Should We Teach Students About the Specific White Privilege of Racism? Part 1: Reckless Whiteness

Reckless Whiteness. (Part 1)

A blog post entitled ‘Should we teach school students about white privilege?’ recently hit social media. Please take a peek before you read on.
This is Part 1 of a 3-part blog post related to it.

I believe it's a reckless piece, particularly in the current political climate. Ironically, it's also a textbook example of 'white privilege', whilst writing about white privilege. For a better understanding of how white people tend to assert an opinion on racism merely as an excuse to undermine it - whilst reproducing their own whiteness - there are much better things to read than my thoughts here.

But I thought it necessary to use Greg Ashman's blog piece to illustrate this, seeing as he has a strong social media platform with which teachers may be engaging.
Anyway, for these reasons, that blog post will serve as the 'exhibit' for some analysis here. But more of that in just a second. Firstly, allow me to make my position clear. I think a better term for 'white privilege' is 'the specific advantages of white racism', though this does presume an understanding that 'racism' is a system of seemingly well-intentioned people keeping things as they are (rather than just individual acts of explicitly obvious racism). Contrary to Greg's blog post, I do believe young people should be taught about the white privileges that are present due to structural and personal racism, and how these specific advantages exist for them now, and their links to history. Students should be helped to understand how global citizens of all backgrounds experience, hinder or help racial inequality (or - as is often the case for many white people - fail to notice their place in it) and how they might choose to act for a better world. 

Copyright of Barry Deutsch. Become a patron here.

This cannot be done properly without discussing whiteness. This may cause discomfort, but that is no reason to not do it.

In this 3-part blog I use the term 'white'. Please note that the term 'race' is a nonsense; it has almost no valid basis in biology, and was invented by imperial capitalists in order to justify European colonial crimes of humanity against Africans and indigenous victims (and their descendants). The concepts of racism, and its legacy, 'race', have been central to other humanitarian crimes since. It now serves as a useful 'divide and conquer' tool of ruling political parties as a means to maintain the hegemonic, systemic oppression of people of colour. 'White' is a socially-constructed classification, so its meaning shifts and varies with time and politics. I hope by writing this piece that I help uncover a little of its absurdity, but also acknowledge that - despite it being a fantasy - its effects in (re)producing oppression in society, and education, are real.
Ok. Let's take a closer look at Greg's post, the title of which I've subtlety edited to better reflect his intended object (and reader?). If you look very carefully you might be able to spot my correction:

Many educators (myself included) may be worried about discussing race in class. Unhelpfully, the blog post ignites that flame of fear (‘it's going to upset your [white] students’) and then pours gasoline on the fire (linking it - twice - to far-right radicalisation).

Crikey...would learning about the privileges of white racism cause white students to become radicalised? I could find no evidence that it would. Becoming an extremist is juuuust a little more complicated than learning that you hold some specific advantages based on your social identity. There are a cocktail of psychosocial, sociocultural, and state and geopolitical risk factors involved. Whilst ‘identity’ and ‘feelings of injustice’ may be associated with a risk of radicalisation these feelings are already present for some/all students of colour on a daily basis as they navigate whiteness (in the classroom or detention room, in media, on the streets, or in sports). By the author's rationale, shouldn't at least some of these victims of racial injustice have gone on to be radicalised? Or is there something quite particular about ‘whiteness’ that the author is acknowledging society should be afraid of, and which could not therefore be labelled as a general ‘majority’ privilege, as the author later suggests?

Whilst there is evidence for the ineffectiveness of some diversity training, and that poorly designed/delivered training may cause resentment, there is also evidence showing students benefit from it, and perhaps improve self-efficacy and experience joy. However, white teachers are often hostile to discussing whiteness, and for the wrong reason: guilt. His post rouses the grizzly-guilt bear from its slumber by taking the hot poker of falsehood (‘it's all about your inherited sin - how unfair!’) and prodding it in the ribs.   

But it’s not about guilt.

“Guilt and defensiveness are bricks in a wall against which we will all perish,

for they serve none of our futures” (Lorde)

A focus on guilt misdirects the reader to assume that teaching about white privilege involves blaming white people. The message to the (white) readership is: ‘you are being blamed’. You are the victim. You are wronged. But this is absolutely not what good anti-racist teaching is about; it misses the point entirely.

The title ‘Should we teach school students about white privilege?’ sets the limits of discussion and ignores that white privilege is one part of racism. 

Copyright of Barry Deutsch. Become a patron here.

Racism is commonly defined as individual, group, and structural power processes that are implicated in the reproduction of racial inequality. To talk about privilege and not racism would be like a plumber trying to explain your central heating system by telling you only about the radiators, and not the pipes, your boiler, or the energy supplier. To centre ‘the privilege bit’ immediately frames the teaching of racialised advantages as a simple antagonism. It signals to the reader the following falsehood: that when we talk about white privilege, we only talk about white privilege. This myopic reductionism appeals directly to the affective domain and makes for a seemingly strong authorial stance; imagine telling a group of school boys that because they are boys, they are responsible for misogyny in society. Of course it will end badly for everyone. The same occurs when reading the title – it appeals to (white) readers’ emotions; it propels (white) readers to a shared bond through feeling aggrieved and unfairly treated. Framing the discussion with the titular question therefore permits a circular reasoning, because it does exactly what the author later suggests he is afraid that anti-racist teaching does i.e. create resentment in white people.

So. It's not about guilt. But it is about understanding racism. Many teachers tend to have a limited understanding of contemporary systemic white racism and its emergence from colonialism. But rather than help here, his post muddies the water, whilst inferring it's clean enough to drink (‘I'll mention institutional racism and colonialism in just one paragraph - enough to signal I'm aware of them, and that they're not significant enough to engage with). It's like taking a hygienic shower before getting into the pool, then having a warm pee in the deep end i.e. the explicit signal is at odds with the implicit message.

The post continues in a state of flux, flip-flopping between the doublespeak of accepting, and then denying, that the specifically white privileges of racism exist.

One minute it’s real enough to make the author "angry":

The next minute it's "debatable" (and akin to when he temporarily felt a little bit uncomfortable realising the outward signs of his own skin whilst in Uganda once):

And the next minute still, it’s akin to any form of (class based) oppression:

The author's anecdote about his two students with African heritage recounting their racist victimisation is his acknowledgement that the specific racism of whiteness exists, despite later suggesting (via his trip to Uganda, and his great-grandfather’s hardship) it is similar enough to any majority group privilege that it should be (de)classified as such.

How can he hold both views simultaneously? If something is specific, it cannot be general, unless perhaps the lens with which you view it is so broad as to be meaningless. This is the logically untenable, but necessary paradoxical thinking one must hold in order to believe that whiteness bears enough similarity to general majority group privileges as to be deracialized and (de)classified as such. To suggest this depoliticisation of white racism is whiteness in action. It could be Schrödinger’s racist cat:

The post makes one good point: yes, there's a risk that the specific white privileges of racism can be taught badly. But it's a pity this point is used to make the suggestion that it should not be taught. At all.

I believe this suggestion lacks credibility. I believe it likely helps to maintain systemic racism. 
I believe it is reckless.

To be continued...(in Part 2)