattern of action and reaction becomes a cycle, with a scapegoat (or more than one) ejected on each round, and the institution is preserved in its current form.Two patterns of institutional response to equity conflictFollowing this analysis of the forces surrounding an individual decision-maker faced with an equity conflict, I went on to further define the two patterns of institutional response that result from the two courses of action available to the institutional power-holders. One results from the individualistic, or liberal, world-view; the other from the structural one.In the individualist, or liberal model, those traditionally excluded are invited into the institution with a minimum of critical or informed policy development. There is a ‘honeymoon’ period when everyone is pleased with the arrangement, and any discontent that the newcomers feel is not expressed. As time goes on, however, the situation becomes less bearable, the newcomers become more familiar with the ways of the institution, and their numbers increase to a critical mass. At this point, they express their discontent. The institution represses the impending conflict as long as it can. When it finally cannot be contained any longer, it

explodes and becomes obvious.At this point, the institution scapegoats whoever appears not to fit. This may be identified as the newcomers, or it may be a member of the more established group whose reaction to the newcomers goes beyond liberal sensibilities. Existing policies and procedures are used to try and push the scapegoat out of the institution. If the scapegoat is a traditional ‘insider’, other among their group can direct their considerable institutional power against the institution and the traditionally-excluded group, escalating the conflict into a general backlash against the newcomers. The most common end result is for the current group of newcomers to leave. In their absence, there is considerable pressure to invite new members of their group in, to prove that the institution is not discriminatory. This initiates the cycle all over again.The structural model can be portrayed as a spiral. There is a much longer period here between the initiation of the idea and the entry of members of traditionally excluded group into the institution. This time is spent developing comprehensive, informed policies and procedures through a process designed to achieve as much consensus as possible.When the newcomers arrive, there is still a ‘honeymoon’ period, but when the conflicts begin, the reaction is quite different from that of the liberal model. Conflict is not seen as negative in this model, but as the source of learning. There are also the procedures defined in the policy for healthy processing of conflict as it arises. This means that, unless there is extreme and continuous unacceptable behaviour from someone, no one has to leave. The process of conflict and learning becomes continuous, with occasional evaluations and adjustment of the policy framework. With each conflict, the institution itself changes, so that the pattern becomes a spiral rather than a circle.ConclusionI am currently getting feedback on this set of concepts, and will develop them further according to the comments I receive. When they are in final form, they will provide a framework for the data-gathering and analysis I hope to carry out with those who held positions of institutional during the events of two

years ago. I hope the final result will be some clear guidelines to improve the way our universities respond to those women, visible minority and aboriginal people, gay and lesbian people, and people with disabilities who try to point out the injustice they experience in our institutions of higher learning. The eventual result, I hope, will be better access to post-secondary learning for those who have been traditionally excluded. ReferencesBishop, A (1994) Becoming an ally: breaking the cycle of oppression. Halifax, N.S: Fernwood.Bankier, J (1996) Trapped inside the circle: the myth of intent and the resolution of equity disputes. CAUT Bulletin, 43 (4) 2-3, 8.Girard, R (1977) Violence and the sacred. Baltimore: John HopkinsGraveline, J (1996) Circle as pedagogy: aboriginal tradition enacted in a university classroom. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Dalhousie University.hooks, b (1994) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.Joint Committee on the New Translation of the Bible (1970) The New English Bible. Oxford, Oxford University Press, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kanter, R. M. (1977) Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Prentice, S (1996) Addressing and redressing chilly climates in higher education. CAUT Bulletin, 43 (4) 7-8.Sabattis, T (1996) Tutelage and resistance: the native post-secondary experience, Master of Social Work Thesis, Dalhousie University.Rau, L. M. (1995) Race relations policy brought to life: a case study of one anti-harassment protocol. In Chilly Climate (eds) Breaking anonymity: the chilly climate for women faculty. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.Williams, P (1991) The alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wink, W (1992) Engaging the powers: discernment and resistance in a world of domination. Minneapolis: Fortress.