September 18, 2015 - 15:32
The Paradox of Diversity at Bryn Mawr
I interpreted my professor’s concept of “slippage” as the thought or idea that emerges from our unconscious, socialized past, as a result of attempting “restoration.” Writer Eli Clare describes restoration as “‘undoing harm,’ rebuilding a system that has been broken...rooted in the belief that the original state was better than what is current” (Dalke). I applied the idea of restoration to the “Black at Bryn Mawr” tour, led by Bryn Mawr graduation Grace Pusey, I experienced very recently with my class. The tour took us around campus, to buildings relevant to Bryn Mawr’s black history. I expanded the meaning of restoration to not only the longing for a comfortable past, but also a desire to avoid conflict. Rather than confronting our racist past, we have produced slippages by attempting to restore our past, demonstrated through the multilayered “Black at Bryn Mawr” tour.
The most obvious source of slippages in the tour was from the history itself. Bryn Mawr College was an overtly racist and white feminist institution at its inception, under the influence of the racist and white feminist M. Carey Thomas. The slippages started appearing as the overt racism slowly lessened and became less acceptable. One example of this was the actions of the administration after Enid Cook’s graduation. The college felt they were doing prospective black students a favor by discouraging them from applying, although the horrible conditions they would face were their own doing (Pusey). Rather than face long-term issues of racism, the administration focused on preventing future confrontation. This resulted in a slippage on the college’s part, since the administration inserted their own racist thoughts under the guise of restoring peace on campus. They saw the college before the admittance and graduation of Enid Cook and other black students as a undisrupted time, when in reality racism was institutionalized from the college’s inception. Similarly, the poor servant living quarters that housed an almost entirely black housekeeping staff was another slippage on the college administration’s part. Rather than recognize the role institutional racism played into the poor condition of the servant quarters, housekeeping jobs were advertised as educational opportunities and a springboard to better future careers (Pusey). Bryn Mawr College attempted to restore itself to an educational haven for all that never really existed.
The next layer of slippages occurred in the tour itself. I, as well as many members of my class were surprised to see that the “Black at Bryn Mawr” tour was not led by black students, and that the project was also not conducted by black students. This was a slippage in itself, as the lack of black representation in a project about Bryn Mawr’s black history reflected a long racist tradition of white retellings of black stories. The slippage was a result of an attempt at restoring Bryn Mawr’s racist history through a tour, a form of unrealized, unconscious resistance against the goal of the tour. Another aspect of the tour that “slipped” was the very empirical, fact based backbone of the project, to research black history at Bryn Mawr and present that in a tour. This was a slippage due to the removal of personal opinions and feelings that would have added a more real and complex dimension to the tour and the project. Instead, the “Black at Bryn Mawr” project was reduced to a very clear and conflict-avoiding account of black history at Bryn Mawr, when in reality the history is very complex and full of subjectivity.
The last layer of slippage in the “Black at Bryn Mawr” tour was the gap between the tour and the application to present day. This was a slippage since the long term effects of Bryn Mawr’s racist history were not addressed, reinforcing the idea that racism only existed in the past, rather than racism being an institution at Bryn Mawr that has yet to be completely broken down. This was apparent in Pusey’s answer to the closing of the Perry House, a very recent event in Bryn Mawr’s history. Pusey answered by explaining the situation as an economic issue, ignoring the institutional racism that played a role in the Perry House’s neglect. (Pusey would later correct her words in a comment to Professor Anne Dalke’s essay.) This disconnect between the social issues of history and its effect on Bryn Mawr College today. Rather than face the issue of racism that is still alive, Pusey and the “Black at Bryn Mawr” program imagined an ideal Bryn Mawr College for present day, or a “restoration,” making the recent racially motivated incidents seem like isolated events involving individual acts of racism rather than the product of institutional racism. Another criticism was brought up by Professor Anne Dalke in our class discussion that the tour did not take us inside enough spaces relevant to Bryn Mawr’s black history. An example was that the tour did not go inside Merion dormitory and stood outside instead while Pusey talked about the servant quarters. The reasoning behind this was that it would become too crowded. However, this disconnected the class, all of us Bryn Mawr students, from the history we were part of. In other words, it created a physical gap between past and present, since we became outside observers rather than active participants within a racist institution. This was a slippage since we became part of a “restored” Bryn Mawr community, looking into Bryn Mawr’s racist history as outsiders.
The “Black at Bryn Mawr” tour exposed the layers of slippages regarding race at Bryn Mawr College through its history, the tour itself, and the lack of connection between the history and present day. Breaking down the institution of racism requires more than a purely research-based retelling of history. We need to realize that we are not a restored community preventing disruptions, but rather a racist institution where these so-called disruptions are inevitable. Bryn Mawr College has progressed a lot since its inception, but there is a long way to go until these slippages go away.