By CRYSTAL HOOTEN
Guest Columnist
In recent years, conversations about racial disparities and social injustice have taken center stage in many aspects of our society, including higher education. As these discussions continue to evolve, a question emerges: are college courses perpetuating the racial divide by presenting white people as oppressors and black people as oppressed?
Some argue that by constantly highlighting these disparities and focusing on the injustices faced by African Americans, higher education may inadvertently be promoting a narrative of victimhood and oppression. The question then becomes: does this narrative foster resentment and widen the racial divide, or does it encourage empathy and facilitate social change?
One perspective posits that colleges are merely teaching historical truths. It is undeniable that systemic racism has played a significant role in shaping America’s socioeconomic landscape. By acknowledging this fact, educational institutions aim to promote critical thinking and inspire students to challenge societal norms and strive for equality.
The issue is not that the United States has had turbulent events that it should not be proud of. It is only through these experiences has great leaders emerged such as Martin Luther King Jr., and the reason the country fought for change.
On the other hand, the argument should be made that focusing predominantly on past injustices can perpetuate a cycle of resentment and division. While it’s essential to understand history, it’s equally important to highlight progress and encourage unity.
The potential danger lies not in the facts themselves, but in how they are presented and interpreted. If we teach history as a tale of perpetual victimhood and eternal oppressors, we risk instilling a mindset of division and conflict. However, if we use these facts as a springboard for discussion, introspection and action, we can foster a sense of shared responsibility and collective progress.
The way in which narratives are framed in textbooks greatly influences how students perceive and interpret the text. This issue is central to discussions about the interpretation of historical and contemporary realities. Academic courses strive to equip students with a clear comprehension of history and its influence on today’s society. However, the presentation of these narratives may be heavily influenced by the professor’s perspective and their interpretation of historical events. In fact, many events in history are often omitted from the curriculum in order to keep the narrative in which is being pushed.
I critically examine the authorial perspectives that can potentially sway the narrative. Notably, the works of Thomas E. Patterson, who has a discernible bias against Republicans, as evidenced in his books, raises some concerns.
The assigned text for American Federal Government is Patterson’s “We the People”. The initial section of Chapter 1 reads, “Today, African Americans have equal rights under the law, but, in fact, they are far from equal. Compared with white children, Black children are twice as likely to live in poverty and to die in infancy. There have always been two Americas, one for whites and one for Blacks. This excerpt is accompanied by a Black Lives Matter caption stating, “The largest stain on America’s founding principles is the nation’s treatment of its Black citizens… That tragic legacy continues today, as evidenced by high levels of poverty among African Americans, who are also more likely to be victims of police misconduct.”
Patterson has authored other books, including one addressing the spread of misinformation. However, it seems ironic given the content of “We the People.” For instance, he refers to the death of George Floyd in 2020 at the hands of Minneapolis police, attributing it to racial discrimination. Contrary to this claim, Floyd’s death was not conclusively linked to racism but rather to the lethal amounts of Fentanyl and methamphetamine found in his system on that day. The assertion of asphyxia originated from a private investigator hired by the Floyd family, further muddying the waters of factual reporting.
In this light, it becomes essential to question whether we are teaching hate or history in our higher education institutions, particularly when certain narratives may not be entirely accurate or impartial.
It’s crucial to remember that education is a tool for enlightenment, not a weapon for division. The goal should be to foster understanding, empathy and respect among all students, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds.
The role of higher education in either perpetuating or bridging the racial divide is a complex issue. It’s not about teaching hate, but about navigating the delicate balance between acknowledging historical realities and promoting a future of unity and equality. This conversation is not just about what we teach, but how we teach it, and the kind of society we aspire to create.
Crystal Hooten is a business administration major.