BY JENNIFER RUTH AND EDDIE R. COLE

When the entire Black delegation of the Mississippi State Senate walked out to protest the vote on banning critical race theory on January 21, I thought about UCLA professor Eddie R. Cole’s 2020 book The Campus Color Line: College Presidents and the Struggle for Black Freedom. “The people who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges for trying to go to school are now upset that their grandchildren might learn that they threw rocks at Ruby Bridges for trying to go to school,” Mississippi Democratic Senate leader Derrick Simmons told Mississippi Today. Simmons also could have said: The people who rioted at Ole Miss when James Meredith enrolled, leaving two people dead and dozens injured, are now upset that their grandchildren might learn that they rioted. The turmoil around James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi is the context of Cole’s chapter, “’The University Has Become a Pawn’: The Fight for Autonomy at a Public University.” Other chapters of the book resonate just as strongly with events today and I wondered what Professor Cole made of these echoes. I asked him if he would answer a few questions by email and he graciously agreed.

Ruth: When you follow the news today—over voting rights, over free speech, over the Bills seeking to punish as “racist” anti-racist research and teaching, over affirmative action—are you reminded of the events and political dynamics that you cover in The Campus Color Line?

Cole: Yes. The racial issues that you just mentioned are not new. These are long-standing issues that are intertwined with colleges and universities. The ongoing attacks on voting rights should alarm academics who believe educating students to be engaged citizens is part of the core mission of higher education. The same can be said for free speech. The swift pushback on anti-racist research and teaching and affirmative is page out of the McCarthyism playbook where seemingly anything aimed at grappling with racial inequality and the legacy of racism is anti-American. In so many ways, the news today is the news of years past, and we’d be well served to study how our predecessors dealt with these issues.

Ruth: Your chapter on the University of Mississippi describes how, when James Meredith applied for admission, the Board of Trustees revoked the University Chancellor John Williams Davis’s authority so as to give more power to the virulently segregationist governor Ross Barnett. You explain how Davis navigated the pitched battle between “state sovereignty” and federal law that ensued. Today, we are seeing a similar movement to use “state sovereignty” to stem or reverse progress towards racial justice. The most relevant example of this, with regard to higher education, are the House Bills seeking to punish faculty for teaching so-called “divisive concepts” and/or critical race theory. What do you make of these state bills in light of the research you did for The Campus Color Line?

Cole: The bills are not surprising. History tells us there is always a notable swift political reaction to efforts to advance racial equality in the United States. My concern is how does higher education react. In the book, we see some academic leaders stand up to state officials in meaningful ways while many others remain silent to maintain good relations between their institution and the political majority. In the latter example, those leaders conceded their responsibility to lead, but that is not how a campus creates and maintains a culture that values academic freedom. Therefore, I’m most interested in seeing how—and if—today’s presidents and chancellors will forcefully reject state attempts to reprimand faculty or remain silent.

Ruth: Your last chapter, “A Truly Influential Role’: College Presidents Develop Affirmative Action Programs,” covers the complex dynamic between federal officials wishing to address racial discrimination, the white presidents of PWIs seeking to recruit Black students, and the HBCU presidents to whom they turned for advice. What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear two new cases on affirmative action and how university leaders should be preparing and responding to this decision?

Cole: First, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court is about to hear a debate over the narrowest understanding of affirmative action, and that understanding is centered around race-conscious admissions practices. That debate is only relevant to a select few dozen exclusive universities. In The Campus Color Line, however, I discuss the original affirmative action programs and initiatives. The initial plans for affirmative action focused on system-wide change and creating more access points to higher education. These programs focused on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) working with better-resourced universities. Yes, predominately white institutions started to actively consider race in their admissions processes, but most of the original affirmative action efforts were geared toward institutions that had long admitted more students from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds. Considering the original intent—an intent focused on addressing the legacy of racism, not just “diversity” at on white campuses—I would hope university leaders today use this Supreme Court case to revisit what affirmative action meant in the first place: system-wide change.

Ruth: One of the things I deeply appreciate about The Campus Color Line is its attention to the effects individuals have on group dynamics. Readers learn how individuals with institutional power handled various controversies—which often played out locally but had national implications—and why their words and actions mattered. For this reason, I recommended your book to my own university’s president, Portland State’s Stephen Percy, who has demonstrated a commitment to uprooting white supremacy at Portland State. What advice do you have for individuals with institutional power today?

Cole: I typically tell campus leaders two things. First, make sure your professional actions are aligned with your personal beliefs. Most people with institutional power today say they believe in creating meaningful change that immediately advances racial equity. If true, then I tell them to make sure every professional decision they make has that sense of immediacy. So, no more stalled decisions that get buried in task forces, committees, etc.—act now. Second, it is essential that they understand the social history of their institutions. People in power tend to know about the formal institutional history, but they know little social history—which is the people’s history. Once you know the people’s history, you start to lead by making decisions that put people first, not the institution. Because people make institutions successful, and if people are treated fairly, then the institution will thrive too.

Many thanks to Professor Cole for taking the time to answer my questions.