As reported widely (e.g., Belloni 2016; Chlaikhy 2016; Dodd 2016; Nebehay and Balmforth 2016), the United Kingdomâs (UKâs) 23 June 2016 Brexit referendum very clearly demonstrated that intolerance is always ready to erupt and substitute the multiple voices comprising a democracy for the strident voice of fear. The UKâs vote to exit the European Union not only unleashed political backlash and violenceâthereby amplifying responses to the migration crisis in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany , Italy, and Poland, among other countriesâit also functioned as a green light to accelerate racist and xenophobic brutality (e.g., Chakrabortty 2016). Such vehement reclaiming of âtraditionally Englishâ values (e.g., Moore 2016; Williams and Fishwick 2016) surprised many. That it did surprise may be a hopeful sign. Yet, such surprise additionally demonstrates that, contrary to hopeful expectations, the ideals of diversity and inclusion cannot simply be translated into well-meaning rules or laws and be expected to flourish. Indeed, as recorded in daily news items reporting on 2016âs vituperative US presidential election, Trumpâs anti-immigration stance (e.g., Nowicki 2015), his fueling of racist sentiment (e.g., Henderson 2016), his sexism (e.g., Bennetts 2016), his lowering of civil and fact-based discourse possibly beyond that of any campaign in recent memory (e.g., Zurcher 2016), and both campaignsâ pandering to the rich (e.g., Confessore et al. 2015) have spawned a panoply of responses, including at universities. Thus, on the one hand, thoughtless racist and sexist remarks among students proliferate (e.g., Dreid and Najmabadi 2016) and, on the other hand, push-back responses, like the enlightened call for sanctuary cities and universities, are finding voice (e.g., LoBianco 2016; Shoichet and Ansari 2016). The tendency to close ranks in a climate of aggression suggests that negative reactions to rules or laws are continuously boiling just beneath the surface, and no measure of rhetorical or legal appeal to the greater good alone can quell such aggression and fear of âthe other.â
That there were counter demonstrations to the Brexit xenophobia and to Trumpâs anti-immigration stance (e.g., Gold et al. 2016) does seem positive, but such counter demonstrations, along with the visceral force of widespread hate, are actually part of the same story, the same dichotomy made visible in 2016âs attempts to reinstate conservative hierarchies. In the US, the conservative power structure was articulated most stridently in Trumpâs white male voters, as evidenced in the numbers of new voters, who registered in support of their candidate (e.g., Berrett 2016). Indeed, the lack of civility, the crude and fact-ignorant assertions, and the calls to violence have been discussed as unprecedented in our era on both sides of the Atlantic. As described by Joseph C. Sternberg (2016) in The Wall Street Journal:
Britain ⊠is failing to live up to the promise some saw in Brexit [âŠ] This disappointment is the elite Brexiteersâ own fault. The error was to think that Brexit was about building a better Britain. Instead, it was about tearing something apart. Brexit was a No [âŠ]. Thatâs something many American conservatives appear to have missed in their rush to support Mr. Trump as a vector for reform and revitalization. Heâs the ultimate No candidate: No to Crooked Hillary, to free trade, to immigrants, to an economy that works for coastal tech start-ups but not for Midwest manufacturers, to political correctness, to the media, to Republican elites, to Washington, to national decline [⊠and Hillary Clintonâs] campaign has become merely a big No to Mr. TrumpâŠ.
Simply put, dichotomies cannot achieve inclusion. If âwin or loseâ defines the arena, then we all lose, since by their very nature, dichotomies elicit either-or, zero sum game approaches, and thus cannot ensure both-and approaches, approaches upon which diversity and inclusion, by definition, are based.
It is difficult, however, to conceive of race or socio-economic relations in other than dichotomous terms. Gwendolyn Brooksâ 1949 sonnet provides an example (Ford 2007: 348, 354â61; Taylor 1991: 123â24). âFirst Fight. Then Fiddleâ (Brooks: 38), the fourth poem in the third section (The Womanhood) of her verse volume, Annie Allen (Jimoh 1998), presents the promise of victory in what seems to be a straightforward, win-or-lose dichotomy:
First fight. Then fiddle. Ply the slipping string 1
With feathery sorcery; muzzle the note
With hurting love; the music that they wrote
Bewitch, bewilder. Qualify to sing 4
Threadwise. Devise no salt, no hempen thing
For the dear instrument to bear. Devote
The bow to silks and honey. Be remote
A while from malice and from murdering. 8
But first to arms, to armor. Carry hate
In front of you and harmony behind.
Be deaf to music and to beauty blind.
Win war. Rise bloody, maybe not too late 12
For having first to civilize a space
Wherein to play your violin with grace. 14
Nuancing her first two words âFirst fightâ and the closing of her call to armsâalso punctuated with two monosyllabic words, âWin warâ (9â12)âBrooks, however, does not create a simple dichotomy. Her lines move between battle and music, not, for example, between battle and peace. Music, as we know, accompanies soldiers into battle as well as informing our peace. Even in peace, Brooks seems to be asserting, one must battle, and even in battle, one must seek peace, âBe remote/A while from malice and from murderingâ (7â8). Amid relationships that themselves are in a constant struggle, the vision Brooks signals is one of the âgood life,â describing the seduction of music as magic, âfeathery sorceryâ (2); as luxury, âsilks and honeyâ (7); as one of humanityâs highest goals, one worth the battle âto civilize a space/Wherein to play your violin with graceâ (13â14). While it seems that with these desirable conditions Brooks articulates the goal for which we battle, actually these suggestions of what is good in human life are held in equilibrium with battleâone is to play music â[w]ith hurting loveâ (3). Underscoring the paradox, Brooks suggests that it is not clear that the âFirst fight. Then fiddleâ approach would work, for she closes with: âRise bloody, maybe not too lateâ (12, my italics).
Brooks struggled with the relationships between poetry and politics (Cummings 2005; Flynn 2000; Gery 1999; Horvath 1990; Wheeler 2001). By creating jarring juxtapositions (Hughes 2004)âin this sonnet, between music and battleâand by instilling doubt, Brooks suggests that the dichotomy of battle and music is continuous. Indeed, as evidenced in the corpus of her poetry and in her own sociologically political actionsâlike holding poetry workshops for black youth on the south side of Chicago (Smith 2012)âBrooks suggests that achieving what we now call diversity and inclusion is a continuous struggle. It is a continuous struggle, in part because it is all too seductive to succumb to easy dichotomies. With constant vigilance, however, deep-lying change can emerge.
The dismantling of dichotomies does require vigilance, especially when the dichotomy is grounded in long-established mindsets (e.g., âwe/the otherâ), mindsets that tend to create battlefields out of town hall meetings. They are most dangerous when they are linked to the idea that âweâ deserve a better life and imply, or state, that âthe otherâ does not. The easy seduction of deserving a better life, of being able to fiddle, can by itself be praiseworthy. It is the same message articulated over centuries, implied in the spark of the first controlled fire, the struggle to memorialize ideas in writing, the hope in an afterlife, the instantiation of luxury in the invention of silk, the American Revolution, the steady progress seen in medical discoveries, the Arab Spring. The wish for a better life nonetheless becomes threatening, when it is fueled by those who would entrench the dominance of the âweâ into the âwe/the otherâ mindset. This is the linear mode of thinking that informs dichotomiesâthe insistence of first fighting, then fiddlingâwithout recognizing that we can all fight together for a civilized space, for human dignity.
In other words, it is critical to establish a civilized spaceâone that can be created through saturating as many aspects of a culture as possible with values supporting human dignity , saturating the culture so that such values inform instruments like the law and institutions like universities. To take a straightforward pair of examples, it was critical that in the US, the Congress passed the thirteenth amendment to end slavery and the nineteenth amendment to grant women the right to vote. But civilizing a space must also mean dismantling the dichotomous frameworks that have enslaved human beings and limited voting rights. That is, we need to support these amendments by establishing the means for individuals to live in human dignity , conditions that will not allow anyone to be threatened by populist calls to violence, by conditions that enslave individuals to poverty, or by complicated regulations that limit the right to vote. To do so, every aspect of our society needs to be saturated with the idea that diversity and inclusion are democratic goals; they are civilized means to sustain and nourish human dignity . Simply: we should work to establish conditions so that human dignity becomes a non-contested fact, so much a part of our civilized space, of our everyday lives, that dichotomies that challenge our civil rights can no longer be articulated. Just as the rule of might over right has ceded to trial by jury, so too, exclusionary dichotomies must cede to human dignity.
To do so, it is important to have a societyâs institutions support efforts to establish diversity and inclusion. Universities, for example, can be a key institution for furthering such purposes, since earning academic degrees can provide avenues to social recognition and socio-economic privileges. More importantly, universities can establish civilized spaces in which learning, conversing, and living together become the most valued activities in an individualâs life, thereby providing a model of how to be diverse and inclusive. When universities do not promote edifying ideals, they too can become one end of a dichotomy, whereby the socio-economically privileged maintain their status, keeping the codes locked away and hard questions unasked.
Not long ago, I returned to campus after a trip. I was in a rush to get to a meeting on time. Walking toward me was a very thin young black man, clothed in sweatpants, a hoodie, and a cap with its beak turned to the back. In other...