Image courtesy of the National Head Start Association
At their kitchen counter, on their last afternoon together, sat two students who look the same, who inspire the same polite caution, and who might be championed under the same racial statistical umbrella. Yet, something crucial separates the two.
On that Friday that now seems so far away, my housemate asked if I had read a new list of grievances from Skidmore’s students of color. I quickly replied, “no,” and without hesitation, I followed with, “what did they expect?”. Almost instantly, I dismissed whatever passion or moment she expected to share. She might have expected me to match her fervor or, at least, encourage discourse. I, on the other hand, expected her to share my careless apathy. What did she or the rest of them expect? Skidmore is just a microcosm of the racism and failures of racial education nationally. It’s no different than any other predominantly white institution. I was exhausted. In my mind, she should already expect its constant shortcoming. But in reality, the experiences of the last three years were very new to her.
Detecting a discrepancy, we pause for a moment. But we carry on, just nibbling at its deeper implications.
On February 26th, Dr. Anthony Abraham Jack adds clarity to our confusion. His work aims to sharpen our knowledge of social science and improve colleges’ understanding of diversity and inclusion. Dr. Jack calls out the deleterious effects of colleges’ hidden practice of assumption.
Foremost, according to him, the field of social science is full of “old studies” that higher education enjoys following. The problem is that many studies just don’t go deep enough or, at least, as deep as they can. Dr. Jack considers them “old” because they feature sweeping definitions and propagate generalizations that we might consider antiquated, yet they rely on them. Subsequently, they do not sufficiently acknowledge a complex reality and do not prepare colleges for the increasingly diverse populations they admit. Instead, they make it easy to group people together. Contrary to how college figures and trainings think, Dr. Jack affirms that “all students of color are not the same.”
To an extent, popular social science acumen assumes that people of the same racial background have the same lived experiences. Most damagingly, many colleges equate people of color with poverty. While it is true that because of historic, chronic, and intentional sequestering and disenfranchisement, non-white people often share specific sensibilities and culture, nuance should be acknowledged. In his lecture, Dr. Jack emphasizes racial differences across politics, class differences across race, and even social differences across class. However, when most colleges fail to accommodate for such markers, it seems like their admission process only looks to fill quotas and check boxes.
So, eager students are rounded up and dropped into college grounds, often on their own. Many students can attest to how quickly things move at the beginning of each semester. This is a problem when predominantly white institutions, like Skidmore, have “a secret curriculum.” College culture and know-how are things taken for granted. Do you affectionately call our Dining Hall “D-Hall,” know the quickest way to Zankel, or know which hours the library isn’t busy? Or, how about how to get to Walmart, how to engage with medical services, your right to mental health resources, or how to recognize and report bias? Nicknames, customs, and norms are all privileged knowledge because many students don’t know. Yet, colleges erroneously assume that their culture and environment are “normal,” and typically, one doesn’t feel the need to explain the “normal.” Yet, Dr. Jack finds that students stumble because they don’t understand college politics. And it is not because they refuse to learn, but because they aren’t taught.
Because, as Dr. Jack puts it, “Admission ain’t inclusion.” Steps must be carried out after matriculation to ensure inclusion. Now, this isn’t anything new. This isn’t anything groundbreaking. However, although we are well aware of this necessity, we lack the language that allows us to imagine and locate nuance in students. So, we return to the bad practice of generalizations. Therefore, Dr. Jack lays down the beginnings for a path toward equity and inclusion by starting with a study very close to him--as evidenced by his constant use of “we.” He asks: “what does it mean to be a poor college student on a rich campus?” to explore a level of nuance. Once finished, he coins the terms the “Privileged Poor” and the “Doubly Disadvantaged” to guide discretion.
Dr. Jack finds that it is insight into unique college culture that guides inclusion and separates students. Insight gives the “Privileged Poor” their privilege and the lack of such insight damns the already disadvantaged to a “Doubly Disadvantaged” state. Despite the highly unequal system regarding wealth and access, social competency alone seems powerful enough to elevate poorer students to their wealthier peers’ level. With it, poor students know who to talk to, how to advocate for themselves, how to get that “life-changing internship” or that dream job. Still, with all the good that grants, it is all the worse for those without access. It’s not some extraneous effort. It is the difference between success and failure. It is the difference between reaching all that the college experience promises or not. Dr. Jack does not dare deny the lasting relevancy of class but, the separation that can occur between calling campus a “toxic environment” or “deja vu” amongst the most disadvantaged students--as a result of social acclimation alone--is significant.
Without question, I am “Privileged Poor.” All of the students Dr. Jack considered this classification had some previous exposure to the wealth and world of higher education. Before Skidmore, I attended a predominantly white private school in New York City since I was 11 years old. I spent my formative years of adolescence learning how to navigate white spaces with my needs tertiary. I was taught to expect little and prepare for disappointment. I was taught the reality of the chasm between myself and my wealthier, white peers. I was taught how to feel terrible about myself. I was taught how to live away from home when I traveled to sleepaway trips free of cost. I was taught when to find spaces of solidarity and when it was safer to remain apathetic. My arrival at Skidmore was my “deja vu,” so I hit the grounds running.
While the transition to life at Skidmore may have been relatively seamless for me, it is not the same for many others. Dr. Jack constantly stresses this dichotomy in his talk and his book. This is not some nebulous theory. Firsthand, I have seen students struggle at Skidmore and question their belonging and the career dreams they once held. I’ve seen people leave. Adverse to the bliss of communal harmony that colleges like Skidmore assume, students are actively excluded. A lack of information both disadvantages said students and obstructs the vision of college administration to understand what really goes on. Integral knowledge is hidden behind proximity to wealth, segregating success. When many of those without access are students of color, it becomes even more of a problem.
Dr. Jack believes that colleges must first acknowledge their role in enforcing hegemony because higher education is inherently stratified. Most college students come from privileged backgrounds; More than 50% of Skidmore can afford to pay full tuition. Thus, the “normal,” gathered from analytics and census, assumes and reflects a wealthy, white majority and overlooks those that do not fit. It should not be controversial to acknowledge that sharing one’s culture and norms with an institution produces a sense of belonging and ownership. It should also not be controversial to believe that ownership and that sense of belonging should not belong exclusively to a select group. Yet, that is what happens over and over again when colleges remain silent. They become responsible for the failure of their community for underprivileged students.
Second, colleges need to acknowledge that there are students who “don’t know” or for whom white, wealthy college life is “abnormal”, and acknowledge how that impacts success. Again, something we might consider as small as knowing how to approach professors for assistance or grievance--or even knowing that you can--is not so small because people don’t know and because something like that is so important to a student’s future. The issue is not that there are too many wealthy students. The problem is that when colleges overlook those who do not “fit in,” they overlook the populations that they are increasingly admitting. Dr. Jack puts his spotlight on the experience of poor students as an example of such. Before colleges enjoy kudos and, dare I say, paradoxically, invite black scholars under their initiatives for racial justice, they must look at how their policies facilitate exclusion and work with diverse inductees.
Dr. Jack believes that a better future is possible. Even though colleges and universities may always deal with the presence of stratification, they have the choice over whether to propagate its division or not. Dr. Jack also lays down the beginnings of solutions. Skidmore must inspect its rituals and customs. They were created when the college population looked different. They must evolve as demographics do, and best practices don’t work anymore. Skidmore can start inclusivity from induction by introducing majors and minors to first years with current students. Then, they acquire greater knowledge on “the campus and the people who occupy it.” Likewise, Skidmore can devote more time during their summer programs or Discovery Tour to give students the opportunities to meet important faculty or other stakeholders for their career beyond Skidmore in lower-stakes environments; maybe even how to engage with them can be demonstrated.
Large efforts may seem like tedium, but it all helps to build toward actually welcoming students. But, if creating an equitable campus is not motivation enough, Dr. Jack describes more financial consequences to exclusion. When students don’t feel included or have bad experiences, they are more likely to hold resentment against the institution rather than specific people. He says, “don’t be surprised” when graduates “don’t give back,” attend events, or vouch for the school as alumni. Like everything else, this isn’t conjectured. At that same kitchen counter, my housemate and I discussed whether we would ever donate. She said no. Similar to her, I don’t think I’ll ever set foot near my private school in NYC because of the contempt I hold.
But, colleges are not the only ones that Dr. Jack challenges. For students that find themselves in a privileged position, as a “privileged poor” or one of the institution’s “favorites,” Dr. Jack stresses “coalition building.” “Step up, step back, and bring along.” If you have been featured a lot because you speak the college’s language, bring someone who’s different or encourage a friend to use their voice. For me, I wish I had spent more time inviting and conversing than assuming.
In many ways, it’s now too late.
Still, I cannot hope to encompass the conclusions of a published work in a single article. So, please read Dr. Anthony Abraham Jack’s book The Privileged Poor--student, staff, and faculty alike. He writes on how economic privilege is still a factor and how “ownership” influences how some students treat their peers. There’s a lot. There’s a lot relevant to us.