Pride or Rhetoric? What Would Dr. Melvin P. Sikes Say?

I noticed the headlines about the DEI flap at The University of Iowa, the one with the official apparently spilling the beans about University of Iowa’s DEI program not going away despite being illegal while maybe being unaware of being filmed. I’m not going to retell the story.

However, it does remind me of a time back in the 1970s in the days of affirmative action when I was a freshman student at Huston-Tillotson College (now Huston-Tillotson University) in Austin, Texas.

I learned about tenacity to principle and practice from a visiting African American professor in educational psychology from the University of Texas. It was 1975. Dr. Melvin P. Sikes paced back and forth across the Agard-Lovinggood auditorium stage in a lemon-yellow leisure suit as he talked about the importance of bringing about change in society.

He was a scholar yet decried the pursuit of the mere trappings of scholarship, exhorting us to work directly for change where it was needed most. He didn’t assign term papers, but sent me and another freshman to the Austin Police Department. The goal evidently was to make them nervous by our requests for the Uniform Crime Report, which Dr. Sikes suspected might reveal a tendency to arrest blacks more frequently than whites. He wasn’t satisfied with merely studying society’s institutions; he worked to change them for the better. Although we were probably just as nervous as the police were, this real-life lesson about the importance of applying principles of change directly to society was awkward.

Nothing like confronting social issues head on, right?

We would have preferred a term paper. We sat in the police station looking at the Uniform Crime Report, which was the only resource we could get. I think we were there a couple of hours; it felt a lot longer than that. The officer who got us the paperwork was polite, but a little stiff and wasn’t really open to anything like an interview or anything close to that. I can’t remember what we came up with as a write-up for what felt like a fiasco. I’m pretty sure we didn’t bring about anything even close to change. It was a humbling experience. Maybe that was the point but I’ll never know.

Dr. Melvin P. Sikes was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen although he didn’t see combat. He was the dean of two historically black colleges, a clinical psychologist, and a University of Texas professor. He died in 2012 after a long and successful career as a psychologist, teacher, and author.

I found a podcast about him which was sponsored by the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health and which aired February 15, 2024. It’s an hour long, but there are segments of interviews of him in 1972 that I consider fascinating. A couple of times he says something which I wish the interviewer had allowed him to expand on. The gist of it is that we need to have a system of education which allows people to speak from the standpoint of pride rather than rhetoric. I think what he might have meant is that it would be wonderful if we felt secure and confident in ourselves to express our minds sincerely. The word “rhetoric” makes me think of talk that is persuasive, even impressive, but maybe insincere. I think it still fits today.

Unknown's avatar

Author: James Amos

I'm a retired consult-liaison psychiatrist. I navigated the path in a phased retirement program through the hospital where I was employed. I was fully retired as of June 30, 2020. This blog chronicles my journey.

2 thoughts on “Pride or Rhetoric? What Would Dr. Melvin P. Sikes Say?”

  1. Rhetoric is a generally ignored aspect of life that is very important. In the US our world has suddenly been transformed by what is essentially pre-Civil War rhetoric. Nobody seems to know what to do about it.

    Like

  2. Dr. Sikes’ approach was quietly revolutionary—trying to provoke change not through eloquent essays, but through lived inquiry. Sending students to request crime reports wasn’t rhetorical—it was courage in motion, a practice of meaningful disruption rather than speech alone.

    He seemed to teach that real transformation doesn’t come from crafting arguments but from stepping into the system and testing its integrity. That feels like coherence in action—where belief becomes practice, not just words. I’ve reflected on how alignment often follows action, not precedes it, in Why Revelation Is Always Retroactive. Truth blooms after the step, not before it.

    Thanks for revisiting the legacy of a thinker who didn’t settle for theory when action was within reach.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.