This participant is a rising senior at the University of Texas.
Interviewer: Let's get started. Okay, so we're here, it's April 19. And I'm with Undergraduate #5. Do you consent to this interview being recorded?
Undergraduate #5: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay. And then do you also consent to the transcript of this interview being posted online without any identifying information?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah, sure.
Interviewer: Okay. Awesome. So firstly, what organizations or other things are you involved with on campus?
Undergraduate #5: So I'm involved with a couple of things, but I think relevant to this conversation. The biggest thing is the Mellon Mays undergraduate fellowship.
Interviewer: Okay, so then, what has changed about that fellowship or your role within the fellowship since the implementation of SB-17?
Undergraduate #5: Right, so when I first applied for the Mellon Mays program, it was my sophomore year. And the language in the recruitment information was that the fellowship was to help students of underrepresented communities enter the Academy, prepare them for PhD programs, and hopefully have them enter the Academy as a way to diversify the Academy and the idea of underrepresented communities, not necessarily based on race, and that's something that was made clear like you don't you didn't have to be a person of color to be an underrepresented, like community. But you know, underrepresented communities goal of diversifying the academy, like in the long run. And that's what it was like when I applied. And I remember talking with the Mellon Mays director, I was like, Oh, I'm not sure if I count because like, I'm Asian American, and in some fields I'm represented, but in the field that I want to go into, I'm not because it's like the humanities. And she was like, Oh, yes, well, of course you can, because you consider yourself underrepresented. And it's also like, we don't have a distinct, this is underrepresented this some, they didn't have like a list they were cross cross checking with. So that was kind of the language surrounding Mellon Mays, when I entered the program. This past year, I remember seeing the recruitment information for Mellon Mays. And some of that language had changed because they had to change the way that they advertised this fellowship program. So diversity in the academy change to multi vocality. And that is a word that I heard that I saw in the advertisement. And then later in one of our Mellon Mays events, I guess, Mellon Mays, but then like an all Mellon event for all of the different Mellon programs. I believe our directory also used the word multi vocality. It was either there or it was at our symposium, but I do feel like it was at the All Mellon event. And I think that that change from diversity to multi vocality. Even if it's, it's like a close synonym, like it has, like the idea is still the same, just with a different word attached to it. I do feel like there are different connotations around diversity versus multi vocality. And I do feel like it is very much a sign that things had to change because of SB 17. Even something like the Mellon program, which is privately funded. It's through the Andrew Mellon Foundation and in the Benjamin E Mays Foundation.
Interviewer: So, the next question is, are there any new challenges that you encounter with the changes that have happened? I don't know if there's anything that specifically applies to you. But I do remember you talking about one of the directors coming in and expressing his concerns about kind of everything that's been happening on campus? So if there's anything, I don't know, if there's anything you can say to this question?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. So there are quite a few things that I feel like have changed. Suppose I think new challenges for different groups of people something that I have noticed a big change, I guess it's not a big change in terms of like, everyone would notice this. But as someone who reads the syllabus, I've noticed it. There's been a change where in the past syllabi, they would have this paragraph saying, you know, this is a safe space, we are, you know, I will respect you, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, so on and so forth. I will respect your pronoun uses or things like that. And while that sentiment may still be there, I think I've seen a lot more of the paragraph saying, or addressing SB 17. And saying, you know, this is not going to impact what we do in the classroom. If you want to learn more about it, you know, you've talked to me if you have any questions or concerns, you can talk to me. And I think that change is almost like a looming like over the shoulder type entity, where it's like, even if it theoretically doesn't impact the classroom, it does, because it's in our syllabus. So we're made aware of it. And I am, I interact with a lot of people who were more directly impacted by SB 17. Because we've all been affected. But some people feel a lot stronger because of groups they're in or the various identities that they have. And having some of those conversations has been really hard, or disheartening. I've had this experience this semester, where I was really concerned about my prospects of grad school because I was worried that the experience in grad school may be more difficult because I am a woman of color. And with SB 17, it kind of affirmed that certain places like unfortunately, Texas, I won't really be able to apply to grad schools here, because I don't feel like some of those support systems are going to be there in a structure that is stable and school funded. So those centers or those support groups, or those methods of making you feel welcome. I'm not confident that it's going to be in Texas, I'm not even I know that they say it's not going to impact research, and it's not going to impact classroom instruction. I don't trust that. Because the way that these bills are worded and the way that future legislation can be worded. And this is coming from my background doing legislation research. When you make legislation intentionally vague, you can interpret things the way you want, which is kind of why we saw SB 17, take two waves at UT, where there was the first series of events where UT was like, Yeah, I think I'm complying. But then you have the second wave where they said, Oh, we're not going to fire, we're not going to fire people, we're just gonna move people around. And then 60, something people end up getting fired. Yeah, it's one of those things where vague language lends itself to various interpretations. And depending on who's in power, and who can enforce all of these different actions and decisions, you're going to have different consequences. So I am not confident that my research would be protected. And independent of my research and my work, I'm not confident that I would be protected and my different identities, and I'm not confident that I would have the same experience as someone and I know I would have a different experience than say, a white man, or even a white woman in grad school, but having some of those support systems being able to see myself and other people, and know that even if we all experience things differently, my experiences are valid and welcome and accounted for or at least somewhat accommodated for. It's something that I'm looking for in my future. And I think it's going I'm afraid that other people are going to end up like me, going away from Texas, which i i fear will weaken ut as an institution and as like a top tier research institution. Yeah, I remember. So what I did a few weeks ago, I was like guest, like presenting about critical race theory in a class based on my research that I had done with anti critical race theory legislation, with Dr. Karma Chavez. Oh, yeah. Am I allowed to say that? Yes, okay. Yes, yeah. So I did research with Dr. Chavez about like, legislation, we learned about critical race theory and how different rhetoric has shaped the way it's so partisan. It's such a partisan issue. And really, it's a non issue. But I digress. But I was talking to the class and at a certain point, it kind of came like a, like, it was like a q&a type session where it's like, someone wants to say something, I would talk a lot. And then, you know, back and forth. And I was talking about how I'm going to end up not going to grad school in Texas because X, Y, and Z. And someone else in the back was like, Yeah, me too. And so I worry about the prospects for grad students. Anyone who wants to come to UT, like for their job or any other UT School, I'm not just UT Austin, all the other ones too, because UTD is now experiencing some changes as well. But then also current faculty, because and this is what I said during the class, like Dr. Chavez is amazing, and that she will like, advocate, and she will testify, and she will do everything in her power to like push for change, positive change. But not everyone is able to do that. And I'm afraid that people are going to end up leaving or like, because of risk of self censorship or just they don't feel like their interests and pursuits are supported. And that's scary. That's scary for the future of UT. It's scary for the future of academia. And especially because this is something like Texas and Florida tend to be like the trailblazers for this type of legislation. And I'm afraid I'm afraid other states may follow suit, and then you end up with such a shattered, fragmented version of the academy.
Interviewer: And that is definitely like something that I've seen people bring up not just like in context of these interviews, but just kind of in general talking about this in the classroom like, yeah, the worry of that minority faculty and students aren't going to want to come here. Yeah. Which is a major concern, because UT already doesn't represent the demographics of Texas, right? We are largely Texan students. So then, if there's nothing that's keeping minority students here, or faculty, then it's just going to kind of get worse. There was another thing that I you piqued my brain, oh, research concern, which is super interesting, because the people that I've talked to kind of within the institution, about my project, just kind of like, doing it, like just talking to the lates people about the website developing and stuff, and like these people have expressed concern about my research already, like putting it out there about getting backlash, even though research is supposed to be a magazine carved out. I also remember reading that student recruitment is supposed to be carved out to which is not the case, not the case at all. I remember seeing that in the bill, or in UT's compliance plan, the original one, not the case at all. So I thought that that was also very interesting. So yeah. So the next question that I have for you is this, I really need to just go in and reword this question. Because I say this every time I wrote it kind of badly, but what I meant by this was, when it comes to the actual bill of Senate Bill 17, how did you understand what it would cover on campus? And if you've read it? Was it easy to understand? And you were talking about intentionally vague language earlier? kind of expand a little bit more on that stuff I guess?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. Yeah. So my original understanding of SB 17, is that state funds, the funds that UT has from the state cannot be used towards, and I forget what the original labels were, like, if it was like race, ethnicity, I don't remember if sexuality was listed in it, I don't remember it was
Interviewer: It was either sexual identity or gender identity. I thought that that was strange to that it kind of evaded sexuality, but it talks about gender identity, right.
Undergraduate #5: So it can't be used towards like the promotion, more the creation of, I don't know- it's one of those things where the people who make these policies will frame it as like exclusionary or divisive spaces, because if you look at the similarities between anti-DEI legislation and anti-critical-race-theory legislation, it centers around the idea that being race-conscious equals being racist or divisive, when that's not actually the case. So I'm not sure if that answers your first question, but if the understanding of what it covered initially, I didn't realize how expansive they would take it with this new wave of you know, the firings and the closings. So like when the Multicultural Engagement Center closed down, and that was the first wave, I was surprised. I was like, what do you mean, I didn't fully understand, I still don't fully understand, why it was closed. And I think it's one of those things where you can interpret certain terms like, and I'll go back just because I know critical race theory more, and the anti CRT bills more. It's like the idea of divisive concepts. What does that mean? What do you mean by divisive concepts? And there's a similar thing where you use the idea, and it's always framed that it's a good thing, like, Oh, we don't want people to have handouts we don't want, here's the thing, they say things like, Oh, we don't want people treated differently on the basis of their race more, their six more, so on and so forth. That's that's the rhetoric they will use to push something like this, where it implies that it has a better and worse connotation. We don't want people to be treated better because of their race, ethnicity, sex, so on and so forth. Whereas that's not inherently the case with having specific groups and centers and spaces for different marginalized identities. It's kind of like the idea of equity, which is a bad word. Now. The idea that sometimes in order to correct social injustice is you need to treat people differently to fix historic and institutional wrongdoings. So it's like the what is the baseball example where you've got people Yeah, one person has a box one person doesn't have a box they both want to see over the fence. And equity is when you give someone a box to match the box. Um, equality would be if you give both people a box. It's when it's something like that. And it's just one of those things where there's just a misunderstanding of the purpose of these different initiatives, diversity initiatives and equity initiatives and inclusion initiatives that will ultimately harm populations that are already being systemically marginalized, by removing those support systems that have already existed.
Legal language is difficult to understand, in general, just in general, there's a reason why legal jargon is a phrase, there's reason why legal language is not layman's terms. And when it comes to politics and legislation, the more confusing, or vague, or both you can make your bill, the easier it is for people pushing the legislation to get people on their side because they can frame whatever narrative they want. And someone who's trying to fact check it with the bill itself, and most people won't, it's difficult to do. Yeah, if it's something that's vague, you can impose whatever you want on to that bill. And it's one of those things where, and I talked about this when I was guest presenting in that class, legal literacy and media literacy are so important, where I am not a fan of my congressional representative, but I'm on her mailing list, because she will ask questions, like, do you think our taxpayer dollars should fund killing babies? And because I know that she's a conservative woman, I know what issue she's addressing. She's talking about Planned Parenthood and abortion. And so I will answer that survey, based on the question I know she's asking, not the one it literally means. And that's something that if you aren't aware of the ongoing issues, and you aren't aware on how to like, read between the lines and figure out what someone's like background means for what they mean and a question like that you're going to be like, of course, we shouldn't kill babies with taxpayer dollars, things like that. Yeah. And so intentional uses of killing and babies for the abortion example. It's stuff like that, where it's like they know what they're doing. It's very intentional. And it's something that, it goes across political parties, it's not just a conservative thing. But in the state of Texas, very easy to look at conservative push, conservative pushed legislation, like anti- critical-race-theory, anti-DEI, like I mentioned, the abortion stuff, it's all of those things that if you don't have a solid understanding of what's actually going on, it's so easy to be taken advantage of and manipulated. Because they'll make it sound good because they're making it sound like something it's not or they're leaving out, or they're misconstruing, or... I'll stop there.
Interviewer: Yeah, I actually have a question that could go further into that later on. So we can talk about the DCCE, the Division for Campus and Community Engagement, which was formerly the Division for Diversity and Community Engagement, right? Yes. So it's been closed, which was a major recent decision. So what do you think that this means for our community on campus? And then why do you think the division was included with the university's compliance? I've been even after it's changed. Yeah,
Undergraduate #5: I can speak to what it means for the community in terms of the communities I'm a part of. And I feel like for people of color, for people who aren't, you know, cis-het, like, I am a cis-woman, but not straight. So yes, um, and I feel like for all the various groups, so if you're disabled, if you are queer, if you are a person of color, these are all identities that put you at a societal disadvantage. And some of the things that were meant to support you and help you out, are being taken away, under the rhetoric that you don't need any handouts. You don't need special treatment. You don't need like you should be treated the same way as everyone else. You have to earn, you have to work hard, you got to, what is it? Lift yourself up by your bootstraps? All of those various narratives, pushed onto people who were starting not at the starting block, but 100 meters behind, or 200 or 300, because identities also build on top of each other. So if you're a person of color, and you're also queer, say you're a religious minority. Say you're also disabled, all of those things, they accumulate, and they put you at a further and further disadvantage because you're further and further away from what society considers the norm. And the standard and the default, and society is shaped for an image and a lot of times It's straight, cis, white man, able bodied, who comes from a middle class or higher background. That's who society is made for. And those are the people who are more like they have, I'm not gonna say the easiest shot to success, but they have less systemic barriers to achieving success. And success is something that can be defined in a bunch of different ways. So I'm not going to try and define that right now. But just theoretically, I hope that makes sense. So when society isn't built for you, and even if we just take the University of Texas at Austin, as a microcosm for society, a small version of society, some of those systemic barriers still exist. You can argue about the prevalence, the necessity of some of these initiatives, I would argue that they are necessary because you still see hate crimes, you still see inaccessibility.
I mean, I took a class taught by Dr. Allison Kafer. And she is in the English Department, and it was an English class that was very theoretical, and it was very much focused on disability studies, through literature and writing, in theory. Amazing class, changed my life, and really opened my eyes to how inaccessible UT is, not just for neurodivergents, but also just physical disabilities. We are a hilly campus, which is the fault of UT. Like, you get the land grant, you get the land grant. But- the way that they try and accommodate for people who use wheelchairs, or if you're on crutches, it doesn't always work. And the way that we deal with accessibility in terms of getting accommodations, for neurodivergents, or able bodied, in terms of like physical capabilities, it's hard, it's difficult, like the bureaucratic process of getting those accommodations is hard. And so some of the things that aren't effective, or aren't affected by SB 17, aren't necessarily effective as measures of making systems like systemic problems go away, because they're systemic, that's part of that's part of the problem is that they're so ingrained in the institution, or the landscape socially or physically. And then when you have all of these initiatives, and these community spaces where people are able to talk about their problems and feel heard, and feel secure, and feel supported, it doesn't make the problems go away. But it can make things feel better. And when you hear someone who has a similar experience to you, or can empathize with the problem, when you have those reserved spaces, it can make some of those systemic barriers easier to handle. And again, it doesn't make the systemic problem go away. But it does help people push through them and over them. And that's, it's so big, it's so big, and it's so important. And it really breaks my heart that there are going to be so many students who would have had such a different college experience, if the centers and spaces were still up and running, if they had these resources, and they felt that their identity beyond being a UT student was felt and acknowledged and respected.
I don't know, I guess it's something that I'll see because I'll be here for one more year. And I'll see what campus attitudes are like as they come. But I know a lot of people who used a lot of those resources, where they felt like that was a safe space to exist. And when a lot of sects of society tell you various parts of your identity mean you shouldn't exist. Having those spaces can be the difference between dropping out and staying in college. Yeah. And then what was your the other part of the question? Oh, why do I think it was-Yeah, kind of goes back to what I was saying about the rhetoric of- Oh, it's kind of like the rhetoric with affirmative action. Oh, no one needs a handout. Why are we funding, you know, why are my taxpayer dollars going towards blah, blah, blah, blah; stuff like that. Where it's like there's this idea in the United States of a meritocracy. Is the United States a true meritocracy? No, it is not. But that's a whole other lecture. It's a whole other can of worms. But there's this idea that of the American dream, but if you work hard, you'll you'll succeed. And success, at least in the United States very much has a financial connotation. And for that financial connotation, you need to have kind of an education connotation. So there's the idea of, if you work hard, you'll get into a good college. And if you work hard in college, you'll get a degree. And then you've got a good job, you've worked hard at your job, you'll get a raise, you'll make money, and you'll live happily ever after. That understanding does not take into account the fact that people start at different places in society. And this is something I learned in a sociology class I took in high school dual credit. I don't know if this has changed, but you are more likely to move horizontally and an economic class than up or down. So, if you start off middle class, you're more likely to stay middle class for the rest of your life. So, socioeconomic mobility is not as easy as people make it out to be, especially when you don't start high up on that socioeconomic ladder. If the United States was a true meritocracy, everyone would start out with the exact same thing. But that's not the case. Because there are social perceptions. There are economic barriers, there are so many things that go into what make what can make a person successful; luck is such a big factor in the United States for making it. I think it was something that- I don't remember where I heard this, but the idea that the biggest indicator of a student's success is their zip code. Like their- the biggest predictor of someone's success is their zip code. I heard that and that changed my outlook on what it means to be successful and what are like what it takes to be successful. And because there's like an ignorance or an overlooking of all the barriers that need to be evened out, for a meritocracy to exist, there is that pushed narrative of we shouldn't be funding these divisive- people are victimizing themselves. "This is new racism, stop putting labels on everything. Can't we just be people we're all one race, the human race." There are countries who try to go at things from a colorblind angle France, France, I study France, by the way.
Undergraduate #5: And even though on paper, they don't see race, socially they do. Because it's something especially in the United States, moving away from France, it is something that has been in our society since before the country was a country. You can't just make that go away by taking away some labels on papers. What you do take away is a consciousness of what those labels and identities mean for the people they're attached to, both for themselves and for their place and ability in society to achieve whatever your definition of success is. So I believe it was included in SB 17, these changes- I know that it was like, I don't remember who this was. I don't know if this was Abbott or who said this, but it was the idea that like, you know, "Oh, we saw that some things were moved- Like they changed the name and they moved it around, but it's still performed the same duty." That it still performed the same job. And that's why, because it's not just the name. It's not like an on paper thing. They genuinely want what they perceive as anti-meritocracy to go away. Under the guise of "Oh, your taxpayer dollars, ah."
Interviewer: Yeah. I think you're talking about Senator Brandon Creighton.
Undergraduate #5: Oh, my Lord.
Interviewer: Yeah, he's the author of the of the bill. And then he also sent that letter out to the universities recently about it. Which is very interesting, because a lot of people have brought this up in general to me about how funding is kind of the crux of where this is coming from, but not necessarily- it kind of is about the money. But I also have seen that because in that letter was essentially a threat of if you're not complying you're going to lose state funding. UT had what I would call panic response. And so that's what was included that letter.
Undergraduate #5: This is something I just want to throw out there for the people listening. How much of UT's funds come from the state, and how much come from donors? Because UT has a lot of donors. How much comes from tuition?
Interviewer: We have an incredibly large endowment from donors.
Undergraduate #5: So I wonder, what do donors think of this? Because is it taxpayer money, or is it donors money? Students, who pay tuition, even if their tuition is offset by government funds, they're still contributing to some degree to UT's financial status. What about students voices? Especially students who pay taxes? Just throwing that out there. I don't have numbers.
Interviewer: But that's a good point, we do have a very, very large endowment from donors; very, very large. So the next question that I do have for you is, before any of the changes were implemented on campus, how did you feel about the efforts to foster inclusivity at UT?
Undergraduate #5: UT, I think is one of those places where there are so many opportunities to find your people. And as I mentioned before, it doesn't fix systemic problems, you will see racism, sexism, homophobia, you'll see it with groups on campus, you know, groups, fighting against groups, things like that. But that happens again, if UT is a microcosm for society, that's going to happen regardless. But I do think that there were a lot of ways that UT tried. And I'm not going to say they did it the most effectively. Because there were always things you could do better. But at the very least an effort was there, the fact that these centers do exist, and the fact that you do have people who are working, who do care about this stuff, because their own identities are reflected in the work that they do. Or because they just genuinely are empathetic people who understand why these spaces and resources are important. I do think that those options were there. So for example, for people like the food pantry, I think it's great that we have it. And I think it's great that it's one of those things like the UT Outpost, where you don't need to prove that you need anything. I've talked about, like, what is it, like disability accommodations, and how I don't believe that's accessible. And it's a bureaucratic mess, because people are afraid that people are going to take advantage of it, so on and so forth. But I do think in cases like the UT Outpost, you don't have to go through a bureaucratic mess. To get like canned goods, you can just show up and grab stuff. And I do think like that, or like the section of clothes, like the business casual and business professional stuff, they have there I think that's great. Providing the pads and tampons in like certain buildings. Amazing. I know that the Writing Center, they have like a shelf where they have a bunch of canned goods and snacks. So if you need food, you can take it from there as well. And I feel like it's one of those things where, you do need to know about it to take advantage of it. And I won't, I'm not gonna say anything about whether or not I think the advertising is effective or not, because I think some things just aren't relevant to me. So maybe that's why I'm not in the know. So I'm not sure how aware people are that these opportunities exist. But I do think that in some ways, UT is, I mean, I know it's more, there are more opportunities for inclusion and diversity than like in my hometown.
I think a part of that is that UT is so diverse, in a great way, because you have so many ethnic groups, linguistic groups, interest groups, identity based affinity groups that are representative, like religious events. Like, I don't know, I'm shocked to see how much- how many student organizations are available. And I think it's great that people are able to find their place. But I'm not going to pretend that it's perfect. Of course, like I'm not going to pretend that everything is inclusive, especially with the classroom. Sometimes people can say some things, teachers can say some things, and you go, "eugh." Yeah, I won't go further to that. But there are, there were a lot of opportunities. I feel like, at the very least, UT was trying. And there are a lot of people, a lot of faculty members who are definitely trying. And I think that that's something that's really important too, admin and faculty, members of the staff who aren't part of the overarching UT. Like Jay Hartzell himself isn't hand writing all of these initiatives, but there are people who are effective and who are closer to the ground and seeing the benefits of the spaces who are trying to foster equity, inclusion, diversity.
I mean, I benefit from the Mellon Mays undergraduate fellowship. And I genuinely because, in my family, I don't, I don't have anyone who's done a PhD. And I want to get my PhD. So it's like, well, how would I have figured out how to apply? A lot of it would have come from self-research and, you know, talking to professors and grad students just hoping that I'm asking the right questions; that they're telling me what I need to know. And that's how a lot of people do it, but having a program specifically helping me, and talking to me about some of the problems, the problems that I'm projected to have or that I'm worried about having. So for example, when I had a mini-crisis earlier this semester, I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm going to be a woman of color. I'm going to be talked over, I'm not going to have like- other people are gonna have so much space, because I want to go get a history PhD, and there's gonna be so many..." Yeah, I was really stressed about what my experience would be like. And Mellon Mays was a space where I could voice those concerns, and have people who went through the process, give me advice, and say, "I hear you, I understand." And I will say, you don't need someone who's gone through the experience to empathize; they don't need to have lived the exact set of circumstances, for their opinion, to be valid for them to be a good person to talk to. I talked to one of my former professors about my concerns, who is indeed a white man. And he made it a very comfortable space. And I felt like I was welcome to share my concerns and my problems. And I really do like respect and appreciate him for that, because I was very stressed about that conversation going into it. But there is also something of value to have someone who has gone through it. Because while, like this white professor, I love and adore him, there are some things that he's never had to experience, or think about experiencing. They're concerns that he never would have had when he went to grad school, but they're ones that I do. And so especially talking to like my fellow students, the ones who are in the same boat about to apply to grad school or about to go to grad school; it's like voicing those concerns and having a collective community, I would say, to lean upon, and rant to, vent to and you know, encourage each other, are all things that really do make a difference. They really make a difference in how you experience going through these problems that can't be solved by you. Like you can't fix the problem yourself. It's something that's beyond it's beyond you to fix. Yeah. What was the question again?
Interviewer: It was about how you felt about efforts to foster inclusivity. Right. So that was pretty on par, I think. I really appreciate your very like broad encompassing, because a lot of the interviews that I've done so far have been kind of very specific to their experiences. And this is specific to your experience, but it is kind of almost bigger picture. So it's very useful. So the next question I have is: Were any UT sponsored DEI resources, a part of your decision to come to UT?
Undergraduate #5: I did look into the different organizations that existed at UT. I wouldn't say it was a deciding factor for me. But the size of UT and the opportunities at UT were something that really made me want to go here. So like, the fact that we have so many groups, like we offer classes, in the language that I, and my family, speaks. And it's a language from South India. And it's a popular language in that state, but in terms of teaching it at a university, that's crazy that they would do that. And they've been doing it since my dad went to UT Arlington. They didn't offer classes at UT Arlington, but he had a friend who went to UT. And he was like, yeah, they have Malayalam classes. And I was like, "That's crazy. What?" And so, it was something that I did, like take into account, the fact that there were organizations based on being like South Asian, or being Malayali. That would all like kind of foster my transition to college and you know, help give me a sense of community. I looked- so I study Asian American Studies. And I think that is really cool that we have that; we're the only Center for Asian American Studies in this region of the U.S. And that's an opportunity I wouldn't have had elsewhere. I did look at the demographics of the school because my second choice was Southwestern University, up in Georgetown, so pretty close to here. It's like a small, private liberal arts university; and they are majority white. And so even though, independent of that, I would have picked UT over Southwestern, they're minor factors, but I will say, when my sister was looking at colleges, she toured Southwestern, because she got in there, and she was saying "You know, it's majority white; I didn't see another brown person there." And she was saying- that is something that she, more than I did, used in weighing her options, and she's gonna go to UT Arlington. And a part of that is it's more diverse, there are more opportunities for her, because she's a dancer, she can do her dance at UT Arlington, because those groups exist. Whereas at Southwestern University, you won't find a Bollywood dance group. And I think that the various opportunities were something that she definitely took into account when she was deciding for college. So for me, it wasn't as big of a deal. But for my sister, yes.
Interviewer: So you did touch on this- the second part of this question, so it's: In your own opinion, why do you think SB-17 was enacted? Well, you've kind've gone through that too, but then the second part is: Do you think allowing "merit" to determine admissions decisions, and other things, will be successful in promoting fairness? So you did touch on the meritocracy stuff earlier, but if you have anything further to say on that, go ahead.
Undergraduate #5: Let's see. What does merit mean? Is what I would like to ask. Is UT going back to using the SAT?
Interviewer: Actually, that's a good question. I don't know. The reason that I included that in there is because that is Senator Creighton's word. That's what he uses.
Undergraduate #5: They love throwing around words. Yeah.
Interviewer: I don't necessarily know what his definition of that is. I know he has used the term, or the phrase, returning higher education to being "merit-based". I don't really know necessarily what he means by that specifically, but that's what I do know about that.
Undergraduate #5: I will say, you have to look at what people mean, when they say merit. If you want to be completely objective, and even then you can't, then you have to look purely at test scores, and GPA, and grades. But because we do holistic admissions, you can't do that. And first, let's break down just using test scores. Someone who gets a perfect SAT. Why? Were their parents able to pay for them to do tutoring? Were they able to take it 50 times? Exaggeration, but more than once, because some schools will cover free SAT, but not necessarily free retakes. So how many times were they able to take the SAT? What preparation did they have? Even if they didn't have paid tutoring, or one of those test prep programs. Did they have time to study? Were they working a job when they were in high school to support their family? Or were they able to have free time dedicated towards schoolwork? So just using test scores does not inherently mean you're basing it off of merit.
So let's expand to holistic admissions where we look at short answers. If you exclude someone's circumstances, their income, their race, their ethnicity, so on and so forth. What are you basing it off of? And that's not to say that they're basing it purely on those factors. But if you eliminate those factors, what context do you remove for someone's experience? So for example, if you're able to start a nonprofit, that's great. But it means something very different. If you come from a high income neighborhood where your options were play lacrosse, start a nonprofit, or I don't know what else rich people do. But starting a nonprofit holds a bit more weight. If you live in, say, a low income area. So do you place a different weight on income? Let's shake things up. Imagine that you are staging protests. You are fighting for a cause, say whatever cause you want. And you are you know, doing your activism stuff; you're lobbying, you're calling your representatives, you're marching. What risks are associated with someone who's white, marching down the street with a sign? And what risks are associated with someone who's black, walking down the street holding a sign? Do you place different values on those experiences? Well, if you were erase color, theoretically you would value it the same thing. But what is the risk factor? What barriers did you have to overcome in order to make something happen? It's great if you worked in a lab and cured cancer. But how were you able to have access to a lab? Are you able to do unpaid internships in high school? Meaning, working for free? Can you do free labor? Can you afford to do that? Or do you have to take a job that doesn't look as good on a transcript, but gives you money to survive on?
There are so many factors that go into test scores, which theoretically is objective. It's a number, how do you have a bias in a number? Well, you can I just explained it. Written experiences. Again, if you knew from a young age that you wanted to be a cardiologist, why? Is it because your parents were cardiologists? Did that help shape your upbringing to where you knew what you needed to do in high school to be a cardiologist? For people who don't have cardiologist parents, what research did you have to do on your own to figure that stuff out? These are all things that make it so clear that you can't have a pure meritocracy for college admissions. There's the whole Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. I'm taking intro to Asian American history right now, and we talked about it. Because what happened is, Asian Americans were weaponized in the fight against affirmative action. And they talked about how when you- say you have a perfect SAT, 4.0 GPA, and then you get denied from Harvard, or Stanford, or Yale, or wherever it is you want to go. It's really easy for someone to be like, "Oh, yeah, it's because you're Asian." And for you to believe it. Because on paper, you have everything; you have every requirement. But what school lets people in purely on perfect GPA, and perfect SAT; there's a sense of entitlement there. That's similar to the rhetoric around jobs; like "Oh, immigrants are stealing our jobs." Our jobs? Was it your job to begin with? "Oh, someone who was less deserving than me stole my spot at Harvard." Your spot? Was it ever your spot?
Say what you want about holistic admissions, but you can't pretend that there's any way of objectively admitting students. The people who read these things are human beings, they'll have their own biases. You can work to overcome those, but even in a perfect world, someone's name is going to identify something about them. It's one of those things where there's so much that goes into the idea of a meritocracy, that just can't exist in our current society. So to say that this is turning us back to, to merit based admissions. It doesn't exist. Because imagine this, imagine, it's a school where they're admitting 600 students, and they have 1000 people who apply. And every single one of them has a perfect SAT score, and a 4.0 GPA. Who's getting the seats? If you're basing it off short answers, how are you valuing those experiences? It's like the idea of "fitting" into a campus life. All the things that you can't really- it's not merit based.
These are things where you can think it's merit, and to some degree, it's merit-based, but it's not "merit-based" in the way that people imagine it's merit-based. Because there's so much that goes behind everything someone does. I'm very much a big believer in "big history and little history." Yes, you are an individual, you are making choices. You are living life; but you are also the product of your environment. And you are living in a society that's not constructed by you. It's constructed by a group of people who maybe aren't even alive today. You are a little history, living in a big history. And while you may be so incredibly impressive, and that doesn't detract from how impressive you are, you are also the product of luck and circumstance. So, I would love to hear his definition of "merit-based", because I don't think his understanding of merit-based actually encompasses what it takes to be a true meritocracy in terms of even just college admissions.
Interviewer: You give so well thought out answers. It feels very academic.
Thank you, I was talking slow because I was formulating thoughts as I was going.
Interviewer: It sounds really good. So this one is interesting. What does diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you? And do you think it's important?
Undergraduate #5: Oh, yeah. You couldn't tell by now? Yeah, I do think that diversity, equity inclusion are important. I can break down each of those individual things. Diversity. Like you mentioned at the beginning of this interview, UT Austin does not reflect the racial statistics and demographics of the state. What does diversity do? Well, it offers different perspectives. It's kind of like studying history. So history in the United States was majority written by straight white men. And because of that, their outlooks on things are very distinct. The way they perceive other groups of people is centered, it's centered around a white perspective. Whereas if you had someone who was a person of color, say from the group that's being studied, engaging with these historians, or providing their own histories to go along into the historical record, and the canon, you'd see more detail, more nuance, different outlooks on certain values, practices, traditions, so on and so forth. And it's one of those things that applies to campuses. If you only have one type of person going to a university, it's just one big echo chamber. You never are pushed to think outside the bounds of your own understanding. You're just reinforced, and reinforced, and reinforced. But people aren't monolithic like that. We come from different cultures, we come from different backgrounds. The idea of individualism versus collectivism, the United States leans more individualistic, but in certain ways, there are collectivist elements. So when you engage with someone who comes from a more collectivist society, you're pushed to think about ways that you could incorporate those practices or values into your own life. And that could maybe compel social change, or even just personal change. And critical thinking is so important. And can you think critically, if you are only surrounded by people who look like you, who think like you, who talk like you, who've had the same life as you? Or do you need to be challenged do you need to see other perspectives to fully understand what the world is and how it works?
So diversity, obviously is important for people who aren't in diverse areas. And diversity also means that you're providing opportunities to people who have historically been marginalized and not have those opportunities. As a way, it's just one of those things that seems so common sense. I didn't know that diversity could be considered a bad word. I talked to my mom about this. I was telling her like, "ah, you know, they're getting rid of diversity initiatives." And she's like "Diversity?Diversity? Why is diversity bad now?" You ask them, I don't know. But diversity is something that's always been, in my understanding of the United States, one of those things that we're proud of. Like, America is proud that it's diverse. Of course, I'm speaking generally there are, you know, the racists and whatnot. But in general, the United States seems to be proud of the fact that it's a melting pot, that there are so many cultures, I come from Dallas, and like the fact that we can go to whatever ethnic restaurant and know that the people running it are part of that ethnic group. I love that. It is. It's a beautiful medley of different cultures, ethnicities, languages that kind of push and pull on each other, that meld with each other. Fusion food is something that I feel, not that it's inherently American, because fusion food exists everywhere. But the types of fusion that come out of the United States. It's great. Korean barbecue. Is that fusion?
Interviewer: I don't know. I feel like it might be that's I don't know that. I didn't think about that until when you said that. But maybe it is.
Undergraduate #5: Oh, interesting. I love it. I love that we're proud of being diverse because the United States, while there are some ways where you're pushed to assimilate. There are also ways that the United States is good for acculturation. As in you can add your culture to the national culture. And that's why hyphenated identities are welcome. In some places. They are kind of enforced on people as in I'm never going to be seen as just American. I'm going to be Indian American or Asian American, something like that. But I do think that it's great. But if you want to have like retain elements of your ethnic background or your cultural background, you can. In other countries, like France, it's an assimilation state, where the expectation for immigrants is that you conform to the national culture. And you don't retain those elements. Diversity to them is not it, doesn't have the same, like multiculturalism to them, does not have the same connotation. Who was it? Was it Angela Merkel, who called it a failed experiment in Europe, multiculturalism; it was something like that. And it's sad. At least from an American perspective. I would hate that. I wouldn't, I would not want to live in France. And so diversity for me has always been such something I'm so proud. Like, I live in the United States. And I'm proud that we are so diverse and like, yes, it's got all its problems, but I'm happy in the fact that we have this big medley at the very least. But now diversity is a bad word. Isn't that crazy? Wow.
Undergraduate #5: When it comes to equity, I've talked about it before, and how it's important to correct some of those historical wrongdoings. Because the whole thing with moving in the same socioeconomic group, and staying in the same class, if you start 100 meters before the starting block, you're not going to end up- you're often going to have to work 10 times harder to end up at the same place as the person who starts at the starting block. And it's just one of those things that is just going to perpetuate and perpetuate. There is government interference that makes things worse, historically: disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, redlining. When they when they got crack in low income neighborhoods, things like that, that just kind of reinforce those divisions between class or reinforce those divisions with race. And you can't beat that unless you have government initiatives to counteract it. Because remember, it's certain legal things that got us here in the first place. It's going to take legal things to get us out of, it to correct that. But I won't say more about equity, because I've talked about it a lot.
Undergraduate #5: And then inclusion. Why would inclusion- in what world is inclusion a bad word? Because people will say that DEI is exclusionary. "Oh, you're excluding white people, you're excluding straight people." Inclusion is in the name! It's one of those things where it seems like they don't realize that people who are on the margins are inherently excluded from certain spaces. So the point is to bring them in, as opposed to keeping them out. And people, I think, just don't get that. And it's one of those things that is just built into human nature: you want to feel included. And I feel like there's such an "us" versus "them" mentality that persists with human nature as well. Like it's something that from the beginning of time tribalism, "us" versus "them". What if we can all be an "us"? What if we were all- what if UT collectively was an "us"? And that's what you get with like, school spirit. Anytime we play OU, we're an "us". Alabama? Yes, we're an "us". So imagine if we kept that idea into regular daily life. Where you're an "us", but there's an understanding that with spaces for women, or for queer people, or for people of color, it's forming like an "us versus them" as opposed to: here's us, and then here's a sector of us. And this is how we make sure they're part of "us", as opposed to "them". I don't know if that metaphor makes sense. I feel like visually it may have worked better. But it's one of those things where you hear it, and you just can't imagine that it could be twisted in a way to sound bad. None of those three things inherently sound bad. But somehow the rhetoric has turned it into something that it really isn't.
Interviewer: Yeah, this is, not relevant. I'll probably cut it out. But, I've seen, on the internet, people mentioned that a lot of the times when politicians use buzzwords like DEI, BLM, things like that, those are the only two I can think of right now. They don't ever say what the actual terms are, Black Lives Matter. It's always just BLM and so it's kind of, or Antifa, that was the other one. So it's interesting that it's always like: "DEI is bad. DEI is this, DEI is that, DEI is exclusionary." But, I think it would be harder for people to agree with that if they said "diversity, equity and inclusion is bad," or "diversity, equity and inclusion is exclusionary," because then that's inherently oxymoronic. So, I think that it is interesting that they tend to use these acronyms as buzzwords and never actually say what the term is because I think it immediately just gives it its actual meaning.
Undergraduate #5: And I completely agree. I feel like it's really interesting the way that that works with anti critical race theory, where they'll say CRT, yeah. But you will see them say, "critical race theory" from time to time. And it's one of those things where, because critical race theory- Well, first of all, a lot of politicians don't understand it. And it's one of those things that's so- it seems scary, it seems, it has the word theory.
Interviewer: Because it's such a high academic thing.
Undergraduate #5: Because it's a legal theory! It's a legal theory! You learn it, for what, a paragraph in law school? Unless you take a class on critical race theory. But they will say critical race theory, I think more than they'll say, diversity, equity and inclusion, because it's easier to frame that as big scary, liberal indoctrination. You're so right. I hadn't thought about that. But that's really interesting.
Interviewer: It's not my own thoughts. But I saw somebody talk about it, and I was like, that makes a lot of sense, because especially with what we've seen recently, I don't know how often I see them talk about diversity, equity and inclusion, except for in the actual bill, which how many regular Texans are reading that? Other than us, who are in the middle of it? You know? So that was just, I don't know, that was a thought that I had. The next question is kind of the whole point of my project, so I do hope that you agree with this. Do you think this event is important to UT's history?
Undergraduate #5: Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. If you think about some of the big events in UT's history, something that you wouldn't think would be such a big deal, because it's sports stuff. Well, it's the type of sports stuff that people don't normally talk about. The integration of UT's football team.
Interviewer: Oh, yeah.
Undergraduate #5: That's common knowledge, that it took us a hell of a long time.
Interviewer: 1970.
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. Yeah. And the things people tend to remember about football. The years we win the championships. That's what people tend to remember. Or they remember an era. "Oh, the era of this coach, and this coach or this quarterback there."
Interviewer: Darryl K. Royal, the namesake of the stadium.
Undergraduate #5: Yeah, and for that fact, the integration of UT's football team, to remain in the cultural memory of UT, means it meant something. Talking about the statues, and the Eyes of Texas, those are all things that very much resonated with current events at the time. And because the current events of the time have expanded, and this is still part of that ongoing conversation about what it means to progress as a university, and what it means to remember, as a university, I feel like this is going to be part of that conversation. And I don't know if it's going to have the same impact in terms of cultural memory as the integration of UT's football team. But it goes along the same lines, because remember, UT is an old ass institution. Looking back, when I talked earlier about the landscape of the university. Why are our bathrooms so funky? Which building is it? I think it's Wagner, where the men's bathroom is on one floor, and then women's bathroom on another.
Interviewer: The six-pack are like that, too.
Undergraduate #5: Yes! Why? Well, because UT... UT was built for men.
Interviewer: And yeah, we're coming up on, I think we just passed 140 years. So coming up on 150; it's 1883. So if I'm doing the math correctly.
Undergraduate #5: Wow.
Interviewer: Should be 141 this year. Yeah.
Undergraduate #5: Isn't that crazy?
Undergraduate #5: There are so many milestones, and the milestones I think we remember culturally with UT are not "Oh, this is when the school opened." Like, yeah, I guess if you're interested in that, look at it. And if you're beefing with A&M, and you're debating about who's the first university of Texas or whatever, like you'll look at that. But it's not when did we win our first football game? Maybe it's the last time we won a championship. But it tends to be, at least in the circles that I'm in, some of these more social movements. So what happened with Vietnam? The student protests with Vietnam. Yeah. People are going to talk about the Black Lives Matter protests, in the same way we talk about the protests that happened in the 90s, after Rodney King, because it was a big deal. It's one of those things that fit into a larger national social trend, and therefore will fit in the cultural memory of UT, and it's history. Like we're always part of living history. But this is one of those big events that is mobilizing people. Yeah, it very much is yeah, in short amounts of time, just like the way that people mobilize the way that people are- I'm saying unionized not in the official, this is a labor union, but unionized as in coming together, collaborating, planning, demanding things from our university president, from other administrative administration workers, from government workers, from policy makers. It's something that is reminiscent of other major on campus events. We're at a point in time where we have so many things to focus on, because you see a lot of activism around Israel and Palestine. You see a lot of activism because we're in an election year. Yeah. And that's a little side note, isn't it? Interesting, the timing of some of these Bill enactments. Yeah. Because what what gets people to vote for people? Controversy? Bucha. There's a problem. And look, we Republicans are solving it, vote for us again, 2024. But I digress. We are living in a point where information is readily available. So international problems, national problems, and local problems, are all interwoven. A Muslim student can get assaulted, and the campus knows about it. And it fits into a larger narrative about what's going on overseas, in the United States, in Texas, in Austin at UT. And I think the way that it's so easy to visualize these national patterns, or these international patterns, statewide patterns, especially for someone like myself, who does follow this stuff, because it's a scary trend. Yes. It's scary for someone who wants to be an academic like this is this is higher education, they're coming after Yeah. There's just so much that's there and available. And people, college campuses have historically been a center for activism and progressivism, for a few different reasons. A couple of being that people are getting more educated, they're hitting that age where they're aware of things beyond what they grew up with. They have schedules that are flexible enough to enable them to hold protests and sit ins and oh, what is the word, they can come together, and they can collaborate and they can organize. There are so many things that people are able to do with the schedules of a college student, finances, limited, depending on who you are. But you're able to do things in college, and you have so many people who are your age with similar schedules with flexible, flex flexibility. And even though UT does have a history of surveillance and cracking down on protests, and you can see that I won't go into that. But it's got its history, but it also has its history of students doing things anyway. Because they believe in something they believe that a social cause or a political cause. And they're willing to march for it. And they're willing to have their names and faces attached to things. And they're willing to, you know, make signs and they're willing to march and they're willing to disrupt because the actions in this case are disruptive towards student lives, you're taking something away from the place that they call home. And to imagine that that could go over well and not have people saying otherwise or trying to fight back I think is so ignorant, and shows that they don't understand the role that these institutions have played in student experiences. But yeah, we definitely are living in a big moment for you tea. In a good and bad way. Bad obviously because they're closing down all our stuff and firing people. But good in that I feel like we are uniting a lot. I say we I feel like the student body in a lot of ways, are uniting and finding very creative ways and very powerful and impactful ways to show their dissatisfaction and their unhappiness and their unrest. Whether or not it will be enough to cause the change, that at least I would want to see. I don't know, which makes me think that this is going to be more of a darker period of time and UT history. But we will see silver lining. And I mean, I'm gonna be historian so this will be great, great stuff for us. I don't think I'll study this in terms of history, but I will contribute as needed. I feel like I saw it a lot with pro-Palestine circles. The art that's come out of that the poetry and the music and the rise of the pros, it's the performances and the way that people will fundraise. It's been beautiful. And it's horrible the stuff that's going on. And I don't want to make it sound like the only way to have good artists through tragedy. I am not the type, I don't think you need to be depressed to be a good artist. But there are cultural staples that come out of tough times. And that includes arch. It includes signs of solidarity. And that's something that's happened historically. Ernest Hemingway was unfortunately depressed. But some of those like big names, you see their work, because it was reactionary to some of the horrible things that they experience. Yeah. And again, I would rather them not have to go through the horrible experience like I rather than lose the arch, and keep you know, their mental health intact, or their lives intact, you know that that wouldn't be the better alternative? Well, if you want people talk about Van Gogh, yeah, I would rather he wasn't depressed. I don't care if I lose the paintings, I would rather he wasn't depressed. But I do feel like it's one of those periods, it's going to produce a lot of stuff like that. People are going to remember, if you live through it, you're going to remember it. And I don't mean to conflate it with Vietnam. But it is something that's closer to other social movements that maybe don't have to deal with international war, but things that deal with a very localized issue that isn't necessarily localized, because it's a national trend, thanks to Texas, Florida. But it's all really important in terms of the history of UT. And I think because we are the flagship university, it means a lot for the rest of Texas, and the reactions from this university. And the impact it's able to make on the people who make policy is going to be, I would say, crucial to the bigger domino effect, and what it means for the other states looking at Texas as an example. Yeah.
Interviewer: That's a good point.
Undergraduate #5: Okay, not to get distracted with Hemingway and Van Gogh and all your notes. Okay.
Interviewer: I think that was the last question. Yeah. So that was the last actual question I had for you. Do you have anything else that you want to comment on?
Undergraduate #5: I would say some advice for the listeners out there. If you want to engage with this issue, you don't need to know the history of everything. And you don't need to know you don't need to know everything about every law and every piece of legislation ever. The things I would prompt you to be aware of, is what you need to know when engaging with legislation and political rhetoric, which is be able to define terms and make sure that the person using this language can divine can define those terms as well. accurately, yes. Can Ted Cruz divine to find? Can Ted Cruz define critical race theory? Can Senator Creighton define diversity, equity and inclusion? And can they define so in a way that doesn't inherently have political bias? So cannot can they define it in the way that they use it? Can they define it in a way that you would see in a dictionary? We can you check the definition of critical race theory in the American Bar Association. Does that match with what Ted Cruz says? No, no being able Well to read between the lines is important chatting, media literacy and knowing how bias impacts the wording of things. Having legal literacy, not in the sense of you need to go to law school, but in the sense of, you need to be able to identify when someone's trying to manipulate you. And you need to be able to, I guess, you need to be willing to try engaging with some of those big words, yeah, because they can be a make or break. And again, these are things that can be really difficult for some people, especially if their regular daily concern is I need to survive. And so I'm not going to tell you, like, you know, understand everything. Because that's just not realistic. It's not feasible. But these are things that impact large communities. And it sucks because the communities that are being hit are the ones who will have to take on the mental burden. And then the emotional burden, physical burden of trying to fight for these things, when, in theory, they have like the, the least resources to go off of just to get by in college. But it's something I have to encourage, if you're able to, please do engage, I'm going to do my best. But as I mentioned before, I'm not going to stay in Texas, at least for grad school, which breaks my heart because Texas is my home, and I love Texas, culturally, in a lot of ways. Politically, it does not love me. And even though I will do what I can, while I'm here, there is a limit to what I'm able to do. Yeah. And for the sake of my research, and my future, I will have to go away. So I'm not going to tell you devote your entire life, you know, throw away all your plans to solve this problem. But if you're able to do what you can do, make your voice heard, show up when you can engage, do do the things that are acceptable behavior of vote, and call your representatives, but also be creative and express your experience. And this is me speaking as like a future historian, aspiring aspiring historian, make your opinions known. So people know when they look back in 50 years, that when ut did these things, it wasn't met with silence. It was met with resistance. It was met with dissent. And it was met by a large population that was unhappy and didn't agree and wanted to fight for its right to exist. That's what I'll say.
Interviewer: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I'll go ahead and stop the recording.
Undergraduate #5: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay. And then do you also consent to the transcript of this interview being posted online without any identifying information?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah, sure.
Interviewer: Okay. Awesome. So firstly, what organizations or other things are you involved with on campus?
Undergraduate #5: So I'm involved with a couple of things, but I think relevant to this conversation. The biggest thing is the Mellon Mays undergraduate fellowship.
Interviewer: Okay, so then, what has changed about that fellowship or your role within the fellowship since the implementation of SB-17?
Undergraduate #5: Right, so when I first applied for the Mellon Mays program, it was my sophomore year. And the language in the recruitment information was that the fellowship was to help students of underrepresented communities enter the Academy, prepare them for PhD programs, and hopefully have them enter the Academy as a way to diversify the Academy and the idea of underrepresented communities, not necessarily based on race, and that's something that was made clear like you don't you didn't have to be a person of color to be an underrepresented, like community. But you know, underrepresented communities goal of diversifying the academy, like in the long run. And that's what it was like when I applied. And I remember talking with the Mellon Mays director, I was like, Oh, I'm not sure if I count because like, I'm Asian American, and in some fields I'm represented, but in the field that I want to go into, I'm not because it's like the humanities. And she was like, Oh, yes, well, of course you can, because you consider yourself underrepresented. And it's also like, we don't have a distinct, this is underrepresented this some, they didn't have like a list they were cross cross checking with. So that was kind of the language surrounding Mellon Mays, when I entered the program. This past year, I remember seeing the recruitment information for Mellon Mays. And some of that language had changed because they had to change the way that they advertised this fellowship program. So diversity in the academy change to multi vocality. And that is a word that I heard that I saw in the advertisement. And then later in one of our Mellon Mays events, I guess, Mellon Mays, but then like an all Mellon event for all of the different Mellon programs. I believe our directory also used the word multi vocality. It was either there or it was at our symposium, but I do feel like it was at the All Mellon event. And I think that that change from diversity to multi vocality. Even if it's, it's like a close synonym, like it has, like the idea is still the same, just with a different word attached to it. I do feel like there are different connotations around diversity versus multi vocality. And I do feel like it is very much a sign that things had to change because of SB 17. Even something like the Mellon program, which is privately funded. It's through the Andrew Mellon Foundation and in the Benjamin E Mays Foundation.
Interviewer: So, the next question is, are there any new challenges that you encounter with the changes that have happened? I don't know if there's anything that specifically applies to you. But I do remember you talking about one of the directors coming in and expressing his concerns about kind of everything that's been happening on campus? So if there's anything, I don't know, if there's anything you can say to this question?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. So there are quite a few things that I feel like have changed. Suppose I think new challenges for different groups of people something that I have noticed a big change, I guess it's not a big change in terms of like, everyone would notice this. But as someone who reads the syllabus, I've noticed it. There's been a change where in the past syllabi, they would have this paragraph saying, you know, this is a safe space, we are, you know, I will respect you, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, so on and so forth. I will respect your pronoun uses or things like that. And while that sentiment may still be there, I think I've seen a lot more of the paragraph saying, or addressing SB 17. And saying, you know, this is not going to impact what we do in the classroom. If you want to learn more about it, you know, you've talked to me if you have any questions or concerns, you can talk to me. And I think that change is almost like a looming like over the shoulder type entity, where it's like, even if it theoretically doesn't impact the classroom, it does, because it's in our syllabus. So we're made aware of it. And I am, I interact with a lot of people who were more directly impacted by SB 17. Because we've all been affected. But some people feel a lot stronger because of groups they're in or the various identities that they have. And having some of those conversations has been really hard, or disheartening. I've had this experience this semester, where I was really concerned about my prospects of grad school because I was worried that the experience in grad school may be more difficult because I am a woman of color. And with SB 17, it kind of affirmed that certain places like unfortunately, Texas, I won't really be able to apply to grad schools here, because I don't feel like some of those support systems are going to be there in a structure that is stable and school funded. So those centers or those support groups, or those methods of making you feel welcome. I'm not confident that it's going to be in Texas, I'm not even I know that they say it's not going to impact research, and it's not going to impact classroom instruction. I don't trust that. Because the way that these bills are worded and the way that future legislation can be worded. And this is coming from my background doing legislation research. When you make legislation intentionally vague, you can interpret things the way you want, which is kind of why we saw SB 17, take two waves at UT, where there was the first series of events where UT was like, Yeah, I think I'm complying. But then you have the second wave where they said, Oh, we're not going to fire, we're not going to fire people, we're just gonna move people around. And then 60, something people end up getting fired. Yeah, it's one of those things where vague language lends itself to various interpretations. And depending on who's in power, and who can enforce all of these different actions and decisions, you're going to have different consequences. So I am not confident that my research would be protected. And independent of my research and my work, I'm not confident that I would be protected and my different identities, and I'm not confident that I would have the same experience as someone and I know I would have a different experience than say, a white man, or even a white woman in grad school, but having some of those support systems being able to see myself and other people, and know that even if we all experience things differently, my experiences are valid and welcome and accounted for or at least somewhat accommodated for. It's something that I'm looking for in my future. And I think it's going I'm afraid that other people are going to end up like me, going away from Texas, which i i fear will weaken ut as an institution and as like a top tier research institution. Yeah, I remember. So what I did a few weeks ago, I was like guest, like presenting about critical race theory in a class based on my research that I had done with anti critical race theory legislation, with Dr. Karma Chavez. Oh, yeah. Am I allowed to say that? Yes, okay. Yes, yeah. So I did research with Dr. Chavez about like, legislation, we learned about critical race theory and how different rhetoric has shaped the way it's so partisan. It's such a partisan issue. And really, it's a non issue. But I digress. But I was talking to the class and at a certain point, it kind of came like a, like, it was like a q&a type session where it's like, someone wants to say something, I would talk a lot. And then, you know, back and forth. And I was talking about how I'm going to end up not going to grad school in Texas because X, Y, and Z. And someone else in the back was like, Yeah, me too. And so I worry about the prospects for grad students. Anyone who wants to come to UT, like for their job or any other UT School, I'm not just UT Austin, all the other ones too, because UTD is now experiencing some changes as well. But then also current faculty, because and this is what I said during the class, like Dr. Chavez is amazing, and that she will like, advocate, and she will testify, and she will do everything in her power to like push for change, positive change. But not everyone is able to do that. And I'm afraid that people are going to end up leaving or like, because of risk of self censorship or just they don't feel like their interests and pursuits are supported. And that's scary. That's scary for the future of UT. It's scary for the future of academia. And especially because this is something like Texas and Florida tend to be like the trailblazers for this type of legislation. And I'm afraid I'm afraid other states may follow suit, and then you end up with such a shattered, fragmented version of the academy.
Interviewer: And that is definitely like something that I've seen people bring up not just like in context of these interviews, but just kind of in general talking about this in the classroom like, yeah, the worry of that minority faculty and students aren't going to want to come here. Yeah. Which is a major concern, because UT already doesn't represent the demographics of Texas, right? We are largely Texan students. So then, if there's nothing that's keeping minority students here, or faculty, then it's just going to kind of get worse. There was another thing that I you piqued my brain, oh, research concern, which is super interesting, because the people that I've talked to kind of within the institution, about my project, just kind of like, doing it, like just talking to the lates people about the website developing and stuff, and like these people have expressed concern about my research already, like putting it out there about getting backlash, even though research is supposed to be a magazine carved out. I also remember reading that student recruitment is supposed to be carved out to which is not the case, not the case at all. I remember seeing that in the bill, or in UT's compliance plan, the original one, not the case at all. So I thought that that was also very interesting. So yeah. So the next question that I have for you is this, I really need to just go in and reword this question. Because I say this every time I wrote it kind of badly, but what I meant by this was, when it comes to the actual bill of Senate Bill 17, how did you understand what it would cover on campus? And if you've read it? Was it easy to understand? And you were talking about intentionally vague language earlier? kind of expand a little bit more on that stuff I guess?
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. Yeah. So my original understanding of SB 17, is that state funds, the funds that UT has from the state cannot be used towards, and I forget what the original labels were, like, if it was like race, ethnicity, I don't remember if sexuality was listed in it, I don't remember it was
Interviewer: It was either sexual identity or gender identity. I thought that that was strange to that it kind of evaded sexuality, but it talks about gender identity, right.
Undergraduate #5: So it can't be used towards like the promotion, more the creation of, I don't know- it's one of those things where the people who make these policies will frame it as like exclusionary or divisive spaces, because if you look at the similarities between anti-DEI legislation and anti-critical-race-theory legislation, it centers around the idea that being race-conscious equals being racist or divisive, when that's not actually the case. So I'm not sure if that answers your first question, but if the understanding of what it covered initially, I didn't realize how expansive they would take it with this new wave of you know, the firings and the closings. So like when the Multicultural Engagement Center closed down, and that was the first wave, I was surprised. I was like, what do you mean, I didn't fully understand, I still don't fully understand, why it was closed. And I think it's one of those things where you can interpret certain terms like, and I'll go back just because I know critical race theory more, and the anti CRT bills more. It's like the idea of divisive concepts. What does that mean? What do you mean by divisive concepts? And there's a similar thing where you use the idea, and it's always framed that it's a good thing, like, Oh, we don't want people to have handouts we don't want, here's the thing, they say things like, Oh, we don't want people treated differently on the basis of their race more, their six more, so on and so forth. That's that's the rhetoric they will use to push something like this, where it implies that it has a better and worse connotation. We don't want people to be treated better because of their race, ethnicity, sex, so on and so forth. Whereas that's not inherently the case with having specific groups and centers and spaces for different marginalized identities. It's kind of like the idea of equity, which is a bad word. Now. The idea that sometimes in order to correct social injustice is you need to treat people differently to fix historic and institutional wrongdoings. So it's like the what is the baseball example where you've got people Yeah, one person has a box one person doesn't have a box they both want to see over the fence. And equity is when you give someone a box to match the box. Um, equality would be if you give both people a box. It's when it's something like that. And it's just one of those things where there's just a misunderstanding of the purpose of these different initiatives, diversity initiatives and equity initiatives and inclusion initiatives that will ultimately harm populations that are already being systemically marginalized, by removing those support systems that have already existed.
Legal language is difficult to understand, in general, just in general, there's a reason why legal jargon is a phrase, there's reason why legal language is not layman's terms. And when it comes to politics and legislation, the more confusing, or vague, or both you can make your bill, the easier it is for people pushing the legislation to get people on their side because they can frame whatever narrative they want. And someone who's trying to fact check it with the bill itself, and most people won't, it's difficult to do. Yeah, if it's something that's vague, you can impose whatever you want on to that bill. And it's one of those things where, and I talked about this when I was guest presenting in that class, legal literacy and media literacy are so important, where I am not a fan of my congressional representative, but I'm on her mailing list, because she will ask questions, like, do you think our taxpayer dollars should fund killing babies? And because I know that she's a conservative woman, I know what issue she's addressing. She's talking about Planned Parenthood and abortion. And so I will answer that survey, based on the question I know she's asking, not the one it literally means. And that's something that if you aren't aware of the ongoing issues, and you aren't aware on how to like, read between the lines and figure out what someone's like background means for what they mean and a question like that you're going to be like, of course, we shouldn't kill babies with taxpayer dollars, things like that. Yeah. And so intentional uses of killing and babies for the abortion example. It's stuff like that, where it's like they know what they're doing. It's very intentional. And it's something that, it goes across political parties, it's not just a conservative thing. But in the state of Texas, very easy to look at conservative push, conservative pushed legislation, like anti- critical-race-theory, anti-DEI, like I mentioned, the abortion stuff, it's all of those things that if you don't have a solid understanding of what's actually going on, it's so easy to be taken advantage of and manipulated. Because they'll make it sound good because they're making it sound like something it's not or they're leaving out, or they're misconstruing, or... I'll stop there.
Interviewer: Yeah, I actually have a question that could go further into that later on. So we can talk about the DCCE, the Division for Campus and Community Engagement, which was formerly the Division for Diversity and Community Engagement, right? Yes. So it's been closed, which was a major recent decision. So what do you think that this means for our community on campus? And then why do you think the division was included with the university's compliance? I've been even after it's changed. Yeah,
Undergraduate #5: I can speak to what it means for the community in terms of the communities I'm a part of. And I feel like for people of color, for people who aren't, you know, cis-het, like, I am a cis-woman, but not straight. So yes, um, and I feel like for all the various groups, so if you're disabled, if you are queer, if you are a person of color, these are all identities that put you at a societal disadvantage. And some of the things that were meant to support you and help you out, are being taken away, under the rhetoric that you don't need any handouts. You don't need special treatment. You don't need like you should be treated the same way as everyone else. You have to earn, you have to work hard, you got to, what is it? Lift yourself up by your bootstraps? All of those various narratives, pushed onto people who were starting not at the starting block, but 100 meters behind, or 200 or 300, because identities also build on top of each other. So if you're a person of color, and you're also queer, say you're a religious minority. Say you're also disabled, all of those things, they accumulate, and they put you at a further and further disadvantage because you're further and further away from what society considers the norm. And the standard and the default, and society is shaped for an image and a lot of times It's straight, cis, white man, able bodied, who comes from a middle class or higher background. That's who society is made for. And those are the people who are more like they have, I'm not gonna say the easiest shot to success, but they have less systemic barriers to achieving success. And success is something that can be defined in a bunch of different ways. So I'm not going to try and define that right now. But just theoretically, I hope that makes sense. So when society isn't built for you, and even if we just take the University of Texas at Austin, as a microcosm for society, a small version of society, some of those systemic barriers still exist. You can argue about the prevalence, the necessity of some of these initiatives, I would argue that they are necessary because you still see hate crimes, you still see inaccessibility.
I mean, I took a class taught by Dr. Allison Kafer. And she is in the English Department, and it was an English class that was very theoretical, and it was very much focused on disability studies, through literature and writing, in theory. Amazing class, changed my life, and really opened my eyes to how inaccessible UT is, not just for neurodivergents, but also just physical disabilities. We are a hilly campus, which is the fault of UT. Like, you get the land grant, you get the land grant. But- the way that they try and accommodate for people who use wheelchairs, or if you're on crutches, it doesn't always work. And the way that we deal with accessibility in terms of getting accommodations, for neurodivergents, or able bodied, in terms of like physical capabilities, it's hard, it's difficult, like the bureaucratic process of getting those accommodations is hard. And so some of the things that aren't effective, or aren't affected by SB 17, aren't necessarily effective as measures of making systems like systemic problems go away, because they're systemic, that's part of that's part of the problem is that they're so ingrained in the institution, or the landscape socially or physically. And then when you have all of these initiatives, and these community spaces where people are able to talk about their problems and feel heard, and feel secure, and feel supported, it doesn't make the problems go away. But it can make things feel better. And when you hear someone who has a similar experience to you, or can empathize with the problem, when you have those reserved spaces, it can make some of those systemic barriers easier to handle. And again, it doesn't make the systemic problem go away. But it does help people push through them and over them. And that's, it's so big, it's so big, and it's so important. And it really breaks my heart that there are going to be so many students who would have had such a different college experience, if the centers and spaces were still up and running, if they had these resources, and they felt that their identity beyond being a UT student was felt and acknowledged and respected.
I don't know, I guess it's something that I'll see because I'll be here for one more year. And I'll see what campus attitudes are like as they come. But I know a lot of people who used a lot of those resources, where they felt like that was a safe space to exist. And when a lot of sects of society tell you various parts of your identity mean you shouldn't exist. Having those spaces can be the difference between dropping out and staying in college. Yeah. And then what was your the other part of the question? Oh, why do I think it was-Yeah, kind of goes back to what I was saying about the rhetoric of- Oh, it's kind of like the rhetoric with affirmative action. Oh, no one needs a handout. Why are we funding, you know, why are my taxpayer dollars going towards blah, blah, blah, blah; stuff like that. Where it's like there's this idea in the United States of a meritocracy. Is the United States a true meritocracy? No, it is not. But that's a whole other lecture. It's a whole other can of worms. But there's this idea that of the American dream, but if you work hard, you'll you'll succeed. And success, at least in the United States very much has a financial connotation. And for that financial connotation, you need to have kind of an education connotation. So there's the idea of, if you work hard, you'll get into a good college. And if you work hard in college, you'll get a degree. And then you've got a good job, you've worked hard at your job, you'll get a raise, you'll make money, and you'll live happily ever after. That understanding does not take into account the fact that people start at different places in society. And this is something I learned in a sociology class I took in high school dual credit. I don't know if this has changed, but you are more likely to move horizontally and an economic class than up or down. So, if you start off middle class, you're more likely to stay middle class for the rest of your life. So, socioeconomic mobility is not as easy as people make it out to be, especially when you don't start high up on that socioeconomic ladder. If the United States was a true meritocracy, everyone would start out with the exact same thing. But that's not the case. Because there are social perceptions. There are economic barriers, there are so many things that go into what make what can make a person successful; luck is such a big factor in the United States for making it. I think it was something that- I don't remember where I heard this, but the idea that the biggest indicator of a student's success is their zip code. Like their- the biggest predictor of someone's success is their zip code. I heard that and that changed my outlook on what it means to be successful and what are like what it takes to be successful. And because there's like an ignorance or an overlooking of all the barriers that need to be evened out, for a meritocracy to exist, there is that pushed narrative of we shouldn't be funding these divisive- people are victimizing themselves. "This is new racism, stop putting labels on everything. Can't we just be people we're all one race, the human race." There are countries who try to go at things from a colorblind angle France, France, I study France, by the way.
Undergraduate #5: And even though on paper, they don't see race, socially they do. Because it's something especially in the United States, moving away from France, it is something that has been in our society since before the country was a country. You can't just make that go away by taking away some labels on papers. What you do take away is a consciousness of what those labels and identities mean for the people they're attached to, both for themselves and for their place and ability in society to achieve whatever your definition of success is. So I believe it was included in SB 17, these changes- I know that it was like, I don't remember who this was. I don't know if this was Abbott or who said this, but it was the idea that like, you know, "Oh, we saw that some things were moved- Like they changed the name and they moved it around, but it's still performed the same duty." That it still performed the same job. And that's why, because it's not just the name. It's not like an on paper thing. They genuinely want what they perceive as anti-meritocracy to go away. Under the guise of "Oh, your taxpayer dollars, ah."
Interviewer: Yeah. I think you're talking about Senator Brandon Creighton.
Undergraduate #5: Oh, my Lord.
Interviewer: Yeah, he's the author of the of the bill. And then he also sent that letter out to the universities recently about it. Which is very interesting, because a lot of people have brought this up in general to me about how funding is kind of the crux of where this is coming from, but not necessarily- it kind of is about the money. But I also have seen that because in that letter was essentially a threat of if you're not complying you're going to lose state funding. UT had what I would call panic response. And so that's what was included that letter.
Undergraduate #5: This is something I just want to throw out there for the people listening. How much of UT's funds come from the state, and how much come from donors? Because UT has a lot of donors. How much comes from tuition?
Interviewer: We have an incredibly large endowment from donors.
Undergraduate #5: So I wonder, what do donors think of this? Because is it taxpayer money, or is it donors money? Students, who pay tuition, even if their tuition is offset by government funds, they're still contributing to some degree to UT's financial status. What about students voices? Especially students who pay taxes? Just throwing that out there. I don't have numbers.
Interviewer: But that's a good point, we do have a very, very large endowment from donors; very, very large. So the next question that I do have for you is, before any of the changes were implemented on campus, how did you feel about the efforts to foster inclusivity at UT?
Undergraduate #5: UT, I think is one of those places where there are so many opportunities to find your people. And as I mentioned before, it doesn't fix systemic problems, you will see racism, sexism, homophobia, you'll see it with groups on campus, you know, groups, fighting against groups, things like that. But that happens again, if UT is a microcosm for society, that's going to happen regardless. But I do think that there were a lot of ways that UT tried. And I'm not going to say they did it the most effectively. Because there were always things you could do better. But at the very least an effort was there, the fact that these centers do exist, and the fact that you do have people who are working, who do care about this stuff, because their own identities are reflected in the work that they do. Or because they just genuinely are empathetic people who understand why these spaces and resources are important. I do think that those options were there. So for example, for people like the food pantry, I think it's great that we have it. And I think it's great that it's one of those things like the UT Outpost, where you don't need to prove that you need anything. I've talked about, like, what is it, like disability accommodations, and how I don't believe that's accessible. And it's a bureaucratic mess, because people are afraid that people are going to take advantage of it, so on and so forth. But I do think in cases like the UT Outpost, you don't have to go through a bureaucratic mess. To get like canned goods, you can just show up and grab stuff. And I do think like that, or like the section of clothes, like the business casual and business professional stuff, they have there I think that's great. Providing the pads and tampons in like certain buildings. Amazing. I know that the Writing Center, they have like a shelf where they have a bunch of canned goods and snacks. So if you need food, you can take it from there as well. And I feel like it's one of those things where, you do need to know about it to take advantage of it. And I won't, I'm not gonna say anything about whether or not I think the advertising is effective or not, because I think some things just aren't relevant to me. So maybe that's why I'm not in the know. So I'm not sure how aware people are that these opportunities exist. But I do think that in some ways, UT is, I mean, I know it's more, there are more opportunities for inclusion and diversity than like in my hometown.
I think a part of that is that UT is so diverse, in a great way, because you have so many ethnic groups, linguistic groups, interest groups, identity based affinity groups that are representative, like religious events. Like, I don't know, I'm shocked to see how much- how many student organizations are available. And I think it's great that people are able to find their place. But I'm not going to pretend that it's perfect. Of course, like I'm not going to pretend that everything is inclusive, especially with the classroom. Sometimes people can say some things, teachers can say some things, and you go, "eugh." Yeah, I won't go further to that. But there are, there were a lot of opportunities. I feel like, at the very least, UT was trying. And there are a lot of people, a lot of faculty members who are definitely trying. And I think that that's something that's really important too, admin and faculty, members of the staff who aren't part of the overarching UT. Like Jay Hartzell himself isn't hand writing all of these initiatives, but there are people who are effective and who are closer to the ground and seeing the benefits of the spaces who are trying to foster equity, inclusion, diversity.
I mean, I benefit from the Mellon Mays undergraduate fellowship. And I genuinely because, in my family, I don't, I don't have anyone who's done a PhD. And I want to get my PhD. So it's like, well, how would I have figured out how to apply? A lot of it would have come from self-research and, you know, talking to professors and grad students just hoping that I'm asking the right questions; that they're telling me what I need to know. And that's how a lot of people do it, but having a program specifically helping me, and talking to me about some of the problems, the problems that I'm projected to have or that I'm worried about having. So for example, when I had a mini-crisis earlier this semester, I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm going to be a woman of color. I'm going to be talked over, I'm not going to have like- other people are gonna have so much space, because I want to go get a history PhD, and there's gonna be so many..." Yeah, I was really stressed about what my experience would be like. And Mellon Mays was a space where I could voice those concerns, and have people who went through the process, give me advice, and say, "I hear you, I understand." And I will say, you don't need someone who's gone through the experience to empathize; they don't need to have lived the exact set of circumstances, for their opinion, to be valid for them to be a good person to talk to. I talked to one of my former professors about my concerns, who is indeed a white man. And he made it a very comfortable space. And I felt like I was welcome to share my concerns and my problems. And I really do like respect and appreciate him for that, because I was very stressed about that conversation going into it. But there is also something of value to have someone who has gone through it. Because while, like this white professor, I love and adore him, there are some things that he's never had to experience, or think about experiencing. They're concerns that he never would have had when he went to grad school, but they're ones that I do. And so especially talking to like my fellow students, the ones who are in the same boat about to apply to grad school or about to go to grad school; it's like voicing those concerns and having a collective community, I would say, to lean upon, and rant to, vent to and you know, encourage each other, are all things that really do make a difference. They really make a difference in how you experience going through these problems that can't be solved by you. Like you can't fix the problem yourself. It's something that's beyond it's beyond you to fix. Yeah. What was the question again?
Interviewer: It was about how you felt about efforts to foster inclusivity. Right. So that was pretty on par, I think. I really appreciate your very like broad encompassing, because a lot of the interviews that I've done so far have been kind of very specific to their experiences. And this is specific to your experience, but it is kind of almost bigger picture. So it's very useful. So the next question I have is: Were any UT sponsored DEI resources, a part of your decision to come to UT?
Undergraduate #5: I did look into the different organizations that existed at UT. I wouldn't say it was a deciding factor for me. But the size of UT and the opportunities at UT were something that really made me want to go here. So like, the fact that we have so many groups, like we offer classes, in the language that I, and my family, speaks. And it's a language from South India. And it's a popular language in that state, but in terms of teaching it at a university, that's crazy that they would do that. And they've been doing it since my dad went to UT Arlington. They didn't offer classes at UT Arlington, but he had a friend who went to UT. And he was like, yeah, they have Malayalam classes. And I was like, "That's crazy. What?" And so, it was something that I did, like take into account, the fact that there were organizations based on being like South Asian, or being Malayali. That would all like kind of foster my transition to college and you know, help give me a sense of community. I looked- so I study Asian American Studies. And I think that is really cool that we have that; we're the only Center for Asian American Studies in this region of the U.S. And that's an opportunity I wouldn't have had elsewhere. I did look at the demographics of the school because my second choice was Southwestern University, up in Georgetown, so pretty close to here. It's like a small, private liberal arts university; and they are majority white. And so even though, independent of that, I would have picked UT over Southwestern, they're minor factors, but I will say, when my sister was looking at colleges, she toured Southwestern, because she got in there, and she was saying "You know, it's majority white; I didn't see another brown person there." And she was saying- that is something that she, more than I did, used in weighing her options, and she's gonna go to UT Arlington. And a part of that is it's more diverse, there are more opportunities for her, because she's a dancer, she can do her dance at UT Arlington, because those groups exist. Whereas at Southwestern University, you won't find a Bollywood dance group. And I think that the various opportunities were something that she definitely took into account when she was deciding for college. So for me, it wasn't as big of a deal. But for my sister, yes.
Interviewer: So you did touch on this- the second part of this question, so it's: In your own opinion, why do you think SB-17 was enacted? Well, you've kind've gone through that too, but then the second part is: Do you think allowing "merit" to determine admissions decisions, and other things, will be successful in promoting fairness? So you did touch on the meritocracy stuff earlier, but if you have anything further to say on that, go ahead.
Undergraduate #5: Let's see. What does merit mean? Is what I would like to ask. Is UT going back to using the SAT?
Interviewer: Actually, that's a good question. I don't know. The reason that I included that in there is because that is Senator Creighton's word. That's what he uses.
Undergraduate #5: They love throwing around words. Yeah.
Interviewer: I don't necessarily know what his definition of that is. I know he has used the term, or the phrase, returning higher education to being "merit-based". I don't really know necessarily what he means by that specifically, but that's what I do know about that.
Undergraduate #5: I will say, you have to look at what people mean, when they say merit. If you want to be completely objective, and even then you can't, then you have to look purely at test scores, and GPA, and grades. But because we do holistic admissions, you can't do that. And first, let's break down just using test scores. Someone who gets a perfect SAT. Why? Were their parents able to pay for them to do tutoring? Were they able to take it 50 times? Exaggeration, but more than once, because some schools will cover free SAT, but not necessarily free retakes. So how many times were they able to take the SAT? What preparation did they have? Even if they didn't have paid tutoring, or one of those test prep programs. Did they have time to study? Were they working a job when they were in high school to support their family? Or were they able to have free time dedicated towards schoolwork? So just using test scores does not inherently mean you're basing it off of merit.
So let's expand to holistic admissions where we look at short answers. If you exclude someone's circumstances, their income, their race, their ethnicity, so on and so forth. What are you basing it off of? And that's not to say that they're basing it purely on those factors. But if you eliminate those factors, what context do you remove for someone's experience? So for example, if you're able to start a nonprofit, that's great. But it means something very different. If you come from a high income neighborhood where your options were play lacrosse, start a nonprofit, or I don't know what else rich people do. But starting a nonprofit holds a bit more weight. If you live in, say, a low income area. So do you place a different weight on income? Let's shake things up. Imagine that you are staging protests. You are fighting for a cause, say whatever cause you want. And you are you know, doing your activism stuff; you're lobbying, you're calling your representatives, you're marching. What risks are associated with someone who's white, marching down the street with a sign? And what risks are associated with someone who's black, walking down the street holding a sign? Do you place different values on those experiences? Well, if you were erase color, theoretically you would value it the same thing. But what is the risk factor? What barriers did you have to overcome in order to make something happen? It's great if you worked in a lab and cured cancer. But how were you able to have access to a lab? Are you able to do unpaid internships in high school? Meaning, working for free? Can you do free labor? Can you afford to do that? Or do you have to take a job that doesn't look as good on a transcript, but gives you money to survive on?
There are so many factors that go into test scores, which theoretically is objective. It's a number, how do you have a bias in a number? Well, you can I just explained it. Written experiences. Again, if you knew from a young age that you wanted to be a cardiologist, why? Is it because your parents were cardiologists? Did that help shape your upbringing to where you knew what you needed to do in high school to be a cardiologist? For people who don't have cardiologist parents, what research did you have to do on your own to figure that stuff out? These are all things that make it so clear that you can't have a pure meritocracy for college admissions. There's the whole Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. I'm taking intro to Asian American history right now, and we talked about it. Because what happened is, Asian Americans were weaponized in the fight against affirmative action. And they talked about how when you- say you have a perfect SAT, 4.0 GPA, and then you get denied from Harvard, or Stanford, or Yale, or wherever it is you want to go. It's really easy for someone to be like, "Oh, yeah, it's because you're Asian." And for you to believe it. Because on paper, you have everything; you have every requirement. But what school lets people in purely on perfect GPA, and perfect SAT; there's a sense of entitlement there. That's similar to the rhetoric around jobs; like "Oh, immigrants are stealing our jobs." Our jobs? Was it your job to begin with? "Oh, someone who was less deserving than me stole my spot at Harvard." Your spot? Was it ever your spot?
Say what you want about holistic admissions, but you can't pretend that there's any way of objectively admitting students. The people who read these things are human beings, they'll have their own biases. You can work to overcome those, but even in a perfect world, someone's name is going to identify something about them. It's one of those things where there's so much that goes into the idea of a meritocracy, that just can't exist in our current society. So to say that this is turning us back to, to merit based admissions. It doesn't exist. Because imagine this, imagine, it's a school where they're admitting 600 students, and they have 1000 people who apply. And every single one of them has a perfect SAT score, and a 4.0 GPA. Who's getting the seats? If you're basing it off short answers, how are you valuing those experiences? It's like the idea of "fitting" into a campus life. All the things that you can't really- it's not merit based.
These are things where you can think it's merit, and to some degree, it's merit-based, but it's not "merit-based" in the way that people imagine it's merit-based. Because there's so much that goes behind everything someone does. I'm very much a big believer in "big history and little history." Yes, you are an individual, you are making choices. You are living life; but you are also the product of your environment. And you are living in a society that's not constructed by you. It's constructed by a group of people who maybe aren't even alive today. You are a little history, living in a big history. And while you may be so incredibly impressive, and that doesn't detract from how impressive you are, you are also the product of luck and circumstance. So, I would love to hear his definition of "merit-based", because I don't think his understanding of merit-based actually encompasses what it takes to be a true meritocracy in terms of even just college admissions.
Interviewer: You give so well thought out answers. It feels very academic.
Thank you, I was talking slow because I was formulating thoughts as I was going.
Interviewer: It sounds really good. So this one is interesting. What does diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you? And do you think it's important?
Undergraduate #5: Oh, yeah. You couldn't tell by now? Yeah, I do think that diversity, equity inclusion are important. I can break down each of those individual things. Diversity. Like you mentioned at the beginning of this interview, UT Austin does not reflect the racial statistics and demographics of the state. What does diversity do? Well, it offers different perspectives. It's kind of like studying history. So history in the United States was majority written by straight white men. And because of that, their outlooks on things are very distinct. The way they perceive other groups of people is centered, it's centered around a white perspective. Whereas if you had someone who was a person of color, say from the group that's being studied, engaging with these historians, or providing their own histories to go along into the historical record, and the canon, you'd see more detail, more nuance, different outlooks on certain values, practices, traditions, so on and so forth. And it's one of those things that applies to campuses. If you only have one type of person going to a university, it's just one big echo chamber. You never are pushed to think outside the bounds of your own understanding. You're just reinforced, and reinforced, and reinforced. But people aren't monolithic like that. We come from different cultures, we come from different backgrounds. The idea of individualism versus collectivism, the United States leans more individualistic, but in certain ways, there are collectivist elements. So when you engage with someone who comes from a more collectivist society, you're pushed to think about ways that you could incorporate those practices or values into your own life. And that could maybe compel social change, or even just personal change. And critical thinking is so important. And can you think critically, if you are only surrounded by people who look like you, who think like you, who talk like you, who've had the same life as you? Or do you need to be challenged do you need to see other perspectives to fully understand what the world is and how it works?
So diversity, obviously is important for people who aren't in diverse areas. And diversity also means that you're providing opportunities to people who have historically been marginalized and not have those opportunities. As a way, it's just one of those things that seems so common sense. I didn't know that diversity could be considered a bad word. I talked to my mom about this. I was telling her like, "ah, you know, they're getting rid of diversity initiatives." And she's like "Diversity?Diversity? Why is diversity bad now?" You ask them, I don't know. But diversity is something that's always been, in my understanding of the United States, one of those things that we're proud of. Like, America is proud that it's diverse. Of course, I'm speaking generally there are, you know, the racists and whatnot. But in general, the United States seems to be proud of the fact that it's a melting pot, that there are so many cultures, I come from Dallas, and like the fact that we can go to whatever ethnic restaurant and know that the people running it are part of that ethnic group. I love that. It is. It's a beautiful medley of different cultures, ethnicities, languages that kind of push and pull on each other, that meld with each other. Fusion food is something that I feel, not that it's inherently American, because fusion food exists everywhere. But the types of fusion that come out of the United States. It's great. Korean barbecue. Is that fusion?
Interviewer: I don't know. I feel like it might be that's I don't know that. I didn't think about that until when you said that. But maybe it is.
Undergraduate #5: Oh, interesting. I love it. I love that we're proud of being diverse because the United States, while there are some ways where you're pushed to assimilate. There are also ways that the United States is good for acculturation. As in you can add your culture to the national culture. And that's why hyphenated identities are welcome. In some places. They are kind of enforced on people as in I'm never going to be seen as just American. I'm going to be Indian American or Asian American, something like that. But I do think that it's great. But if you want to have like retain elements of your ethnic background or your cultural background, you can. In other countries, like France, it's an assimilation state, where the expectation for immigrants is that you conform to the national culture. And you don't retain those elements. Diversity to them is not it, doesn't have the same, like multiculturalism to them, does not have the same connotation. Who was it? Was it Angela Merkel, who called it a failed experiment in Europe, multiculturalism; it was something like that. And it's sad. At least from an American perspective. I would hate that. I wouldn't, I would not want to live in France. And so diversity for me has always been such something I'm so proud. Like, I live in the United States. And I'm proud that we are so diverse and like, yes, it's got all its problems, but I'm happy in the fact that we have this big medley at the very least. But now diversity is a bad word. Isn't that crazy? Wow.
Undergraduate #5: When it comes to equity, I've talked about it before, and how it's important to correct some of those historical wrongdoings. Because the whole thing with moving in the same socioeconomic group, and staying in the same class, if you start 100 meters before the starting block, you're not going to end up- you're often going to have to work 10 times harder to end up at the same place as the person who starts at the starting block. And it's just one of those things that is just going to perpetuate and perpetuate. There is government interference that makes things worse, historically: disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, redlining. When they when they got crack in low income neighborhoods, things like that, that just kind of reinforce those divisions between class or reinforce those divisions with race. And you can't beat that unless you have government initiatives to counteract it. Because remember, it's certain legal things that got us here in the first place. It's going to take legal things to get us out of, it to correct that. But I won't say more about equity, because I've talked about it a lot.
Undergraduate #5: And then inclusion. Why would inclusion- in what world is inclusion a bad word? Because people will say that DEI is exclusionary. "Oh, you're excluding white people, you're excluding straight people." Inclusion is in the name! It's one of those things where it seems like they don't realize that people who are on the margins are inherently excluded from certain spaces. So the point is to bring them in, as opposed to keeping them out. And people, I think, just don't get that. And it's one of those things that is just built into human nature: you want to feel included. And I feel like there's such an "us" versus "them" mentality that persists with human nature as well. Like it's something that from the beginning of time tribalism, "us" versus "them". What if we can all be an "us"? What if we were all- what if UT collectively was an "us"? And that's what you get with like, school spirit. Anytime we play OU, we're an "us". Alabama? Yes, we're an "us". So imagine if we kept that idea into regular daily life. Where you're an "us", but there's an understanding that with spaces for women, or for queer people, or for people of color, it's forming like an "us versus them" as opposed to: here's us, and then here's a sector of us. And this is how we make sure they're part of "us", as opposed to "them". I don't know if that metaphor makes sense. I feel like visually it may have worked better. But it's one of those things where you hear it, and you just can't imagine that it could be twisted in a way to sound bad. None of those three things inherently sound bad. But somehow the rhetoric has turned it into something that it really isn't.
Interviewer: Yeah, this is, not relevant. I'll probably cut it out. But, I've seen, on the internet, people mentioned that a lot of the times when politicians use buzzwords like DEI, BLM, things like that, those are the only two I can think of right now. They don't ever say what the actual terms are, Black Lives Matter. It's always just BLM and so it's kind of, or Antifa, that was the other one. So it's interesting that it's always like: "DEI is bad. DEI is this, DEI is that, DEI is exclusionary." But, I think it would be harder for people to agree with that if they said "diversity, equity and inclusion is bad," or "diversity, equity and inclusion is exclusionary," because then that's inherently oxymoronic. So, I think that it is interesting that they tend to use these acronyms as buzzwords and never actually say what the term is because I think it immediately just gives it its actual meaning.
Undergraduate #5: And I completely agree. I feel like it's really interesting the way that that works with anti critical race theory, where they'll say CRT, yeah. But you will see them say, "critical race theory" from time to time. And it's one of those things where, because critical race theory- Well, first of all, a lot of politicians don't understand it. And it's one of those things that's so- it seems scary, it seems, it has the word theory.
Interviewer: Because it's such a high academic thing.
Undergraduate #5: Because it's a legal theory! It's a legal theory! You learn it, for what, a paragraph in law school? Unless you take a class on critical race theory. But they will say critical race theory, I think more than they'll say, diversity, equity and inclusion, because it's easier to frame that as big scary, liberal indoctrination. You're so right. I hadn't thought about that. But that's really interesting.
Interviewer: It's not my own thoughts. But I saw somebody talk about it, and I was like, that makes a lot of sense, because especially with what we've seen recently, I don't know how often I see them talk about diversity, equity and inclusion, except for in the actual bill, which how many regular Texans are reading that? Other than us, who are in the middle of it? You know? So that was just, I don't know, that was a thought that I had. The next question is kind of the whole point of my project, so I do hope that you agree with this. Do you think this event is important to UT's history?
Undergraduate #5: Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. If you think about some of the big events in UT's history, something that you wouldn't think would be such a big deal, because it's sports stuff. Well, it's the type of sports stuff that people don't normally talk about. The integration of UT's football team.
Interviewer: Oh, yeah.
Undergraduate #5: That's common knowledge, that it took us a hell of a long time.
Interviewer: 1970.
Undergraduate #5: Yeah. Yeah. And the things people tend to remember about football. The years we win the championships. That's what people tend to remember. Or they remember an era. "Oh, the era of this coach, and this coach or this quarterback there."
Interviewer: Darryl K. Royal, the namesake of the stadium.
Undergraduate #5: Yeah, and for that fact, the integration of UT's football team, to remain in the cultural memory of UT, means it meant something. Talking about the statues, and the Eyes of Texas, those are all things that very much resonated with current events at the time. And because the current events of the time have expanded, and this is still part of that ongoing conversation about what it means to progress as a university, and what it means to remember, as a university, I feel like this is going to be part of that conversation. And I don't know if it's going to have the same impact in terms of cultural memory as the integration of UT's football team. But it goes along the same lines, because remember, UT is an old ass institution. Looking back, when I talked earlier about the landscape of the university. Why are our bathrooms so funky? Which building is it? I think it's Wagner, where the men's bathroom is on one floor, and then women's bathroom on another.
Interviewer: The six-pack are like that, too.
Undergraduate #5: Yes! Why? Well, because UT... UT was built for men.
Interviewer: And yeah, we're coming up on, I think we just passed 140 years. So coming up on 150; it's 1883. So if I'm doing the math correctly.
Undergraduate #5: Wow.
Interviewer: Should be 141 this year. Yeah.
Undergraduate #5: Isn't that crazy?
Undergraduate #5: There are so many milestones, and the milestones I think we remember culturally with UT are not "Oh, this is when the school opened." Like, yeah, I guess if you're interested in that, look at it. And if you're beefing with A&M, and you're debating about who's the first university of Texas or whatever, like you'll look at that. But it's not when did we win our first football game? Maybe it's the last time we won a championship. But it tends to be, at least in the circles that I'm in, some of these more social movements. So what happened with Vietnam? The student protests with Vietnam. Yeah. People are going to talk about the Black Lives Matter protests, in the same way we talk about the protests that happened in the 90s, after Rodney King, because it was a big deal. It's one of those things that fit into a larger national social trend, and therefore will fit in the cultural memory of UT, and it's history. Like we're always part of living history. But this is one of those big events that is mobilizing people. Yeah, it very much is yeah, in short amounts of time, just like the way that people mobilize the way that people are- I'm saying unionized not in the official, this is a labor union, but unionized as in coming together, collaborating, planning, demanding things from our university president, from other administrative administration workers, from government workers, from policy makers. It's something that is reminiscent of other major on campus events. We're at a point in time where we have so many things to focus on, because you see a lot of activism around Israel and Palestine. You see a lot of activism because we're in an election year. Yeah. And that's a little side note, isn't it? Interesting, the timing of some of these Bill enactments. Yeah. Because what what gets people to vote for people? Controversy? Bucha. There's a problem. And look, we Republicans are solving it, vote for us again, 2024. But I digress. We are living in a point where information is readily available. So international problems, national problems, and local problems, are all interwoven. A Muslim student can get assaulted, and the campus knows about it. And it fits into a larger narrative about what's going on overseas, in the United States, in Texas, in Austin at UT. And I think the way that it's so easy to visualize these national patterns, or these international patterns, statewide patterns, especially for someone like myself, who does follow this stuff, because it's a scary trend. Yes. It's scary for someone who wants to be an academic like this is this is higher education, they're coming after Yeah. There's just so much that's there and available. And people, college campuses have historically been a center for activism and progressivism, for a few different reasons. A couple of being that people are getting more educated, they're hitting that age where they're aware of things beyond what they grew up with. They have schedules that are flexible enough to enable them to hold protests and sit ins and oh, what is the word, they can come together, and they can collaborate and they can organize. There are so many things that people are able to do with the schedules of a college student, finances, limited, depending on who you are. But you're able to do things in college, and you have so many people who are your age with similar schedules with flexible, flex flexibility. And even though UT does have a history of surveillance and cracking down on protests, and you can see that I won't go into that. But it's got its history, but it also has its history of students doing things anyway. Because they believe in something they believe that a social cause or a political cause. And they're willing to march for it. And they're willing to have their names and faces attached to things. And they're willing to, you know, make signs and they're willing to march and they're willing to disrupt because the actions in this case are disruptive towards student lives, you're taking something away from the place that they call home. And to imagine that that could go over well and not have people saying otherwise or trying to fight back I think is so ignorant, and shows that they don't understand the role that these institutions have played in student experiences. But yeah, we definitely are living in a big moment for you tea. In a good and bad way. Bad obviously because they're closing down all our stuff and firing people. But good in that I feel like we are uniting a lot. I say we I feel like the student body in a lot of ways, are uniting and finding very creative ways and very powerful and impactful ways to show their dissatisfaction and their unhappiness and their unrest. Whether or not it will be enough to cause the change, that at least I would want to see. I don't know, which makes me think that this is going to be more of a darker period of time and UT history. But we will see silver lining. And I mean, I'm gonna be historian so this will be great, great stuff for us. I don't think I'll study this in terms of history, but I will contribute as needed. I feel like I saw it a lot with pro-Palestine circles. The art that's come out of that the poetry and the music and the rise of the pros, it's the performances and the way that people will fundraise. It's been beautiful. And it's horrible the stuff that's going on. And I don't want to make it sound like the only way to have good artists through tragedy. I am not the type, I don't think you need to be depressed to be a good artist. But there are cultural staples that come out of tough times. And that includes arch. It includes signs of solidarity. And that's something that's happened historically. Ernest Hemingway was unfortunately depressed. But some of those like big names, you see their work, because it was reactionary to some of the horrible things that they experience. Yeah. And again, I would rather them not have to go through the horrible experience like I rather than lose the arch, and keep you know, their mental health intact, or their lives intact, you know that that wouldn't be the better alternative? Well, if you want people talk about Van Gogh, yeah, I would rather he wasn't depressed. I don't care if I lose the paintings, I would rather he wasn't depressed. But I do feel like it's one of those periods, it's going to produce a lot of stuff like that. People are going to remember, if you live through it, you're going to remember it. And I don't mean to conflate it with Vietnam. But it is something that's closer to other social movements that maybe don't have to deal with international war, but things that deal with a very localized issue that isn't necessarily localized, because it's a national trend, thanks to Texas, Florida. But it's all really important in terms of the history of UT. And I think because we are the flagship university, it means a lot for the rest of Texas, and the reactions from this university. And the impact it's able to make on the people who make policy is going to be, I would say, crucial to the bigger domino effect, and what it means for the other states looking at Texas as an example. Yeah.
Interviewer: That's a good point.
Undergraduate #5: Okay, not to get distracted with Hemingway and Van Gogh and all your notes. Okay.
Interviewer: I think that was the last question. Yeah. So that was the last actual question I had for you. Do you have anything else that you want to comment on?
Undergraduate #5: I would say some advice for the listeners out there. If you want to engage with this issue, you don't need to know the history of everything. And you don't need to know you don't need to know everything about every law and every piece of legislation ever. The things I would prompt you to be aware of, is what you need to know when engaging with legislation and political rhetoric, which is be able to define terms and make sure that the person using this language can divine can define those terms as well. accurately, yes. Can Ted Cruz divine to find? Can Ted Cruz define critical race theory? Can Senator Creighton define diversity, equity and inclusion? And can they define so in a way that doesn't inherently have political bias? So cannot can they define it in the way that they use it? Can they define it in a way that you would see in a dictionary? We can you check the definition of critical race theory in the American Bar Association. Does that match with what Ted Cruz says? No, no being able Well to read between the lines is important chatting, media literacy and knowing how bias impacts the wording of things. Having legal literacy, not in the sense of you need to go to law school, but in the sense of, you need to be able to identify when someone's trying to manipulate you. And you need to be able to, I guess, you need to be willing to try engaging with some of those big words, yeah, because they can be a make or break. And again, these are things that can be really difficult for some people, especially if their regular daily concern is I need to survive. And so I'm not going to tell you, like, you know, understand everything. Because that's just not realistic. It's not feasible. But these are things that impact large communities. And it sucks because the communities that are being hit are the ones who will have to take on the mental burden. And then the emotional burden, physical burden of trying to fight for these things, when, in theory, they have like the, the least resources to go off of just to get by in college. But it's something I have to encourage, if you're able to, please do engage, I'm going to do my best. But as I mentioned before, I'm not going to stay in Texas, at least for grad school, which breaks my heart because Texas is my home, and I love Texas, culturally, in a lot of ways. Politically, it does not love me. And even though I will do what I can, while I'm here, there is a limit to what I'm able to do. Yeah. And for the sake of my research, and my future, I will have to go away. So I'm not going to tell you devote your entire life, you know, throw away all your plans to solve this problem. But if you're able to do what you can do, make your voice heard, show up when you can engage, do do the things that are acceptable behavior of vote, and call your representatives, but also be creative and express your experience. And this is me speaking as like a future historian, aspiring aspiring historian, make your opinions known. So people know when they look back in 50 years, that when ut did these things, it wasn't met with silence. It was met with resistance. It was met with dissent. And it was met by a large population that was unhappy and didn't agree and wanted to fight for its right to exist. That's what I'll say.
Interviewer: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I'll go ahead and stop the recording.