The Wake

University of Minnesota freshman Clark Rahman considers himself to be something of an intellectual and successful individual. At age 18, speaking proficient French, well-traveled and with 35 college credits already in the bank, he is perhaps justified in making those assumptions.

Aside from his middle class financial status, a person may wonder what other factors could possibly limit this gifted student, aspiring publicist and former male model from quickly reaching his full potential.

But Rahman isn’t white (At least that’s not what he listed on his U of M application).

His given ethnicity, “other,” while all but guaranteeing entrance into this racially [self-]conscious university, has, in his opinion, also put him at a great disadvantage upon arriving here: in short, mandatory participation in a one year social program, ironically dubbed “Access to Success.”

Access to Success, or “ATS” for short, is one of those programs that was designed with students’ best interests at heart, but has fallen somewhere south of that position. A catch-all category for many of the underrepresented groups here on campus, individuals selected for this program are forced to endure all or part of its moving pieces: specialized ATS advising, a computer lab, peer-to-peer mentoring and tutoring support are made available to all students. (Sounds terrible, right?) But there’s more: select students are also required to take 6 credits—two semesters’ worth—of ATS’s own breed of College of Liberal Arts classes.

CLA 1005, or “Liberal Arts Learning,” is the first of two courses taken by ATS students at the U of M. (The second is called CLA 2005, or “Introduction to Liberal Education and Responsible Citizenship.”)
In this course, designed to provide a “continuing orientation” to the greater U of M portfolio, they learn study skills, the liberal arts, finances and other life issues, and four-year planning, which are pretty generic, standard things that all students should learn—whether as part of a class or just as life lessons. What’s more interesting, however, is the kind of racist garbage that often works its way into the curriculum.

In a recent talk delivered by ATS Coordinator Andrew Williams and a colleague, one Dr. White from the University of Michigan, students learned about the “Psychology of a Black Male,” strangely racially charged in its intent. A companion video to the lecture, streamed from YouTube, painted whites as an enemy. It said “[a] healthy suspicion of whites” was indispensable to the black man’s strength.

This may all be well and good, if not downright empowering, to a group of Black Power enthusiasts, but what of the less culturally angst-driven? What of the Caucasians and members of other ethnicities also present in the class? (After all, we have an African-American president, the North won, segregation is over, and in many, many other ways the “glass ceilings” around us are continually being broken.) One student interviewed put it this way: “Imagine if someone had written down ‘healthy suspicion of blacks’ as a component of white male success.” (Many of the students interviewed for this story did wish to remain anonymous, either because they feared jeopardizing their full ride, multicultural, ATS-affiliated scholarships or other types of reprisals for speaking out).

Finally, required reading materials for the class, specifically The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie and A Hope in the Unseen by Ron Suskind, are not college level books—the latter is written at a ninth grade reading level—and do little to prime students of any race for continued academic success.

“Disparate Impact”? –or “Disparate Intent”?

In the legal world, there are two very different types of racism: one is intentional and the other unconsciously perpetrated. HR professionals working toward EEOC compliance in the corporate environment have for years referred to these as “disparate impact” and “disparate treatment or intent.” Disparate treatment occurs when members of a protected class are treated differently from others, such as when a lecturer speaks to the differences between blacks and whites. Per LawMemo.com, disparate impact “is the idea that some employer practices, as matter of statistics, have a greater impact on one group than on another.”

Ironically, Access to Success has given this high achieving student a one-way, one- year ticket to a deleterious remedial education.

Obviously, the relationship between an employee and his or her employer is different than that of a student at an institution of higher learning; we pay them, instead of the other way around. But the same principle applies here, especially if we think of ourselves as being full-time students. An example of disparate impact is the student makeup of Access to Success. By all accounts, persons that would be considered “white” on a U of M Admissions Application populate less than 10 percent of the class. If disparate impact is fought with statistics, it is safe to say that these discussions and lectures are not representative of the true proportions of students from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds attending this school. This situation would be inherently problematic to any would-be racial auditor.

A Tale of Two People

Rahman is close friends with 18-year-old Hannah Schuelke, a freshman, of Revillo, S.D. Like Rahman, Schuelke was selected for enrollment in the Access to Success program. Schuelke claims that a letter was sent to her, prior to starting school here, which explained she was to be in ATS because of a two-year CLA foreign language requirement that had not been satisfied with her high school transcript.

Unlike Rahman, however, the U of M never followed through on its promise to remediate Schuelke. Rahman, who boasts a higher ACT score and far, far more college credits transferring in, was welcomed with a “College Advisor Approval Hold” on his record and condescension and micromanagement in every single one of his fall semester course choices. And what’s more: He has to take CLA 1005 & 2005, whereas Schuelke does not.

Naturally, Rahman has tried to appeal the decision and will try to appeal it again next semester, but isn’t too hopeful. Instead of learning about his “talents and abilities,” with a side of general liberal arts education, Rahman feels his time (and money) would be much better spent taking upper division classes, or perhaps another trip abroad—both things ATS has made quite literally impossible for him to do this year. Ironically, Access to Success has given this high achieving student a one-way, one-year ticket to a deleterious remedial education—in the hopes that, given the necessary resources, he will thrive in the future.

At the core, Rahman is concerned that because he is originally from the “inner city,” isn’t white ( in fact he’s part Iranian), and isn’t wealthy, he has been singled out, along with every other student that fits and/or closely resembles his description, and has been given this unwarranted-yet-mandatory “special” treatment. This is the opinion, of course, of one man—but many of the people this reporter spoke to in the program shared his sentiments.

In this country, we are told we can be whatever we want to be. The sky’s the limit. But what happens when the [glass] sky breaks, only to reveal another glass sky directly above it? People have alternately crucified and praised programs like Affirmative Action, so it makes sense that a program like Access to Success evokes in us a mixed reaction.

If anything, Access to Success should be opt-in and not something that some people are forced to take in order to reach graduation. Hell, this writer could probably use some of the worthwhile things taught in CLA 1005 and 2005. But it’s complete bunk to think that the people in that class are required to be there, perhaps because of their ethnicity, perhaps because of where they went to school, perhaps just because of their social class, ET CETERA—and some of those individuals have clearly been misplaced!

The Access to Success program should exist, but the disparate impact it has on minority students at this university needs to be addressed. Having the program be opt-in would be better; de-stigmatizing even the idea of receiving help, and then providing those resources to all students who sign up for it would be ideal. This would curb the unconscious tendency our society has toward racial and socioeconomic marginalization, and may actually end up benefiting students. The classes could certainly be more rigorous too: after all, six credits of “A,” no matter what college you’re in, should actually mean something. But this reporter doesn’t want to end up too much of an iconoclast at such a young station in life. We’ll save that one for now.

Let the debate continue.