Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.869172
Introduction
Roma (also known as Gypsies) are one of the most disenfranchised
minorities of Europe. For 20 years, Romania the country with the highest
number of Roma has allocated special places in universities within its
integration policy. Based on 57 interviews with Roma students/graduates,
this paper explores the perceived meanings of the policy and the tensions it
generates. The paper argues that as the afrmative action policy is poorly
articulated, individuals construct their own understanding in ways that t
their educational trajectories. Interviewed Roma see themselves as occupying
a precarious social space. Their main concern is not as much to hide perceived merit violations (as generally assumed in afrmative action debates),
but to handle (alleged) inadequacies given by their stigmatized ethnicity.
They need to manage two sets of dilemmas. One refers to the expectation to
give something back and the other to the tacit imperative for ethnicity disclosure. Ultimately, the article suggests that the policy of special places is
simultaneously inclusive and debilitating, as it carries social costs for the
minority students coming from stigmatized social groups.
Framing the context: afrmative action policies in Romania
Roma are, by far, the most disenfranchised minority of Romania; the
country with the highest Roma population1 in Europe. They have a history
*Email: pantea@policy.hu
2014 Taylor & Francis
M.-C. Pantea
of 500 years of slavery, which ceased merely 150 years ago. During the
Second World War over 25,000 Romanian Roma were deported to Transnistria. Now, one-quarter are illiterate (Soros Foundation Romania 2012) and
only one-half of Roma of working age are actually working, most often in
agriculture (World Bank 2010). Romanias afrmative action policy started
in 1992. Twenty years later, the policy conceived on the run (Roma Education Fund [REF] and Gallup 2009, 11) still carries critical administrative
and conceptual shortcomings. Besides elusive references to Roma inclusion,
the educational policy documents do not state any rationale and objectives
for the afrmative action policy:
There is no legislative act to stipulate with clarity what are the legitimacy
grounds of such measures, what are the objectives of these measures and
what is the time span planned in order to achieve the desired effects. (REF
and Gallup 2009, 132)
M.-C. Pantea
M.-C. Pantea
as little of 0.7% of those above age 16 (around 1732 Roma) have some
form of tertiary education6 (Soros Foundation Romania 2012), it follows
that the total number of those now in university or who recently graduated
is extremely low. Also, the need to establish trustful relationships with the
research participants, to ensure anonymity and to discuss in-depth issues
perceived as sensitive or a matter of internal knowledge limited the capacity to extend beyond this number. Interviewing was concluded when the
themes became repetitive.
Close to one-quarter of interviewees were from the countryside or from
segregated Roma communities, from very precarious economic and social
environments7. They had parents without stable incomes or siblings who
dropped out of school long ago. Three participants continued their education
while facing sometimes adamant family pressure to marry (a young man
was forcibly married in a spring holiday and then he ran away). Another
family had a history of precarious housing and evacuation. Yet the large
majority of the research participants came from small families living in
integrated environments, often at physical (and social) distance from the
extended kin. At least one parent held a permanent job. For many, the
history of social mobility and integration started generations ago. Several
interviewees were from musician families, a Roma branch with some social
and economic capital.
Grounded in a constructivist understanding, the paper prioritizes young
peoples perceptions, incomplete as they may be, and does not engage in
a purposeful search for the truth about afrmative action policies in
Romanias universities. Nevertheless, the ndings based on a limited and
convenience sample cannot be generalized beyond the individuals actually
included.
Recruitment and interviewing were aware that students understand and
position themselves in different ways in relation to Roma ethnicity: from
adhering to the emerging notion of Roma pride to making deliberate
efforts for concealing potential association with Romaness. Both recruitment
and interviewing were sensitive to participants personal choices and tried
to avoid causing unwarranted distress. Previous familiarity with some interviewees who prefer not to declare having a Roma background was instrumental in gaining a closer understanding on the eld, and compensated to
some extent for under-sampling the less vocal youth.
Research ndings
The next three sections will analyse the meanings of afrmative action
among interviewees and the dilemmas it generates: the moral obligation to
give back and the regime of compulsory disclosure often discussed
in the context of other stigmatized groups, such as homosexual persons
(Decena 2008, 397).
M.-C. Pantea
Other times, young people may retrospectively search for meanings and
try to accommodate the rationales for afrmative action in their own educational trajectories. In a constructivist way, for some, the interview facilitated
this process of meaning-making:
Ive never liked to study. Now, when learning psychology, Im thinking that I
might have had some learning problems. I was always waiting for examples
from them [the teachers]. I couldnt understand the written text. I wanted
them to explain things. I needed to process stuff and I used to learn a lot
from practice [] Thats why I had poor grades. In this respect, the special
places thing was very good for me. (Sidonia, age 26)
Young Roma may reject afrmative action for the same reason as many
from majority population. They may also consider it a violation of meritocracy and a great detriment to the Roma not in special places:
I know them [Roma in special places] very well. They hang around some
NGOs all day long, dont care about school, barely pass the exams and then
claim loudly that Roma are being discriminated against. (Viorica, age 24, not
in special places)
10
M.-C. Pantea
Afrmative action is also rejected out of concern for its more practical
implications (e.g. improper disclosure of recipients, more subtle racism and
a marginal status):
Im against the special places. I have colleagues who were divulged from
the second day and its known they are in the special places. (Alex, age 22)
Nevertheless, many of the interviewed young people (both those on afrmative action policies and those on the mainstream places) seem guided by a
moral principle of reciprocity. Giving back and helping my people were
recurrent themes in their accounts: Rather than bringing 100 clients to a
rm, Id rather bring 10 children back to school (Ioana, age 24). Yet
giving something back is easier said than done and many research
participants gradually become aware at the efforts involved:
Ill not be able to do this all my life. I want another lifestyle. This is not a
workplace, but a way of life. Its 24/7 [] Discrimination doesnt have
schedule. If someone is being evacuated you, as an activist, have to intervene
then not during your ofce hours. (Maria, age 26, not in the special places)
I wanted to help my own people, so to say. But I often wish I had a regular
job somewhere else and could mind my own business. But then I say if I
wasnt there no one else would help them. (Victor, age 25)
11
12
M.-C. Pantea
certicate does not involve any dilemmas, for many this is a matter of concern that cannot counterbalance the economic benets of afrmative action.
Their main anxiety is not as much being perceived as violating the meritocratic principles, but being perceived as a Roma. The notions of being
othered and otherness is, thus, instrumental in understanding the experiences of young Roma, as well as the social environment that reinforces
and reproduces positions of domination and subordination (Johnson et al.
2004, 255). For instance, Dorina refused to apply to the special places, for
fear of making public her ethnicity. Consequently, she assumed enormous
nancial and social costs: from paying fees to securing more expensive
accommodation off campus8. She cut off the networks of support available
among other Roma students, in exchange for a frail sense of integration.
Yet while all her efforts gravitate around ensuring secrecy on her ethnicity,
Dorinas colleagues are well aware she is a Roma and presume she is in the
special places.
For others, being in the special places may trigger the compulsory declaration of ethnic identity. Thus, even if Veronica shared much of Dorinas
fear of being uncovered as a Roma, she gave into the pressure of her
Roma colleagues who, persistently asked her to declare her ethnicity or to
join their association, as a matter of moral duty. Often she experienced the
pressure as being unreasonable: from weekly text messages, to being
greeted in Romany when in the company of her Romanian colleagues. In
the end, she joined several Roma-related events, but remained reserved in
declaring ethnicity in other circles.
In inter-ethnic families, afrmative action challenges previously latent
notions of ethnicity and hybrid identication. At times, the debates may disrupt the established dynamics of power, with the rst-born siblings paying
the emotional costs for ice-breaking. Thus, interviewees reported several
instances when a parent did not agree that the child should apply for afrmative action (read: to declare Roma), sometimes at the expense of not
being able to attend university at all.
Although a debate on ethnicity may seem theoretically appealing, in
many cases young people apply to the special places because of more
practical reasons: I wanted to be sure I could get a place, Why not benet?, I dont like to recognize, but , and If I had this chance . Even
the most personal rationales appear not independent from the economic
ones:
I decided to do this in the memory of my father. He would turn over in his
grave to hear I paid so much for university, instead of doing something else
with this money. (Irina, age 19)
13
admission lists, including the names of those in the special places for
Roma. Interviewees experiences varied: from studying at departments
where their names were kept condential, to situations where their status
proliferated even in the attendance lists. Anonymization is more probably a
matter of individual choice by the staff than a deliberate policy. Even the
most outspoken research participants recalled initial anxiety over not having
any control over the disclosure of their ethnicity. Instances of (subtle) racism (e.g. professors accidentally mentioning ethnicity along their name or
even asking Roma to stand up) were experienced as carrying a huge
debilitating role.
Besides the manifestations of the subtle institutional racism, several
Roma students also reported a certain level of frank and disrespectful
curiosity among some of their colleagues:
Students knew they have colleagues in special places and tried to guess
And imagine they asked me if I didnt know who might be the Roma.
[Laughs] As a matter of fact, I still dont know who the other one is. I have
an inkling, but (Sandra, age 20)
Yet for others, condentiality does not seem to be a big issue: Everything
should be on the admission lists. Its about public money. Such reactions
do not indicate a lack of sensitivity, and need to be read against the conventions on public examinations in Romania, where the grades have always
been a matter of public record.
In opposition, some research participants used the notion of discrimination without being able to point to concrete discriminatory situations. Possible explanations are young people employing Roma organizations
rhetoric, or for them to experience what has been called the is it just me
phenomenon (Padilla 1997, 855). Alternatively, it may be that the new
forms of discrimination are more subtle, more symbolic and thus less
communicable. They are gestures, acts, signs that mark [Roma] as different (Vestel 2004, 428; cf. Fangen 2010, 136). On the other hand, interviewing came across situations of young people insisting they have not
experienced any discrimination: neither for being in the special places, nor
for being a Roma:
I didnt have any problems whatsoever. Im a Roma and my face makes that
clear. So, I couldnt hide. But I didnt have problems. (Gicu, age 23)
I was never discriminated against. No, never! Not even in high school. I got
along very well with everybody and they all knew I was a Roma [] I really
dont like this story of discrimination which is so overused. An educated person who thinks even a little bit doesnt have the word discrimination in his
vocabulary. Its not in mine. But today, these Roma organizations, in fact,
want discrimination to go on. They are searching for discrimination all the
time. And make a mountain out of a molehill, when in fact they should look
14
M.-C. Pantea
more carefully in their own yard. Cause they in turn may discriminate against
their own people. (Sebastian, age 23)
15
On the other hand, there are the explicit oppositional discourses (Those
who want to learn, will learn anyway or Im against discrimination of any
kind). In between these radical positions there are the silent strategies of
accepting the policy while questioning the meanings of ethnicity, while
passing as a majority student, or endorsing the policy as an (economic)
opportunity alone.
Decisions to apply to university using the afrmative action policy are
embedded in complex webs of assumptions, expectations, anxieties and calculus of opportunities. It is likely that, for many, the prospects of coming
out as a Roma are a disincentive for applying to the special places. In
inter-ethnic families, afrmative action choices may bring ethnicity from the
status of a silent/silenced topic into plain debate. In such cases, a young persons coming out as Roma may potentially destabilize others sense of self.
In the nal analysis, one should refrain from considering the application
for the special places is necessarily an emancipatory statement of coming
out, as there are (arguably many) young people on afrmative action who do
not declare their ethnic identity outside the necessary administrative cycles.
Yet, for some, afrmative action is, indeed, the road toward assuming ethnicity, despite initial personal struggles. The paper touched upon the continuous
tension experienced by Roma girls in their attempt to pass as Romanians, in a
context shaped by a disclosure imperative (McLean 2007, 151).
Interviewees perceived rationales for afrmative action bring back the
dilemmas on Roma relation with their collective history. To a certain extent,
afrmative action reactivates what Misztal called the clash between two theoretical stands: the approach which stresses the signicance of remembering
and the perspective which insists on the value of forgetting (2010, 24).
Yet, as Romanias Roma have different collective histories, applying the
historically grounded compensatory or redistributive arguments may not
have the same relevance for all. Also, the diversity and the corrective argument focusing on remedying present-day social injustices may not hold for
the Roma embracing hybrid identities: those passing as Romanians or
who internalized the lifestyles of majority population.
Young Roma need to navigate through environments perceived, at least
at the beginning, as unreceptive, characterized by a weak sensitivity to difference. For the time being, university culture seems to function under a
tacit expectation for Roma to declare their ethnicity, to the extent of making them internalize such expectations as reasonable. This is, nevertheless, a
manifestation of symbolic power: it conrms Roma placement in the social
hierarchy and requires the dominated to assume this, in exchange for the
promise for social mobility.
The paper advises that the understanding of self-disclosure needs to
go beyond the psychological explanations linking it with a healthy selfconcept, identity development or personal readiness. Such views render
16
M.-C. Pantea
References
Arneson, R. 2008. Equality of Opportunity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equalopportunity/.
Augoustinos, M., K. Tufn, and D. Every. 2005. New Racism, Meritocracy and
Individualism: Constraining Afrmative Action in Education. Discourse &
Society 16 (3): 315340.
Back, Les. 1996. New Ethnicities and Urban Culture: Racisms and Multiculture in
Young Lives. London: UCL Press.
Bergmann, B. 1996. In Defense of Afrmative Action. New York: Basic Books.
Bok, M. 2004. Education and Training for Low-Income Women: An Elusive
Goal. Aflia 19 (1): 3952.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
17
18
M.-C. Pantea
McLean, K. 2007. Hiding in the Closet? Bisexuals, Coming out and the Disclosure Imperative. Journal of Sociology 43 (2): 151166.
McPherson, M. 1983. Value Conicts in American Higher Education: A Survey.
Journal of Higher Education 54 (3): 243278.
Mihu, C. 2012. M-Am Fcut iganc s Intru la Facultate. Adevrul, August 8.
http://www.agerpres.ro/media/index.php/revista-presei/item/141313-Mamfacuttiganca-sa-intru-la-facultate-Adevarul.html.
Misztal, B. A. 2010. Collective Memory in a Global Age: Learning How and
What to Remember. Current Sociology 58 (1): 2444.
Moses, M. 2006. Why the Afrmative Action Debate Persists. the Role of Moral
Disagreement. Educational Policy 20 (4): 567586.
Oprea, A. 2005. The Arranged Marriage of Ana Maria Cioaba, Intra-Community
Oppression and Romani Feminist Ideals Transcending the Primitive Culture
Argument. European Journal of Womens Studies 12 (2): 133148.
Padilla, L. 1997. Intersectionality and Positionality: Situating Women of Color in
the Afrmative Action Dialogue. 66 Fordham Law Review 843: 853885.
Phoenix, A. 2011. Somali Young Women and Hierarchies of Belonging. Young
19 (3): 313331.
Reyes, X., and D. Ros. 2005. Dialoguing the Latina Experience in Higher Education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 4 (4): 377391.
REF (Roma Education Fund) and The GALLUP Organisation Romania. 2009.
Analysis of the Impact of Afrmative Action for Roma in High Schools, Vocational Schools and Universities. Working paper No 3.
Sander, R. 2004. A Systemic Analysis of Afrmative Action in American Law
Schools. Stanford Law Review 57: 367483.
Sigona, N. 2003. How Can a Nomad Be a Refugee? Kosovo Roma and Labelling Policy in Italy. Sociology 37 (1): 6979.
Smith, K. E. I. 2008. Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations.
In Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations, edited by K. E.
I. Smith and P. Leavy, 313. Brill: Leiden.
Soros Foundation Romania. 2012. Roma from Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain
between Social Inclusion and Migration. Bucharest: Soros Foundation Romania.
Sowell, T. 1990. Preferential Policies: An International Perspective. New York:
Morrow.
Stewart, M. 2004. Remembering without Commemoration: The Mnemonics and
Politics of Holocaust Memories among European Roma. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 10 (3): 561582.
Strike, K. 2006. Discussion of Fullinwider and Lichtenbergs Leveling the Playing
Field. Theory and Research in Education 4 (2): 185199.
Thompson, F. 2003. The Afrmative Action and Social Policy Views of a Select
Group of White Male Private High School Students. Education and Urban
Society 36 (1): 1643.
Tierney, W. G. 2007. Merit and Afrmative Action: Promulgating a Democratic
Public Culture. Urban Education 42 (5): 385402.
Tileaga, C. 2005. Accounting for Extreme Prejudice and Legitimating Blame in
Talk about the Romanies. Discourse & Society 16 (5): 603624.
Tremlett, A. 2009. Bringing Hybridity to Heterogeneity. Romani Studies 19 (2):
147168.
Trumpener, K. 1992. The Time of the Gypsies: A People without History in the
Narratives of the West. Critical Inquiry 18: 834884.
19
van Baar, H. 2010. From Time-banditry to the Challenge of Established Historiographies: Romany Contributions to Old and New Images of the Holocaust. In
Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives to Romany Studies, edited by M. Stewart and
M. Rvid, 153171. Budapest: CEU Press.
Vestel, V. 2004. A Community of Differences Hybridization, Polular Culture
and the Meaning of Social Relations among Multicultural Youngsters in
Rudenga, East Side of Oslo. Doctoral diss., NOVA, Oslo.
World Bank. 2010. Economic Costs of Roma Exclusion. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/Economic_Costs_Roa_Exclusion_Note_Final.
pdf.