Abstract
Today’s students wrestle with the continued salience of racial identity on campuses that encourage the celebration of ‘diversity’ while at once digesting messages that the USA is now largely ‘post-racial’. Based on data collected through fieldwork observation, focus groups and in-depth interviews with a local Multicultural Greek Council for fraternities and sororities, we argue that ‘multicultural’ student organizations engage in a variety of racial identity tactics that simultaneously constrain and enable the perception of their racial identities. By relying on the two cultural narratives of multiculturalism – abstract and organizational – members of Greek organizations that do not conform to the White/Black binary can construct identities and a movement understood as rational, progressive and generally innocuous. Yet, in practice, the dominant expectations to perform ‘multiculturalism’ were manifest in narrow, essentialist and singular expressions of ethnic pride as an oppositional identity to Anglo-conformity and color-blindness, rather than an embrace of pluralism and multiculturalism per se. By highlighting how members of multicultural student organizations navigate this troubling paradox, our study raises important questions about the concept of multiculturalism, especially as it is constructed and enacted by the millennial generation.
Introduction
Normally, the Multicultural Greek Council (MGC) meets in a smaller space in the Office of Greek Life. Tonight we all sit in a large classroom in an academic building. There are close to 50 people here: the two sorority interest groups attempting to get into the MGC, their national representatives, their boyfriends, and even some of their mothers. As usual, I (first author) sit on the fringes, where I can be as inconspicuous as possible. While these meetings are technically public, I’ve been careful to gain permission to be here, especially tonight. The women in the row in front of me are all dressed alike: white button-up shirts and tight black dress pants. They are obviously nervous. The woman closest to me is muttering memorized lines and her hands are shaking. Her neighbor leans over to her and whispers loud enough to hear, ‘Don’t forget, we are a multicultural organization, right?’ The meeting starts late, and the Executive Council burns through some announcements and other small items quickly. Then, with the two interest groups in the room, the expansion policy is put to a vote. This policy would effectively close the MGC for new member organizations until further notice. The policy does not pass… . The first organization, a Latina sorority, begins its presentation. Of the 12 women representing the interest group, eight are Hispanic. Their presentation focuses on their principals of diversity, inclusion and unity across the MGC; their proposed events focus on bilingual education and preventing violence against Hispanic women. After their presentation, a member of a current MGC organization asks if any of the women in the interest group attempted to pledge an existing MGC sorority. The question is quickly addressed by a graduate student advisor and the interest group is instructed not to respond. Without it being said, the answer is clearly ‘yes’, as indicated by the nods and rolled eyes.
The above excerpt from field notes affords a glimpse into young people’s navigation of racial and ethnic difference in the USA. Sites of identity formation, intellectual and emotional development, and new group memberships, US colleges and universities are complex spaces. Today’s students wrestle with the continued salience of racial identity and racial segregation on campuses that encourage the celebration of ‘diversity’ while they also digest messages that the US is now largely ‘post-racial’. For example, the generation of students under examination here – the so called ‘millennial’ generation – was likely inspired by Barack Obama’s speech in 2004 to the Democratic National Convention in which he declared: ‘There is not a Black America and a White America and a Latino America and an Asian America. There is a United States of America.’ From the US president to the local campus ‘Office of Diversity’, today’s college student population constantly receives messages that they live in a post-racial era.
Based on data collected through fieldwork observation, focus groups, and in-depth interviews with a local Multicultural Greek Council for fraternities and sororities, we argue that ‘multicultural’ student organizations engage in a variety of racial identity tactics, or racialized ‘strategies of action’ (Swidler 1986), that simultaneously constrain and enable the perception of their racial identities and politics as both authentic and necessary (c.f. Bell and Hartmann, 2007; Gamson, 1995; Hartmann and Gerteis, 2005; Schwalbe et al., 2000).
By relying on two different multicultural narratives – abstract and organizational – members of Greek organizations that do not conform to the White/Black binary can construct identities and a movement understood as rational, progressive and generally innocuous in their celebration of ‘diversity’. Yet, in practice, the dominant expectations to perform multiculturalism were manifest in narrow, essentialist and singular expressions of ethnic pride, rather than an embrace of pluralism, diversity, or multiculturalism per se. By highlighting how members of multicultural student organizations navigate this paradox, our study raises important questions about multiculturalism, especially as it is constructed and enacted by the millennial generation.
Literature review
In years past, racial narratives were marked by overt statements reeking of biological inferiority, social Darwinism, and racial and ethnic slurs. This discourse slowly morphed into a new storyline founded on seemingly oppositional ideals – a simultaneous promotion of both pluralism qua ‘multiculturalism’ and individual Anglo-conformity qua ‘color-blindness’ (Bonilla-Silva, 2010[2003]; Brown et al., 2003; Feuer, 1991; Wise, 2010). In the color-blind ideology, racism is an artifact of history, and any discussion of segregation or discrimination is placed in the past tense. In this new era, the importance of race, and even the existence of racism, is often framed as waning and dead. In seeming contrast, the Multicultural Imperative also celebrates diversity and the cultural heterogeneity of the USA, marked by the mainstream omnivorous consumption and celebration of symbolic ethnicity (such as nationality, food, music, language, etc.) as the markers of ‘authentic culture’ (Gans, 1979; Waters, 1990).
The notion of ‘cultural pluralism’ in America developed alongside the Anglo-conformity that was normalized through assimilationist rhetoric (Feuer, 1991). As the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movement slowly effected legislative changes in immigration policy, educational rights, and marriage freedoms, the invisible normativity of whiteness was challenged by claims that all races, ethnicities, religions and cultures had a stake in the development of the USA. Such ethnic pluralism slowly morphed into the ideology of multiculturalism (Higham, 1993; Lieberson, 1980). As a result, today’s American discourse centers on a collective appreciation – if not celebration – of racial variation and its supposed cultural traits. More than a focus on tolerance, the Multicultural Imperative is marked by various pronouncements that people will become well-rounded through embracing inter-racial friendships, shunning racial prejudice, and engaging in what Waters (1990) and Gans (1979) call ‘symbolic ethnicity.’
The rise of multiculturalism is contingent upon downplaying racial inequality while focusing on cultural differences and identities as a reason for celebration. In this sense, ‘culture’ is seen as those things that are not necessarily racially bound, but are included in the ‘toolkit’ (Swidler, 1986) we all use in our navigation of everyday life. The promotion of diversity and the mythology of the ‘cultural salad’ – as opposed to the ‘melting pot’ – are powerful tools in the development of the multicultural ideal. Beyond individual ideology, multiculturalism in the USA (and most of the western world) is a politicized process. Advocates of multiculturalism, such as Modood (2007) argue that multiculturalism must become more inclusive; religious – as well as racial and ethnic – differences must be incorporated into the discussion (akin to British discussions of multiculturalism). However, the students under consideration here are immersed in an understanding of multiculturalism qua racial diversity, and are ill-equipped to consider the Multicultural Imperative outside of race and ethnicity.
The politics of multiculturalism in the USA gained traction with the 1992 election of Bill Clinton as President of the US and the inauguration of his neoliberal policies. These policies, instead of being targeted towards a specific group, promoted universalistic reforms that would unite Americans and remove any ‘politics of difference’ left over from the Civil Rights era. These reforms were based on the premise that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that economic and political reforms should be blind to race and racial difference.
While ‘diversity’ can sometimes take on a negative connotation when aligned with explicitly racialized agendas (Bell and Hartmann, 2007; Hartmann and Gerteis, 2005; Hughes, 1993; Miller, 1998; Schlesinger, 1991; Taylor, 2004; Wolfe, 2000), multiculturalism is a type of ‘happy talk’ (Bell and Hartmann, 2007: 895) because it glosses over issues of power, oppression and inequality to focus on, and even fetishize, the aforementioned dimensions of difference. Accordingly, the Multicultural Imperative became a hotly contested notion in academia and popular discourse (Bryson, 2005) as people interrogated its implementation in terms of educational materials. Young people of the millennial generation have been inundated with these messages about diversity and multiculturalism since birth, and are especially sensitive to the narrative (Parks and Tolberson, 2009).
Together, the contradictory logics of assimilation and pluralism now define the US landscape in what Randy Blazak calls a ‘schizophrenic’ focus (Blazak, 2008: 172). For many, navigating the razor’s edge of concomitant support for both color-blindness and multiculturalism remains tricky business. This discursive and ideological structure is particularly delicate for those actors and organizations that identify as either multiracial or multicultural. In a North American context historically governed by the rule of hypo-descent in which one is either White or non-White (Davis, 2001), plotting a course in which identity politics are not overly laced with racial and ethnic chauvinism while performing the right amount of racial and ethnic ‘difference’ to conform to the Multicultural Imperative is altogether fraught with missteps. Especially among younger generations who are now growing up without the benefit of first-person contact with the Civil Rights Era, the uneasy navigation of an already shaky path is made even more erratic.
Color-blind narratives lubricate the discussion of racism and racial inequality via color-blind proxy topics and code words such as cultural deficiencies, pathological behaviors, and work ethics. Structural inequalities are recreated in micro-interactions (Garfinkel,1967; Goffman, 1963, 1969, 1970, 1972; Schwalbe et al., 2000; Simmell, 1950), even when the issue of race is avoided in favor of individualized explanations for inequality, poverty and segregation (Eliasoph, 1999; Myers, 2005). In a color-blind society, race is assumed not to matter in the success or failure of an individual or group. Rather, hard work and intelligence are anointed as the causal mechanisms of individual and group mobility (Bonilla-Silva, 2010[2003]; Myers, 2005; Neville, 2000; Neville et al., 2005). The color-blind approach minimizes the importance of race and past discrimination and ignores the inherent flaws in the ideology of the ‘American Dream’. Yet, concurrent with the rise in color-blind ideology is an increase in recognition of racial differences beyond the bifurcated Black/White binary. Although some Americans simply identify as White (Perlmann and Waters, 2002) or Black (Davis, 2001), more and more embrace a multiracial or multicultural identity (Williams, 2004) as a result, at least in part, of a belief that strict racial categories are outdated and that racial discrimination is a thing of the past.
In the era of the Multicultural Imperative, concepts of race, culture and ethnicity become conflated. Color-blind ideology insists that the USA is a meritocracy, and that racial problems are a thing of the past. Racial, ethnic or other cultural differences, then, become nothing more than interesting distinctions between individuals. Surface identification with cultural difference without recognition of the historical construct and context of race and ethnicity is the crux of the ‘race issue’ in America.
College campus culture
US college and university campuses are microcosms of American culture. They both reflect and amplify matters of racial identity and race relations. Greek Letter Organizations (GLOs) further magnify these debates, as their origin is based in racial segregation and superiority (Feagin et al., 1996: 78–79; Hughey, 2010; Lee, 1955a). The first social fraternity with a Greek-letter name (Phi Beta Kappa) was established at the College of William and Mary (Virginia, USA) in 1776. The first women’s sorority (formally the ‘Daughters of Rebekah’) was founded in 1851 at Wesleyan College (Georgia, USA) and later became Alpha Delta Phi. Although early fraternities and sororities were always exclusionary in both racial and socioeconomic terms, explicit discriminatory entrance requirements did not become widespread until the beginning of the 20th century. By the late 1920s, interfraternity councils on many college campuses admitted only White Christian fraternities and sororities to their membership (Lee, 1955a, 1995b). As a response, African-Americans began founding their own fraternities and sororities. From 1906 to 1922, eight of the nine Black Greek Letter Organizations (BGLOs) that make up today’s National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) were founded. These organizations were an integral part of what W.E.B. Du Bois and E. Franklin Frazier respectively called the ‘talented tenth’ and the ‘black bourgeoisie’ (Hughey, 2011: 108). In 1916 the first Asian fraternity, Rho Psi, was founded at Cornell University (New York, USA), while the first Hispanic fraternity, Phi Iota Alpha, was founded at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (New York, USA) in 1931. By the end of the 1970s, exclusionary entrance requirements had all but disappeared from GLOs (Sidanius et al., 2004), but de facto practices of mono-racial organizations were well entrenched. A century later, these organizations remain popular with young people of color and boast a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ of non-White America.
The first Multicultural Greek Letter Organization (MGLO), Beta Tau Sigma, was founded in 1948 on the campus of the University of Toledo (Ohio, USA). This fraternity saw its purpose as to ‘level, not raise, barriers among people… and provide a foundation that transcends racial, national, and religious differences’ (Wells and Dolan, 2009: 138). Several incarnations of this fraternity ebbed and flowed during subsequent years, and the contemporary movement of MGLOs began in 1981 when five women at Rutgers University (New Jersey, USA) founded the first national multicultural sorority, Mu Sigma Upsilon. Over the next 25 years, many MGLOs were founded nationally and locally.
Fraternities and sororities are structured similarly, regardless of their racial and ethnic make-up. Local fraternities and sororities are generally chapters of larger national organizations, and those national organizations are usually affiliated with national umbrella organizations. Traditionally, both White and Black GLOs share national and campus-wide affiliation through membership in Greek Councils such as the NPHC, which governs historically Black fraternities and sororities or the Interfraternity Council (IFC), which governs historically White fraternities. Multicultural Greek organizations, however, do not share one national affiliation. A National Multicultural Greek Council (NMGC) was established in 1998, but not all GLOs with ethnically diverse memberships belong to this umbrella organization. Furthermore, while research on MGLOs is limited, it appears that multicultural fraternities and sororities are often locally grouped with other fraternities and sororities (such as Latino/a and Asian) that do not fall within the traditional White/Black binary. In a further complication, some GLOs consider themselves ‘based’ in a specific ethnic or racial group, but still define themselves as multicultural. The MGC at State University (SU; see below) was governed by no fewer than three national umbrella organizations.
Much of the previous research on traditionally White GLOs either focuses on their exclusionary histories (Lee, 1955b; Scott, 1965; Syrett, 2009) or their modern challenges of gender and race (Berkowitz and Padavic, 1999; Stombler, 1994; Stombler and Padavic 1997). For example, Stombler’s (1994) research on fraternity little sister programs found that women in these programs were sexually objectified by fraternity men, while Stombler and Padavic’s (1997) research found that women resisted this objectification in a variety of ways depending on their race.
Research on historically BGLOs follows similar patterns. Some work (Hughey and Parks, 2011; Kimbrough, 2003; Parks, 2008; Wesley, 2000) provides historical background of the foundations of BGLOs, while other work focuses on the challenges faced by these organizations, whether their hazing rituals (Jones, 2004; Nuwer, 1999), their perceived status as nothing more than ‘educated gangs’ (Hughey, 2008a), or their contemporary image projection (Parks and Hunter, 2011). While there is a growing focus on diversity in GLOs, (Tobenrson and Parks, 2009; Hughey, 2007, 2008b, 2010; Thompson, 2000; Yeung and Stombler, 2000; Yeung et al., 2006; DeSantis and Coleman, 2008), the field of research on MGLOs remains relatively untapped.
Because multiculturalism is only abstractly defined by many of this generation, individuals in organizations founded on principles of multiculturalism are forced to create definitions as they navigate the Multicultural Imperative. Furthermore, as scholars of multiculturalism attempt to untangle the various constructions of multiculturalism, the lack of a meaningful and shared definition is problematic. Akin to work on ‘doing gender’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987) and ‘doing race’ (Markus and Moya, 2010), we examine here how these actors ‘do multiculturalism.’
Methodology
This article is based on nine months (approximately 250 hours and one academic year) of observation as well as in-depth individual and group interviews with 33 members of fraternities and sororities. By using grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and the development of sensitizing concepts (Bowen, 2006; Blumer, 1969), this research addresses larger social forces through observation and interviewing. We also consulted publicly available information about fraternities and sororities, such as chapter and national organizational websites, and publicly available data on the demographic make-up of the overall population and Greek population at the university in question.
The university where this research was carried out is a large, racially diverse state university in the American South we call State University (SU). As of fall 2009, when this research began, 31,239 undergraduate degree-seeking students were enrolled at SU, approximately 71 percent of whom were White, 13 percent of whom were Hispanic, 10 percent of whom were African-American, 4 percent of whom were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2 percent of whom were Native American. Although such information would have been useful given the racial make-up of the organizations under consideration, SU did not collect data on individuals who identified as multiracial in fall 2009, although beginning in fall 2010, they were mandated by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to report students who identify as ‘two or more races’.
Greek membership at SU.
Source: State University's Greek Life Office.
The data for this study comes from a larger study about Greek culture at SU. The first author conducted 11 interviews with MGC members (10% of membership) in addition to nine individual interviews with members of historically Black or White organizations and three focus groups with individual GLOs. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The first author observed various Greek events and organizations at SU for several months prior to observing the MGC in earnest for the entirety of the fall 2009 semester. She attended weekly MGC meetings and two meetings of the Executive Committee. Even within this relatively short period of time, the first author established trust and rapport with respondents, although the process of trust-building was slow to begin. The first author’s status as a White woman, and as a non-Greek, cannot be ignored (Gasman and Payton-Stewart, 2006). The first author experienced little difficulty cultivating contacts and informants in White GLOs, but when she attempted to contact members of BGLOs, she was less successful. Members of MGC organizations were slightly more open to the idea of a White non-Greek woman studying them but her research was met with initial skepticism, particularly at the beginning stages of the project. In the first month of observation, despite weekly announcements at MGC meetings and repeated attempts to recruit members for interviews, only two interviews were successfully completed. However, once those respondents gave an interview and related to other members of the MGC that the researchers were to be trusted, a rapport was established and interviews were scheduled with greater frequency.
Once interviews and observation notes had been transcribed and catalogued, data were coded using analytic codes that were elaborated upon via memos (Charmaz, 2006). In the sections that follow, identifying information such as names of individual GLOs, individual respondents, and information that could identify respondents have been changed in ways that do not impact the analysis.
Navigating the Multicultural Imperative: ‘Doing multiculturalism’
Members of organizations in the MGC defined multiculturalism as positive in the abstract because it is characterized by acceptance of and learning about cultures different from one’s own. However, the majority of MGC organizations deviated from this description in the same breath. While claiming to be multicultural, they in fact avoided ethnically integrated activities, but valorized a single ethnic identity. By defining multiculturalism as a positive, achievable goal and by forcing an abstract conception of multiculturalism into an expression of ethnic pride, members of organizations within the MGC demonstrated that the reality of creating a multicultural organization is difficult even as it was a highly prized aspiration.
A key question in individual interviews asked for respondents’ definition of multiculturalism. In this excerpt, a White woman in a MGLO answered as follows: To [my sorority] multiculturalism is a difference in race, religion, sexual orientation, beliefs, anything that is not the same as you. That is our idea of multiculturalism. So whatever differences there are we accept them … So it doesn’t matter your color, your religion, or your political beliefs. It doesn’t matter.
Many interviewees specifically stated that multiculturalism is not merely a matter of racial diversity, but rather a matter of diversity of experience. An explicitly multicultural sorority officially defined multiculturalism like this, according to a mixed-race respondent: It’s in our mission statement. It’s background, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, religion. So it’s not just that I’m ethnically Black and German but it’s that I came from a family without a lot of money or I had a single parent. So it’s really about experience. It’s not just about your race and where you are from, or if you are Indian or African- American or Hispanic or Asian. It’s pretty much everything when it comes to multicultural.
By this logic, multiculturalism encompasses life experiences, religious and sexual preferences, and any other difference that might exist between people.
Some respondents identified themselves as being multicultural because they were of more than one race or ethnicity. This claim appeared in an interview with a Black man in an MGC fraternity, who described himself like this: I’m technically multicultural anyway. I mean, my pops is from Africa and my mom is just black and my name is a Muslim name even though they are both Christian. So while the name is maybe Muslim it has nothing to do with Islam. And my dad just wanted me to have a traditional name, like from the homeland. Multicultural is also about diversity. It’s a blend of different beliefs, customs, people. So even if you look alike you may have different things going on. It’s just a grouping of people but most likely the differences are noticeable.
This quotation demonstrates the theme that a person can be a multicultural individual because he is of more than one ethnicity. In other words, his unique ethnic heritage reinforced his multicultural identity. Furthermore, the fact that his mother was a Black-American woman further strengthened his identification with multicultural principles because he had two ethnicities in his background: African and African-American.
Other respondents called upon the immigrant heritage of the US by suggesting that every American is multicultural, regardless of how they self-identify. ‘We love the fact that there is multiculturalism within everybody’, one said, ‘Like, everybody is.’ She later went on to contend that the first author, the interviewer, was multicultural, even though she told the respondent that her family was, ‘basically WASPSs (‘White Anglo Saxon Protestants’)’ for at least four generations back. These respondents supported Waters’ (1990) finding that White Americans attached themselves to ethnic identities.
Some MGLO members rejected this notion, however. A Black woman in an MGLO recognized that she could theoretically identify as a multicultural person but had decided against it: I consider myself to be African American. But, in my family alone there’s different [races], like on my mom’s side there’s American Indian and on my dad’s side some Japanese but that’s so far out of my culture. I mean, I was just raised Southern. When it comes down to it, I’m not going to sit here and say that I’m American Indian or Japanese.
She was the only respondent in this sample who specifically rejected the notion that she should attach herself to an ethnic heritage that was generations removed from her experience.
Some respondents, particularly members of Hispanic GLOs, saw their organizations as multicultural because their organization was comprised of members who were first- or second-generation immigrants from a wide range of Latin American countries or who had backgrounds that were of more than one Hispanic nationality (i.e. an individual who was Columbian and Cuban).
Respondents offered similar definitions of multiculturalism, regardless of their organizations’ construction and enactment of multiculturalism. To all respondents, multiculturalism, as least as an abstract concept, was a positive and worthy endeavor. However, there was also a tendency for respondents to conflate a sense of ethnic pride with their definitions of multiculturalism by arguing that individuals can be multicultural by virtue of mixed ethnic heritage. Some respondents attached themselves to an ethnic identity generations away from their experience. This was the case for one respondent in Kappa Phi (quoted above), for example, who identified herself as ‘Black and German’ even though she admitted that her German heritage was at least three generations back. Some respondents conflated multicultural identity with mixed ethnicity. By this logic, anyone who is of more than one ethnic heritage (even, in the first author’s case, if those heritages are all western European) is multicultural. Similarly, because the terms ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ inherently designate many national origins, individuals who identify as Hispanic or who join Hispanic-oriented organizations practice multiculturalism. Regardless of their organizational orientation towards multiculturalism, almost all respondents suggested in interviews that their organization was more ‘authentic’ than traditionally White or Black organizations.
The multicultural ideal
Deciding to join a fraternity or sorority is a big decision, one that has many facets. All respondents were asked about their motivations for choosing their GLO and, almost invariably, their account (Scott and Lyman, 1986) involved at least some mention of multiculturalism or ethnic pride. To them, the principles and tenets of the organization were an important element of their decision. This difference in motivation is cast in sharp relief by a comparison to White sorority women whose descriptions of their motivations were based on specific activities the sorority was known for, rather than on loftier principles.
Many respondents commented that the main reason they joined their organization was because of the principles it endorsed. This respondent, a Black woman in Kappa Phi, described her decision to go Greek: The motto [of my sorority] is ‘Diverse Sisters Acting in Unity’ and to me that made perfect sense because even though we are very different but we all have the same principles and ideals that we live by. I mean, I am very different from all of my line sisters [pledge class] but we all love each, we other love diversity, we love the fact that we are collegiate women trying to improve our lives. And there’s a lot of people out there like that but you can’t put them all in the same room and put together projects and be successful.
To her, the fact that her chosen sorority was based on principles that she endorsed was highly attractive. Other respondents, such as this Black woman in Sigma Psi Iota, saw their organizations as being more genuine and sincere than other organizations on campus: When I came to campus I saw the Greeks and I didn’t like the representation. It was so fake. I never considered Panhellenic. One, it costs way too much money and I didn’t know much about it. So after that I was an RA [Resident Advisor – a student who serves as a peer leader in halls of residence] and I was hanging up flyers and I saw a flyer for [my sorority] and I went to the informational and it was just genuine. After the informational sisters started reaching out to me and they were really interested in me and getting to know me and who I was as a person and what I stood for and that is ultimately what drew me into the organization because it was a real bond. They were really trying to get to know me as a person and not just as a number to add to the sorority.
Some respondents specifically said that multiculturalism was key to their decision to join their organization. As this Black woman in Kappa Phi explained: The fact that it was multicultural really stood out because I’ve never really been in a setting where it is predominantly one race so to be in a NPHC organization would be really, really awkward. All my best friends were of a mixed race or a different race than me so it just kind of made sense for me.
For her, being in an organization with diverse membership made sense. A mixed-race woman saw a multicultural organization as an opportunity to experience both of her racial identities simultaneously: Growing up I always hung out with mainly Black people and this was a perfect opportunity for me to embrace my other side and another culture and instead of being in a Black organization and being labeled the White girl or being with White people and being labeled the Black girl which is what always happened before. I’ve hung out with Black people all my life because that’s pretty much who I was with but it felt like a condescending thing when people would say, ‘Oh you’re the White girl’ and then when I would be around White people they would be like ‘You’re the Black girl’. It was hard. So I said, let me just be in an organization where I am both and that’s fine. I think that’s why I enjoy being with Kappa Phi because no one ever says stuff like that because I’m Samantha, that’s what I am.
For her, being in a multicultural organization afforded her a space to be comfortable with her mixed-race heritage, the space she did not have prior to joining her sorority. A White woman in Sigma Psi Iota also saw multiculturalism as an important benefit to joining her sorority: When I came here I was like I am not multicultural, I’m White. I thought there was only Panhellenic, then the mixed people and the Spanish people and then there’s NPHC for the Black people but where do I go? Because I didn’t see myself in Panhellenic. But then I got talking to them and they were like, no multicultural means that we embrace all cultures like White, Black, Spanish and definitely they embrace different races but also different religions orientations, like everything. And that is what really drew me into SPI.
Members of organizations in the MGC tended to define multiculturalism similarly. Despite their differing enactments of multiculturalism, respondents saw multiculturalism as positive and characterized it as a willingness to learn about cultures different than their own. Furthermore, members of MGC organizations saw their organization as superior to traditionally White or Black fraternities and sororities because of the sense of authenticity that they saw their organization as possessing.
Two types of multiculturalism
Analysis of data revealed two orientations to multiculturalism. Two organizations considered their organizations multicultural, and these groups presented themselves as having a multicultural identity by actively recruiting and maintaining an ethnically diverse membership and by publicly declaring themselves ready to learn about different cultures. The other six organizations for which data were collected tended to invoke multiculturalism as a value, despite the lack of ethnic diversity within their organizations. Three particular organizations characterized themselves as having membership based in a specific ethnic group, but considered themselves multicultural organizations by virtue of their contact with organizations that were more ethnically diverse than their own. Three Hispanic organizations were members of the MGC by default. Although some members of these organizations invoked multiculturalism in a variety of ways, these organizations were first and foremost Hispanic organizations and most informants said that the only reason they were in an MGC was because their organizations fit nowhere else.
Multicultural orientation.
No interviews were completed with members of three MGC sororities, but were observed at MGC meetings. However, these observations were not sufficient to classify their orientation towards multicultural ideals.
Respondents.
SourceInterview notes. *All names are pseudonyms.
Enacting multiculturalism by practicing diversity and inclusion
Two sororities, a distinct minority, in the MGC enacted multiculturalism by actively practicing diversity and inclusion. Members of these organizations saw their organization as multicultural because they had ethnically diverse members and because their organization was actively oriented to learning about other cultures. The practice of multiculturalism within these two organizations was closest to the societal ideal of multiculturalism in that the organizations were ethically and racially diverse. However, as mentioned above, members of these organizations were still likely to discuss the concept of multiculturalism by attaching themselves to a tenuous ethnic identity and to engage in symbolic identification.
The two sororities that enacted diversity and inclusion were small in size, but comprised a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. Members were White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, South Asian, and mixed race. To them, their focus on actively engaging in multicultural practices was what set their organization apart. Members of these MGLOs saw themselves as activists, and as setting a good example. Some MGLO women suggested that the world would be a better place if everyone could bring themselves to see beyond race, which is certainly an admirable goal. And while we were certainly cognizant of Hughey’s (2008b) argument that race is essentialized in organizations with diverse membership, we did not find it among members of these two sororities. Instead, we found a willingness to see both race and culture as culturally constructed, but to also see all cultures as authentic and valuable.
According to a Black woman, a member of Kappa Phi, the very fact that her sorority had diverse members was a demonstration of the principles of multiculturalism: I could say ‘Oh, that’s my sister’ and people wouldn’t get it until I correct them and say it’s my sorority sister. But sometimes in NPHC or even Panhellenic you could be mistaken for blood sisters. I think that’s a big difference. I like the fact that our tenets and what we are built upon, you can see it in us every day. You could see an NPHC organization and not know what their motto is because it’s not written on their skin like it is ours.
In short, organizations that enacted diversity and inclusion did so by having ethnically diverse members and by embracing all cultural and ethnic identities. To members of these organizations, multiculturalism was a defining feature of their GLO, and one that was highly visible to others.
To members of organizations that enacted diversity and inclusion, a large component of being multicultural as an organization was their commitment to learning about cultures different from their own and promoting awareness of their members’ ethnicities. In response to a question about their favorite part of being in their GLO, many responses echoed this one from a mixed-race woman in Kappa Phi: My favorite part is learning about new cultures that I didn’t even know about. Because I’m from up North where it’s pretty much Black, White and a little bit of Asian. But now I’m learning about Trinidadian, Guianese, all kinds of things, and that’s what I really like about it.
Comments like this were not uncommon. Many members of MGLOs discussed this learning-based multicultural aspiration. For many, multiculturalism is a willingness to and enjoyment of learning about cultures different from their own.
According to these respondents, learning about new cultures was a key component to multiculturalism. Underlying this belief is the assumption that cultures can be broken down to their objective parts and that culture is nothing more than a collection of behaviors. By understanding these finite behaviors, multiculturalism is successful.
Invoking multiculturalism
Some members of organizations in the MGC tended to invoke multiculturalism, even when membership in their organizations was not ethnically diverse. Three organizations within the MGC were more likely to display this type of multiculturalism: Kappa Nu Epsilon and Kappa Nu Zeta identified themselves as having ‘Hispanic-based multicultural membership’, and Alpha Xi Omicron identified itself as having ‘South Asian-based multicultural membership’. These organizations defined themselves as having membership ‘based’ in a specific ethnic group, and were largely ethnically homogeneous, but considered themselves multicultural organizations by virtue of the token members outside of the ethnicity they were ‘based’ in, and their contact with organizations that were more ethnically diverse than their own. This tendency to attach multicultural meaning to token membership and contact with multicultural organizations in the MGC was also displayed by purely Hispanic organizations that were members of the MGC by default, who will be discussed in the next section.
Some respondents, particularly members of Hispanic GLOs, saw their organization as multicultural by virtue of their membership in the MGC and their contact with organizations that were explicitly multicultural or oriented towards non-Hispanic students. A man in a Hispanic fraternity explained: I don’t think that your organization needs to be multicultural itself; it just needs to be close to and have a lot of connections with multicultural groups. We are really close with the girls from Kappa Phi and we’ve gotten to know their purpose so it’s kind of difficult but I’ve learned a lot.
To him, multiculturalism can be achieved simply through interaction with organizations that were more multicultural than his own. Multiculturalism need not be enacted by individual GLOs so long as it is in evidence within the MGC as a whole. In this way, multiculturalism becomes an organizational issue for the MGC, rather than an issue that needs to be addressed by a person or by an individual GLO. Furthermore, multiculturalism is something that can be gained through osmosis; through contact with organizations that are diverse or different from one’s own.
Hispanic GLO members saw the purpose of the MGC to be promoting the multicultural ideal. This respondent, a brother Omicron Eta said: I think it [the MGC] works to a certain extent. Diversity is a good thing. Because you get to see the different things and at the end of the day it’s about broadening your horizons. What gets me mad sometimes is that organizations try to cheat the system and sign in people [to events] who weren’t there. You should support your council. The point of the whole MGC is not to be Hispanic, it’s to be multicultural.
To him, the MGC’s ‘point’ was to be multicultural. Therefore, his organization participated in multiculturalism and displayed it by virtue of its membership in the MGC. However, relying on the MGC to create and maintain multiculturalism was not always successful. The MGC at SU was involved in several conflicts, both internal and external, during the research period. Concurrent publications from these data detail the conflicts the MGC faced, which were at least partially based on the array of different types of organizations that were included in the MGC.
Some respondents who belonged to these ‘Hispanic-based’ organizations saw their organizations as multicultural in that they are open to accepting any potential member, but with a serious caveat. A potential pledge is only accepted and interested in the group if he or she is willing to learn about Hispanic culture and embrace it as their own. A Hispanic fraternity member explained: We are very open to any membership. We do have Caucasian and African American [members nationally] but we are realistic because our fraternity is so deeply rooted in Latin American culture. So it’s like we are so Latin American that unless you are American and you are really into Hispanic culture you won’t be attracted to our fraternity. But we do have some brothers who are Asian or who are half White, half Latino. In this [local] chapter though, everyone is at least half Latino.
Hispanic by choice, multicultural by default
The third and final group of organizations in the MGC was made up of three Hispanic organizations, two fraternities and one sorority, who made no claims of being multicultural. These organizations were members of the MGC by default, as SU did not have a local National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO) Council for specifically Hispanic organizations. Their organizational culture and practices designated them as Hispanic organizations that largely expressed Hispanic Pride.
Political issues, what respondents called the ‘Latin Cause’, were very important to three men we interviewed, two of whom were in the same fraternity. Each suggested in various ways that their organizations were not based on multicultural principles but rather on the principles of ‘advancing the Latin cause’. One explained: We don’t believe that ‘Latin-based’ really captures it. We have brothers from all over but our end goal is to advance the Latin cause. For example, the way [my fraternity] was founded was to prevent some disenfranchisement that was going on where students of Hispanic origin [at founding University] weren’t being told proper directions in the student elections and a huge amount weren’t able to vote.
Because of this legacy, he went on to explain, his fraternity was specifically concerned with political activism and the advancement of Hispanics. His fraternity had participated in a boycott of Taco Bell restaurants in solidarity with a state-wide coalition of underpaid farm workers. According to him, their activism was successful. Taco Bell eventually caved in to the demands of the workers, and they celebrated their success by having Taco Bell cater their next event. A second fraternity in the MGC was also based on principles of activism and ethnic pride. It was founded on principles of Pan-Americanism, a movement that seeks to create links between countries in the Americas. This fraternity also distinguished itself from other organizations within the MGC by not participating in traditions borrowed from historically Black fraternities and by following an intake process that has more in common with the rush process of traditionally White fraternities. By structuring their organization differently from more multicultural GLOs, this fraternity identified itself as a purely Hispanic organization, one with Hispanic members and Hispanic ideals.
Although the above examples come from fraternities, one Hispanic sorority was also Hispanic identified, although it was not politically oriented the way the above-mentioned ‘Latin cause’ fraternities were. Instead, their ethnic pride appeared at public events or in public self-portrayals.
One sorority in particular put on a public display of Hispanic pride. The MGC meeting agenda allowed for announcements of events, and usually a representative stood and said something like: ‘Hi everyone. Just to let you know that Kappa Nu Epsilon is having an event this weekend…’ (If the event was part of the organization’s ‘official week’ they might be more formal). This particular sorority would have a representative stand and say: ‘Hello, everyone. My name is Dolores and I am here to announce an event this weekend by Hermendad de Epsilon Rho Incorpradado…’ Delivering the name of her sorority in Spanish created a public display of Hispanic pride.
Members of Hispanic sororities and fraternities in the MGC also displayed ethnic pride in their public presentations. Members of Epsilon Rho, for example, used the Spanish name of their sorority in all public presentations of themselves such as fliers, banners, and clothing. They also ‘called’ in Spanish during weekly public Greek events, and their probate show, where new members were publically recognized, was at least half in Spanish.
Discussion
Members of organizations in the MGC shared a basic definition of multiculturalism. To them, multiculturalism is characterized by an acceptance of diversity and a willingness to engage with people whose culture or experience differs from their own. Respondents also generally agreed that individuals, not just organizations, can be multicultural and that anyone with more than one ethnicity in their background is multicultural. Finally, many respondents suggested that a primary way of enacting multiculturalism is through actively learning about and teaching others about different cultures. The most intriguing similarity is the display of ethnic pride that many GLO members exhibited. In fact, almost all respondents displayed some type of ethnic pride, either by clinging to an ethnicity that might exist several generations back for them (Waters, 1990; Gans, 1979), or by showing a significant amount of specifically Hispanic pride. Therefore, multiculturalism may be nothing more than experiencing and expressing various types of ethnic pride.
Despite these important similarities, there were important differences. While most GLO members characterized multiculturalism as an acceptance of ethnic diversity, some, particularly Hispanic GLO members, defined it differently when it came to talking about what it meant in their particular organization. Hispanic GLO members saw their organization as multicultural because ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’ encompass many different nationalities. Regardless of their perceived racial similarity, Hispanic identity, or shared use of Spanish, the fact that their members hailed from many different Latin American countries made their organization inherently multicultural.
Hispanic GLO members also considered their organization multicultural because of token members who were not 100 percent Hispanic or because the group interacted with other MGC organizations that had diverse memberships. The prevailing theme among Hispanic GLO members seemed to be that, although they are technically open to members who were not Hispanic, their organizations are based on Hispanic principles and they expect potential members to embrace Hispanic culture and principles.
While ethnic pride was most evident in these Hispanic organizations, it appeared one way or another in all groups. MGLO members displayed ethnic pride by picking and choosing the ethnicity with which they personally identified, by participating in various displays of ethnicity, and by participating in activities designed to enlighten them about a culture different from the one with which they were most familiar. By doing these things, they suggested that their operational definition of multiculturalism is based on the assumption that culture comprises little more than activities such as dancing, food, music, and language. This follows Swidler’s (1986) contention that culture is a ‘tool-kit’ that can be called upon to create strategies of action. MGLO members call upon their varied tool kit, which they developed through active consumption of culture (Gans, 1979), in order to display their multiculturalism and to present themselves as multicultural beings.
Members of MGC organizations essentialized racial identity, although not exactly in the way Hughey (2008b) describes. In Hughey’s study, non-Black members of BGLOs saw their own race as ‘inauthentic’ and desired contact with BGLOs as a way of gaining racial ‘authenticity’. Members of MGC organizations saw their own ethnicity as wholly authentic, even when it was representative of a borrowed ethnicity. Hispanic GLO members, in particular, saw their own ethnicity as authentic and displayed Hispanic pride by using Spanish in their public presentations of self, and in the contention of some that their organization’s purpose was to advance a Hispanic-oriented cause such as Pan-Americanism or Latin awareness. Also, Hispanic GLO members essentialized ethnic identity by suggesting that their own group’s ethnicity was authentic, even when describing their fraternity brothers and sorority sisters who were only partially Hispanic (Hughey, 2008b).
This article has demonstrated that despite the social imperative of multiculturalism and similar definitions of what it means in the abstract, members of organizations within an MGC did not enact multiculturalism in the same way. Instead, members of different types of organizations operated with varying conceptions of multiculturalism. On one hand, they existed within the MGC and therefore are held to the mission statement of the Council. On the other, not all of them considered themselves multicultural or even wished to be multicultural. Only two of the 11 organizations in the MGC enacted multiculturalism in a way that is consistent with societal ideals – by practicing diversity and inclusion. Other organizations, including Hispanic organizations that were members of the MGC by default, invoked multiculturalism in a variety of ways.
The institutional dynamics of SU largely bifurcated the Greek population along a Black/White line. The MGC was the only alternative for GLOs that did not fall along this racial binary. Thus, organizations in the MGC did not share the same structural, racial or practical similarities that were shared by member organizations of the other Greek Councils at SU. Members of organizations within the MGC were forced to navigate the Multicultural Imperative with little guidance from a singular national organization, or even a shared practical definition of multiculturalism. Even among those members of MGC organizations who did share an abstract definition to multiculturalism, orientations and enactment of multiculturalism differed.
The national conversation on race, promised by President Clinton in 1996, may have only obscured the issue. American discourse on race and ethnicity has convinced its young people that race doesn’t matter, while concurrently touting ideals of multiculturalism but not fully defining what ‘real’ multiculturalism might look like in practice. Some scholars of racial discourse (Bell and Hartmann, 2007; Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Eliasoph, 1999) suggest that Americans avoid the topic of race, but perhaps these respondents are not being evasive. Perhaps their conception of difference is not based on race, but on something else altogether. It is possible that true post-racialism has been achieved, at least among this small group of American college students.
Demographic data suggests that by 2030, White Americans will be in the numerical minority. According to the Pew Research Center, 15 percent of marriages in 2010 were between individuals of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. If current trends continue, it is possible that racially homogenous organizations such as GLOs will cease to exist except as historical artifacts. However, it is too early to declare victory for several reasons, not least of which is the small scope of this study. In a nation where Black youth are 50 times more likely than White youth to be incarcerated for a first-time drug offense (Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000), but only 18 percent of Whites see racism as a ‘serious problem’ (CNN, 2006), there are larger structural issues that must be addressed. It would be unfortunate if this study was used as support for the color-blind approach, because while true post-racialism may be possible, it is not here yet. We fear that the Multicultural Imperative, with its obsession with color-blind ideology, will lead to more widespread beliefs of ‘reverse racism’ as described by Norton and Sommers (2011).
Most Americans subscribe to the belief that benign multiculturalism, that is, multiculturalism that is ‘informal rather than official’ (Wolfe, 2000: 461), is a modest virtue, and we agree. While it might seem as though we are criticizing these American youth for failing at multiculturalism, this is not our intention. Instead, we offer this case study of a MGC as a case study in the complicated dynamics of race and ethnicity in the contemporary USA. It is not these students who have failed to understand or enact multiculturalism appropriately. We have failed them. If we truly wish to live in a post-racial society, where individuals are judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, we must be honest about our past, as well as our present.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Irene Padavic, the members of the SU MGC, and the editorial board of this journal for its valuable input and assistance.