Students at Arizona State university have a new organization on campus. Despite the name, the group, whose aim is to "examine their own histories and composition and their unique capacities to contribute," is open to anyone, regardless of gender and ethnic background (why a person of colour would want to join this group is a mystery to me, but hey...).

What could have been quite an ugly debate has been handled in a delicate manner - almost too much, but hey, I'm a cynic - and a realist. In his commentary, Moving on from a culture of conflict writer Matt Bowman, who supports the organization poses an interesting,yet troubling argument as to the validation of this group:

In the past, when universities were first being removed from the control of dominating social and cultural elitists, many barred and underrepresented groups admirably stepped up to make their voices heard.

Their efforts reshaped university culture and institutions. Curriculums were changed and expanded. Cultural climates were broadened and made deliberately inclusive. Frameworks for representation in administrative bodies were reworked.

Universities have since become an open forum for diverse groups to get involved and invest in the environment of higher education. More so, universities have been reoriented to rest on this involvement and depend on it for their further growth.

Working against this are the efforts of those who want to continue to define diversity along lines of struggle and opposition to a toppled institution. The lasting effects of past, oppressive systems deserve attention, but fixating on it denies the product of past labor: a place of open exchange.

What troubles me with this view is that it infers that the ongoing problem of oppression and discrimination is simply a figment of the 'oppressed' imagination, and those who work for inclusion are somehow to blame. Also, the writer's use of the word 'fixation' is troublesome. The writer is assuming that because universities are more culturally diverse than they were 40 years ago means that institutionalized racism and oppression have simply disappeared, therefore anyone who wants to continue a dialogue about wanting equality are somehow supressing the "open exchange" that is expected in insitutions of higher education.

This mindset is unfortunately, nothing new. Simply another method of shooting the messenger, of denying the fact that racism is still an issue.

But on the other hand, I understand the resentment that the younger generation might feel, those who were raised in a culturally diverse community and perhaps never questioned the experiences of others. Do they have to take ownership for the ills of what they percive as past injustices? That other campus organizations for cultural communities are still a necessity?

But an "open exchange" will not happen with the emergence of this group. It will only happen when people acknowledge that while some conditions have improved for people of colour, the barriers still exist. Acknowledging that white privledge still exists is a start, and I hope that eventually the members will address that (crossing fingers).