        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        
                      IS THIS AN UNTAMPERED FILE?
        
        This ASCII-file version of Imprimis, On Line was
        packaged by Applied Foresight, Inc. (AFI hereafter).
        Every AFI-packaged ASCII version of Imprimis is
        distributed in an "-AV protected" ZIP file format.
        "AV" is the authenticity verification feature provided
        to registered PKZIP users, which Applied Foresight,
        Inc., is.  If you are using the MS-DOS PKUNZIP.EXE
        program written by PKWARE Inc. and do not see the "-AV"
        message after every file is unzipped AND receive the
        message "Authentic files Verified!  # JAA646   ZIP
        Source: Applied Foresight Inc. (CIS 71510,1042)" when
        you unzip this file then do not trust it's integrity.
        If your version of PKUNZIP is not the PKWARE-authored
        program (for instance, you are running a non-MS-DOS
        version), then this message may not be displayed.
        
        Trust only genuine AFI-packaged archives ...  anything
        else may be just that: ANYTHING ELSE.
        
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        
                    Imprimis, On Line -- August 1992
        
        Imprimis, meaning "in the first place," is a free
        monthly publication of Hillsdale College (circulation
        360,000 worldwide). Hillsdale College is a liberal arts
        institution known for its defense of free market
        principles and Western culture and its nearly 150-year
        refusal to accept federal funds. Imprimis publishes
        lectures by such well-known figures as Ronald Reagan,
        Jeane Kirkpatrick, Tom Wolfe, Charlton Heston, and many
        more. Permission to reprint is hereby granted, provided
        credit is given to Hillsdale College. Copyright 1992.
        For more information on free print subscriptions or
        back issues, call 1-800-437-2268, or 1-517-439-1524,
        ext. 2319.
        
                     ------------------------------
        
                         "The New Segregation"
                           by Shelby Steele,
                  Author, The Content of Our Character
        
                     ------------------------------
        
                          Volume 21, Number 8
              Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242
                              August 1992
        
                     ------------------------------
        
        Preview: At Hillsdale's Center for Constructive
        Alternatives February 1992 seminar "Thought Police on
        Campus: Is Academic Freedom in Danger?" author Shelby
        Steele made an eloquent plea for a return to the ideal
        of genuine equality and an end to "the politics of
        difference," which has produced not only a divided
        campus, but a divided society.
        
                     ------------------------------
        
        The civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s culminated
        in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights
        Act--two monumental pieces of legislation that have
        dramatically altered the fabric of American life.
        During the struggle for their passage, a new source of
        power came into full force. Black Americans and their
        supporters tapped into the moral power inspired by a
        300-year history of victimization and oppression and
        used it to help transform society, to humanize it, to
        make it more tolerant and open. They realized,
        moreover, that the victimization and oppression that
        blacks had endured came from one "marriage"--a marriage
        of race and power. They had to stop those who said,
        "merely because we are white, we have the power to
        dominate, enslave, segregate and discriminate."
        
             Race should not be a source of power or advantage
        or disadvantage for anyone in a free society. This was
        one of the most important lessons of the original civil
        rights movement. The legislation it championed during
        the 1960s constituted a new "emancipation
        proclamation." For the first time segregation and
        discrimination were made illegal. Blacks began to enjoy
        a degree of freedom they had never experienced before.
        
        
                             Delayed Anger
        
        This did not mean that things changed overnight for
        blacks. Nor did it ensure that their memory of past
        injustice was obliterated. I hesitate to borrow
        analogies from the psychological community, but I think
        this one does apply: Abused children do not usually
        feel anger until many years after the abuse has ended,
        that is, after they have experienced a degree of
        freedom and normalcy. Only after civil rights
        legislation had been enacted did blacks at long last
        began to feel the rage they had suppressed. I can
        remember that period myself. I had a tremendous sense
        of delayed anger at having been forced to attend
        segregated schools. (My grade school was the first
        school to be involved in a desegregation suit in the
        north.) My rage, like that of other blacks, threatened
        for a time to become all consuming.
        
             Anger was both inevitable and necessary. When
        suppressed, it eats you alive; it has got to come out,
        and it certainly did during the 1960s. One form was the
        black power movement in all of its many manifestations,
        some of which were violent. There is no question that
        we should condemn violence, but we should also
        understand why it occurs. You cannot oppress people for
        over three centuries and then say it is all over and
        expect them to put on suits and ties and become decent
        attache-carrying citizens and go to work on Wall
        Street.
        
             Once my own anger was released, my reaction was
        that I no longer had to apologize for being black. That
        was a tremendous benefit and it helped me come to terms
        with my own personal development. The problem is that
        many blacks never progressed beyond their anger.
        
        
                       The Politics of Difference
        
        The black power movement encouraged a permanent state
        of rage and victimhood. An even greater failing was
        that it rejoined race and power--the very "marriage"
        that civil rights legislation had been designed to
        break up. The leaders of the original movement said,
        "Anytime you make race a source of power you are going
        to guarantee suffering, misery and inequity." Black
        power leaders declared: "We're going to have power
        because we're black."
        
             Well, is there any conceivable difference between
        black power and white power? When you demand power
        based on the color of your skin, aren't you saying that
        equality and justice are impossible? Somebody's going
        to be in, somebody's going to be out. Somebody's going
        to win, somebody's going to lose, and race is once
        again a source of advantage for some and disadvantage
        for others. Ultimately, black power was not about
        equality or justice; it was, as its name suggests,
        about power.
        
             And when blacks began to demand entitlements based
        on their race, feminists responded with enthusiasm,
        "We've been oppressed too!" Hispanics said, "We're not
        going to let this bus pass us by," and Asians said,
        "We're not going to let it pass us by either." Eskimos
        and American Indians quickly hopped on the bandwagon,
        as did gays, lesbians, the disabled and other self-
        defined minorities.
        
             By the 1970s, the marriage of race and power was
        once again firmly established. Equal-ity was out: the
        "politics of difference" was in. From then on, everyone
        would rally around the single quality that makes them
        different from the white male and pursue power based on
        that quality. It is a very simple formula. All you have
        to do is identify that quality, whatever it may be,
        with victimization. And victimization is itself, after
        all, a tremendous source of moral power.
        
             The politics of difference demanded shifting the
        entire basis of entitlement in America. Historically,
        entitlement was based on the rights of citizenship
        elaborated in the Declaration of Independence and the
        U. S. Constitution. This was the kind of entitlement
        that the original civil rights movement leaders claimed
        for blacks: recognition of their rights as American
        citizens to equal treatment under the law. They did not
        claim, "We deserve rights and entitlements because we
        are black," but, "We deserve them because we are
        citizens of the United States and like all other
        citizens are due these rights." The politics of
        difference changed all that. Blacks and other
        minorities began demanding entitlement solely based on
        their history of oppression, their race, their gender,
        their ethnicity, or whatever quality that allegedly
        made them victims.
        
        
                          Grievance Identities
        
        By the 1980s, the politics of difference had, in turn,
        led to the establishment of "grievance identities."
        These identities are not about such things as the great
        contributions of women throughout history or the rich
        culture of black Americans. To have a strong identity
        as a woman, for example, means that you are against the
        "oppressive male patriarchy"--period. To have a strong
        identity as a black means that you are against racist
        white America--period. You have no choice but to
        fulfill a carefully defined politically correct role:
        (1) you must document the grievance of your group; (2)
        you must testify to its abiding and ongoing alienation;
        and (3) you must support its sovereignty. As a black
        who fails any of these three requirements you are not
        only politically incorrect, you are a traitor, an
        "Uncle Tom." You are blaming the victim, you are
        letting whites off the hook, and you are betraying your
        people.
        
             In establishing your grievance identity, you must
        turn your back on the enormous and varied fabric of
        life. There is no legacy of universal ideas or common
        human experience. There is only one dimension to your
        identity: anger against oppression. Grievance
        identities are thus "sovereignties" that compete with
        the sovereignties of the nation itself. Blacks, women,
        Hispanics and other minorities are not even American
        citizens anymore. They are citizens of sovereignties
        with their own right to autonomy.
        
        
                     The New Segregation on Campus
        
        The marriage of race and power, the politics of
        difference, and grievance identities--these are
        nurtured by the American educational establishment.
        They have also acted on that establishment and affected
        it in significant ways. After a talk I gave recently at
        a well-known university, a woman introduced herself as
        the chairperson of the women's studies department. She
        was very proud of the fact that the university had a
        separate degree-granting program in women's studies. I
        stressed that I had always been very much in favor of
        teaching students about the contributions of women. But
        I asked her what it was that students gained from
        segregated women's studies that could not be gained
        from studying within the traditional liberal arts
        disciplines. Her background was in English, as was
        mine, so I added, "What is a female English professor
        in the English department doing that is different from
        what a female English professor in the women's studies
        department is doing? Is she going to bring a different
        methodology to bear? What is it that academically
        justifies a segregated program for women, or for
        blacks, or any other group? Why not incorporate such
        studies into the English department, the history
        department, the biology department or into any of the
        other regular departments?"
        
             As soon as I began to ask such questions I noticed
        a shift in her eyes and a tension in her attitude. She
        began to see me as an enemy and quickly made an excuse
        to end the conversation. This wasn't about a rational
        academic discussion of women's studies. It was about
        the sovereignty of the feminist identity, and unless I
        tipped my hat to that identity by saying, "Yes, you
        have the right to a separate department," no further
        discussion or debate was possible.
        
             Meanwhile, the politics of difference is
        overtaking education. Those with grievance identities
        demand separate buildings, classrooms, offices,
        clerical staff--even separate Xerox machines. They all
        want to be segregated universities within the
        universities. They want their own space--their
        sovereign territory. Metaphorically, and sometimes
        literally, they insist that not only the university but
        society at large must pay tribute to their sovereignty.
        
             Today there are some 500 women's studies
        departments. There are black studies departments,
        Hispanic studies departments, Jewish studies
        departments, Asian studies departments. They all have
        to have space, staff, and budgets. What are they
        studying that can't be studied in other departments?
        They don't have to answer this question, of course, but
        when political entitlement shifted away from
        citizenship to race, class and gender, a shift in
        cultural entitlement was made inevitable.
        
             Those with grievance identities also demand extra
        entitlements far beyond what should come to us as
        citizens. As a black, I am said to "deserve" this or
        that special entitlement. No longer is it enough just
        to have the right to attend a college or university on
        an equal basis with others or to be treated like anyone
        else. Schools must set aside special money and special
        academic departments just for me, based on my
        grievance. Some campuses now have segregated dorms for
        black students who demand to live together with people
        of their "own kind." Students have lobbied for separate
        black student unions, black yearbooks, black Homecoming
        dances, black graduation ceremonies--again, all so that
        they can be comfortable with their "own kind."
        
             One representative study at the University of
        Michigan indicates that 70 percent of the school's
        black undergraduates have never had a white
        acquaintance. Yet, across the country, colleges and
        universities like Michigan readily and even eagerly
        continue to encourage more segregation by granting the
        demands of every vocal grievance identity.
        
        
                              White Guilt
        
        A great contributing factor is, of course, white guilt-
        -specifically a knowledge of ill-gotten advantage.
        Ignorance is innocence, knowledge is guilt. Whites in
        America generally know that there is at least a slight
        advantage in being white. If a white person walks into
        a department store, chances are he or she is not going
        to be followed by the security guard as I am. This kind
        of knowledge makes whites vulnerable. (Incidentally, I
        do not mean to deride all forms of guilt. Guilt can be
        a wonderful thing, a truly civilized emotion. Prisons
        are full of people incapable of feeling guilt.)
        
             A member of a grievance identity points a finger
        and says, "Hey whitey, you've oppressed my people! You
        have had generations to build up wealth and opportunity
        while I've had nothing." Almost automatically, the
        white person's first reaction is: "Am I guilty? Am I a
        racist?"
        
             The second reaction is escapism: "All right, what
        do you want? What is it going to take to prove to you
        that I am not racist?" White college and university
        administrators say, "You want a black student lounge?
        You got it. We have a little extra money, so we can pay
        for a black yearbook. We can hold a separate graduation
        just for you. What else do you want?"
        
             The third reaction is blindness. Obviously, when
        you are preoccupied with escaping your own feelings of
        guilt, you are utterly blind to the people causing it.
        So college and university administrators blindly grant
        black students extra entitlements, from dorms to
        yearbooks, and build an entire machinery of segregation
        on campus while ignoring the fact that 72 percent of
        black American college students are dropping out.
        
             Black students have the lowest grade point average
        of any student group. If whites were not so preoccupied
        with escaping their own guilt, they would see that the
        real problem is not racism; it is that black students
        are failing in tragic numbers. They don't need separate
        dorms and yearbooks. They need basic academic skills.
        But instead they are taught that extra entitlements are
        their due and that the greatest power of all is the
        power that comes to them as victims. If they want to
        get anywhere in American life, they had better wear
        their victimization on their sleeve, they had better
        tap into white guilt, making whites want to escape by
        offering money, status, racial preferences--something,
        anything--in return. Is this the way for a race that
        has been oppressed to come into its own? Is this the
        way to achieve independence?
        
        
                      A Return to a Common Culture
        
        Colleges and universities are not only segregating
        their campuses, they are segregating learning. If only
        for the sake of historical accuracy, we should teach
        all students--black, white, female, male--about many
        broad and diverse cultures. But those with grievance
        identities use the multicultural approach as an all-out
        assault on the liberal arts curriculum, on the American
        heritage, and on Western culture. They have made our
        differences, rather than our common bonds, sacred.
        Often they do so in the name of building the "self-
        esteem" of minorities. But they are not going to build
        anyone's self-esteem by condemning our culture as the
        product of "dead white males."
        
             We do share a common history and a common culture,
        and that must be the central premise of education. If
        we are to end the new segregation on campus, and
        everywhere else it exists, we need to recall the spirit
        of the original civil rights movement, which was
        dedicated to the "self evident truth" that all men are
        created equal.
        
             Even the most humble experiences unite us. We have
        all grown up on the same sitcoms, eaten the same fast
        food, and laughed at the same jokes. We have practiced
        the same religions, lived under the same political
        system, read the same books, and worked in the same
        marketplace. We have the same dreams and aspirations as
        well as fears and doubts for ourselves and for our
        children. How, then, can our differences be so
        overwhelming?
        
        
                     ------------------------------
        
        Shelby Steele, the author of the widely acclaimed book,
        The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in
        America (St. Martin's Press, 1990), is a professor of
        English at San Jose State University. His work has also
        appeared in Harper's, the New York Times Magazine,
        Commentary, the Washington Post, and the American
        Scholar. He is a recipient of a National Magazine
        Award, and one of his essays was chosen for The Best
        American Essays 1989. Dr. Steele is currently at work
        on a second book.
        
                                  ###
        
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          End of this issue of Imprimis, On Line; Information
           about the electronic publisher, Applied Foresight,
                   Inc., is in the file, IMPR_BY.TXT
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
