From President Frank H. Wu:

Yesterday morning, I was humbled to gather with many friends of all backgrounds at the opening of our Louis Armstrong Center in Corona. The iconic trumpeter who is the namesake of this magnificent facility, beloved for singing of "a wonderful world," defied critics in calling out the racial segregation of his era. In the midst of his celebration, a murmur went through the crowd about the ruling issued by the divided Supreme Court. The news was expected but demoralizing nonetheless. 

A participant who earlier this week heard me deliver remarks including a vision for Queens College offered me a belated reaction. Though my explicit message was about all peoples being welcomed on our beautiful campus, this person was candid in sharing how others who hear such words might interpret them as not encompassing the communities with which they identify. 

I take heart in the example of Armstrong and recognize the requirement to continue reaching out to those who are not as enthusiastic about the advances he championed. Despite the devastating judicial decision, we should be inspired by Armstrong—"Pops"—who welcomed children to sit with him on his stoop in a neighborhood he embraced as home. As president of Queens College, I am committed to pursuing racial equality, as we must. 

As a longtime advocate for affirmative action, I delivered the opening keynote earlier this year at the inauguration of President Santa J. Ono at my law school alma mater, the University of Michigan. At this institution that advanced the argument for affirmative action a generation ago, I suggested we make a mistake by falling into the trap of debating affirmative action. 

The evidence proves, and this has not been disputed, that classroom discussion is enhanced, and the purpose of education better fulfilled, when people who do not think alike are present and participating as equals to one another. As race matters, facts matter. No amount of hand waving can dismiss what we can see and feel, what we must admit: while we have made progress and our ideals beckon the world over, problems remain and we need to do more to stay true to our promises. Much of the work of our professors is documenting these conditions, and our students know them well from their lived experiences.

To debate is to suppose that these matters are academic, a contest of winners and losers, soundbites and slogans, the sophist’s phrase and the tailor’s suit. Debates rile us up. We choose sides. It is as though all of us would be disappointed if the competitors sought consensus. We want to cheer for those who would divide “us” from “them.” 

Yet these are not rhetorical issues. They affect human lives. The better course is to strive for agreement, and then, as importantly, to take action. Every responsible leader declares they care about whether, in a democracy, we ensure that people have opportunity, genuine and tangible, not abstract and ultimately illusory.

To start with affirmative action is to commit the error of a debater. “Affirmative action” is merely a phrase, attracting anger deserved or not. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The term came into use to cover an array of programs intended to remedy discrimination and alleviate disparities. In law school, first year students are taught how to frame the question. Before anything else is uttered, this has already determined the answer. To start with affirmative action is to begin at the conclusion. The enduring challenge, if we are to be honest with ourselves, is what are we prepared to do, each and every one of us and especially those who would presume they can direct others. Students have a wonderful means of calling out hypocrisy. They describe behaviors as “performative” if they are not real. 

Perhaps diversity is like democracy, a process rather than an outcome. Diversity demands, as democracy does, our engagement, our participation, our exercise of rights as a fulfillment of responsibilities. We are compelled to confront and transcend gender bias, antisemitism, homophobia, and prejudice toward those who served in the military or are disabled; we recruit and retain all, not only as students but as faculty and staff. Even the six justices who would deny consideration of race as a factor in high stakes decision making would allow “race neutral” programs to proceed. 

We all process these moments through our personal vantage point. What has changed is that voices which would have been shouted down by the heckler’s jeer if they were allowed on stage at all now have the chance to express what otherwise would be unsaid. The son of immigrants, I am the first Asian American to lead Queens College and have been the first person of color in virtually all my professional leadership roles. I am aware, acutely, that regardless of my qualifications, I would not have have been considered without policies and practices that address explicit and implicit bias. Accordingly, given the parties involved in the pair of cases, I feel it vital to state openly that Asian Americans have benefitted from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts, including specifically affirmative action. This has happened directly and indirectly. Asian Americans would not even exist if it were not for the historic struggle for Black equality; millions of Asian newcomers, whose children and grandchildren are native born citizens alongside those from Europe and Africa and Latin America, were able to come to this great nation because of a specific piece of legislation, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. That bill was made possible by, and could be considered a companion to, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

I have tried as best as possible throughout my career to be a proponent of these important measures. In doing that, I have sought to promote principles of bridge building; this is not and should not be self-interest for any individual or any community. I am encouraged by the Asian American organizations that have put out statements to disavow the ideological campaign against established judicial precedent, which recruited Asian Americans as plaintiffs in this recent litigation and then defined the very term to omit those Asian Americans who are least privileged from the category altogether. As Asian Americans Advancing Justice quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated, "Equality requires acknowledgement of inequality." The organization recalled the words of law professor Mari Matsuda a full generation ago, in a defiant speech about how Asian Americans have been invoked: "We will not be used."

Our unique experiment in self-governance has flourished by expanding the circle of belonging. The Queens College cabinet I am privileged to work with, for example, has a range of talented individuals who would not have been found in authority a half century ago and do not resemble the picture elsewhere even now. I am convinced that we at Queens College will be able to continue to act, to ensure everyone counts and is valued, in a meaningful manner—and in compliance with law. Queens College, like the CUNY system it is integral part of, was established not to serve those accustomed to being served but those who have toiled and whose ancestors before them fought repression and fled totalitarianism. Long before the concept of service leadership was "a thing," our institution adopted a motto expressing an abiding belief in that imperative: "Discimus ut Serviamus: We Learn so that We May Serve." 

Let me be clear that all people belong at Queens College. Our campus boasts an incredibly diverse community, including many from historically marginalized communities. As an institution and as individuals, we value the talents, experience, and perspectives of all who contribute to our vibrant community. 

Although we face a temporary setback, The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded us "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” We are tested from time to time. As we showed during the pandemic, we will prevail. We have united again and again. I have confidence, and I have faith, in you and in us.