11 Race , Education , and Democracy (original) (raw)

At the center of what it means to be democratic is the commitment to equality. This commitment emerges in our talk about public policies, in our talk about careers and economic opportunity, and in our talk about education. In light of equality, we say, we must overlook differences among individuals in order to treat everyone as the same. When the so-called playing field is not "level," we think it undermines equality and ought to be changed so that the ideal of equality can be more nearly achieved. At the same time, democracy seems to call for a parallel commitment to maintaining the distinctiveness of individuals. In this case, public policies, economic processes, education, and so on are thought about in a way that supports individual development and opportunity. Difference, in this case, is a goal, not a hindrance, and is what makes the level playing field worth having. This tension within the context of a democratic society is manifest as well in its institutions, including those most central to the education of a democratic citizenry-public universities. Such institutions capture their democratic commitments in a variety of policy statements and programs and make the tension most clear in their overall mission statements. My own institution, the University of Oregon, makes the commitments to equality and distinctive individuals central to the education we provide when we say in our mission that the university is dedicated to "the principles of equality of opportunity and freedom from unfair discrimination for all members of the university community and an acceptance of true diversity as an affirmation of individual identity within a welcoming community."' The mission statement, however, complicates the matter. Not only does it affirm the commitment to equality and the importance of individuals, but it also asks for an acceptance of "true diversity." At one level, this is to say no more than I have said-democracy and, by extension education in a democracy, ought to foster individual distinctiveness, "true diversity." But the moment one starts to talk about individual distinctiveness in relation to differences of gender or race there is a problem. Doesn't recognition of race difference, for example, undermine equality by highlighting an aspect of individuals that cannot be shared by all? Not everyone, of course, is white nor is everyone black, and, given our usual understanding of being white or black, they can never be. At the same time, the recognition of race difference seems to undermine the commitment to individuals as well. To emphasize individuality is to emphasize what makes f