Lack of socioeconomic diversity real problem

By Chris Lee and Ben Tate

The recent theme party and the controversy that followed illustrate the danger of viewing actions and reactions through the narrow lens of race. Arguing that one particular group of students is racially insensitive or that the other is racially hypersensitive provides no constructive basis to move forward and strengthen our community.

When the discussion is limited to issues of race -- a visible and unchangeable characteristic -- the environment will most certainly be emotionally charged and almost impossible to navigate. We need a better explanation for our actions, attitudes and behavior as a community. In this context, socioeconomic blindness -- not racial insensitivity -- provides the necessary explanation.

It is understandable why the recent "south of the border" party was perceived by many to be racially insensitive. Some of the costume choices were objectively distasteful. However, we doubt that it was the intention of the involved students to directly insult Latino members of our community. The apologies from several of those involved in the party clearly indicate that their actions were not meant to be direct and intentional acts of hate.

Many students correctly recognize this incident as a learning opportunity, but we must make sure we take away the right lesson and not confuse symptom with cause. There is indeed a lack of understanding on our campus, but that ignorance stems more from an inability to recognize socioeconomic diversity and the impact of disparity in wealth than from race alone.

Latinos have a right to be offended by the recent theme party, as does anyone else. It is, however, important that they be offended for the right reasons. Certain costumes such as pregnant teenagers and janitors depict people that could hail from any ethnicity. When viewed with other theme parties such as "white trash" and "fresh off the boat," it becomes clear that race isn't the real object of derision. Rather, it is poverty and socioeconomic status -- generally associated with a lack of political power -- which are the real objects of mockery and isolation. Even the ubiquitous "CEOs and office hoes" parties highlight a difference in power and income, but along sex-based lines rather than race.

Poverty is essentially invisible; its depiction depends on visible representations such as clothing or an association with a certain group. Theme parties like these, whether it is the intent of the attendees or not, use the visible elements of race and culture as a proxy for poverty, which is invisible. Thus, the costumes worn at the "south of the border" theme party did not simply depict Mexicans; they depicted members of a lower socioeconomic class who, in this case, happened to be Mexican. The hurt should come not from a belief that one's culture was insulted, but rather the notion that poverty and a lack of power are inextricably linked to one's race.

When we lose sight of this distinction and treat the issue only as a racial affront, we limit not only our understanding of its causes, but prevent ourselves from reaching any constructive conclusion that could bring peace to our community.

When the issue becomes solely about race, it unavoidably becomes an emotionally charged, "us-versus-them" battle, with coalitions of students wearing orange ribbons on one side and others decrying the violation of free expression on the other.

Further, the invocation of race drops a heavy curtain of political correctness that silences any opinion that falls outside of the majoritarian view of what race relations should look like. So long as the issue is about race -- a visible and unchangeable characteristic -- this will remain a zero-sum game, with victories for some coming at the expense of others.

Unfortunately, no top-down action on the part of the administration can satisfactorily and fairly resolve this issue for all parties involved. Thus, change can only come from within us as students and members of the greater Santa Clara community-- a change that begins with the recognition of the underlying tensions regarding socioeconomic status.

A recent editorial in The Santa Clara suggested that our campus is rife with racial tension. The more pervasive social tension on this campus, however, stems from economic disparity and class consciousness.

We need diversity training on this campus, not for racial ignorance, but to gain a better understanding of people from varying economic and social backgrounds. Equal opportunity does exist here, but we need to understand that the best way to gain empathy is through personal relationships via sharing of experiences and a heightened sensitivity as to how our own socioeconomic appearance can marginalize someone else. There is no magic bullet that will solve this problem quickly -- it is a process that requires patience and understanding by all. We hope that in the future cooler heads can prevail so that these issues no longer hold us back from ethical excellence.

Chris Lee is a junior political science and philosophy double major. Ben Tate is a senior political science and economics double major.