Frank Gilliam is a professor of political
science and the director of the Center for Communications and
Community at UCLA.
Perceptions are a powerful thing. They shape the way people
process information and influence how they will act in the future.
For political science professor and director of the Center for
Communications and Community Frank Gilliam, who studies perceptions
of people and communities of color, information and action is a
part of daily life. Although Gilliam deals with social phenomena,
his message is an exact science. In fact, it’s an equation
““ one he’s doing everything in his power to solve. It
goes something like this: accurate depictions of communities of
color in the news media plus increased investment in communities
equals change. Here The Bruin talks with Gilliam about race in
today’s society, his work at the Center, and what all this
means for the UCLA campus.
DB: Why is studying race in America, especially in the
post-Civil Rights era, still important? FG: Race has been and
continues to be one of the fundamental cleavages in American
society. It’s one of a handful of issues we have not gotten
much closure on. This country has continued to struggle to
establish the rules of inclusion. Whether it was Native Americans,
African Americans, European Americans at the turn of the 20th
century, or now immigrants from Central America, South America,
Asia and the Middle East ““ we continue to struggle with how
we make society accessible to people. Who is “us” and
who is “them?” ““ and that has been a source of
cleavage from the time of the Constitution, much like issues of the
power of the federal government versus the power of the states.
DB: What, in light of this, are some of the top-ranked
issues on the agenda of communities of color? FG: We are
entering into a stage where economic equity, both access and
outcomes, is probably the critical issue. There’s obviously
still work to be done on the social and political fronts, but I
think we could say that we have made significant progress on those
two. If you just think about the extent to which African Americans
are integrated into the mainstream American society today versus 50
years ago, there’s little doubt. There are black CEOs of AOL,
American Express, AVIS. Not enough, and the progress isn’t
fast enough ““ but that didn’t happen 50 years ago.
Politically, there’s little doubt that African Americans at
the local level, as well as other racial and ethnic minorities,
have made pretty significant strides. They’ve held the
mayor’s office in almost all major cities: Los Angeles, New
York, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Philadelphia, Seattle, Atlanta, New
Orleans, Houston, and so on. So, socially and politically
there’s been progress, but economically there are still vast
disparities. Whether it’s measured as income, or more
importantly as wealth, as well as employment, I think economics is
the new battleground. We’ve come a long way, but we have
farther to go.
DB: One of your projects is the Center for Communication and
Community. What is the goal of the center and what do you do?
FG:The center tries to do a few things. It tries to engage in basic
research around communications as they relate to primarily
communities of color. Secondly, we try to develop applications for
transforming communities through workshops where we try to
translate the basic research into on-the-ground applications that
community-based organizations and other community stakeholders can
utilize. And three, we serve a convening function, to try to help
develop communications infrastructures within transforming
communities. So the question is, what’s the greatest
challenge facing transforming communities? And the answer is:
people’s perceptions of those communities. Typically, they
are media-driven perceptions. Why don’t you want to invest in
Inglewood or Compton or Watts or South Chicago or the Bronx? Part
of it has to do with the public perception of those neighborhoods
and their residents. We try to work on communicating more accurate
depictions of these communities as places that deserve investment,
whether social, economic or private. All of this is aimed at
improving the life chances of children and families in these
communities.
DB: What has your work at the center shown about the various
communities? FG: We’ve worked in cities across the
country, from San Diego to Oakland to Hartford to Des Moines to
Inglewood. We see that the problems are generally much the same.
There’s a lack of economic opportunity, problems with police
departments, social justice, economic development (in terms of
employment for residents, and development of microeconomies for
these areas) and two other things. One, they have underdeveloped
communication skills. How ought they be better positioned to tell
their stories and explain to the world what’s going on in
these communities in a way that moves public will? Secondly, the
community members are more capable than most people think.
There’s a lot of really savvy people doing work in most of
these communities, and the problem is that nobody knows about it.
So part of our work is to surface some of this, and once that
happens it heightens the probability of investment.
DB: What kind of investment? FG: In its broadest sense.
It can be investing in institutions like schools and churches. It
can be economic investment: seeing them as markets for new business
and so on. It can be civic investment.
DB: One of the center’s key focal points is the media
and how it portrays people of color and their communities. What
kind of effect does the media have on these communities? FG:
In a single word, it’s corrosive. It has a corrosive effect
of public perception, public opinion and public will. If crime and
violence and deterioration are the primary story lines the media
covers about these communities, it’s no big surprise that
nobody wants to go there and nobody wants to invest there.
It’s what I sometimes call the “hood frame.” All
you have to say is those words and everybody knows what you mean.
Because of these reports, community stakeholders are unable to
attract investment.
DB: Are there any examples of cities where improved
perception has effected change? FG: What we have seen, at
least at the micro-level, is at least in communities where local
community-based organizations and other community stakeholders are
able to tell stronger stories and have better relations with the
media, the stories about the neighborhoods change. It’s not
about getting positive coverage, it’s about getting accurate
coverage. They’re going to report some things that
aren’t so good. But they’re also going to report all
the things that go on in a community. We’ve had people
influence what’s in the San Diego Union-Tribune, local TV in
Des Moines, and we expect to see a different line of coverage in
Hartford.
DB: When we talk about communities, we don’t want to
leave out the UCLA community. What are some of the issues we face
here? FG: That goes back to race and ethnicity as a cleavage
and source of tension. There’s a sort of widespread
misunderstanding about what’s really going on at this campus.
So, for example, take SP-1 and SP-2 and the whole movement around
that. The relative percentage of the black UCLA student body has
stayed the same for about 25 years. So, if affirmative action, at
least for blacks, was the goal, we haven’t seen any increase
““ although the discussion is as if somehow there are hoards
of undeserving black and Latino students at UCLA. There’s a
massive increase in Asian and Latin students in particular, and
that changed campus dynamics. However, given those shifts in the
student body, I do not think there’s been much shift in the
demographics of the gatekeeping positions of the university across
the UC as a whole. “Gatekeeping” meaning the general
administration, in athletics, in the faculty, at the Daily Bruin,
at ASUCLA or the UCLA Foundation. All the things that really matter
on the campus have not experienced the same shift that the student
body has. And that’s where the game is afoot now.
DB: What will the effects be of bringing people of color
into these meaningful positions? FG: The first effect is what
the non-effect will be, and that will be the non-slippage in the
quality of education at UCLA. If anything, it is likely to improve.
It will also provide a richer academic and administrative
experience for the student body. It’s important for people to
see people that look like them, or that don’t always look
like the dominant group, in positions of authority and leadership.
I don’t suspect you can even really measure how significant
that is in the lives of young people, many of whom have not had
role models from their group. Students of all races tell me
I’m the first black professor they’ve ever had.
It’s not just for the group’s identity, but for the
entire student body. Also, as the university looks to be more
involved in the broader Los Angeles community, the broader Los
Angeles community looks more like the UCLA student body, and less
like the UCLA administration.
DB: What can individuals, especially students, do to help
their communities? FG: What students need to do is get
informed. There’s a lot of misperception and
misunderstanding. I’m always encouraged to see students
getting to know other folks. There needs to be more of that. I
worry that there’s too much segregation in student life
““ of all sorts. I don’t pin it on one group over
another. But it would be a sad outcome if students came to a
tremendous institution like this, with the rich cultural experience
they could have, and only hang out with other kids that look like
them.
Interview conducted by Maegan Carberry, Daily Bruin Senior
Staff.