Should We Teach Students About the Specific White Privilege of Racism? Part 2: Uncovering Whiteness

Uncovering Whiteness. (Part 2)

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 2 of a 3-part blog post related to it.
In Part 1, I said that rather than less (or zero) teaching about the specific white privileges of racism, we should strive for better teaching of it, and to argue otherwise is dangerous. But to be open to learning more, students and educators need to be in a place where they can reflect on their own whiteness. They need skilled guidance to do this, especially since it may be so normal to them as to be invisible. I will use the blog post to help us see its whiteness and help to confront "our rigid refusal to look at ourselves" (Baldwin).
In the forthcoming Part 3 I apply practical advice and a constructive, loving way forwards for educators.

1. Any subject can be taught poorly (or well) and cause a "reaction". This is no reason to give up trying, as I contested in Part 1. Consider this: you are teaching an important text. But it has homophobia within it. Would you throw the whole thing out? Or would you use it as a learning opportunity? In the case of whiteness, perhaps resentment might be reduced by using the terms ‘white advantage’, or ‘white assets’, instead of 'white privilege'. Or better still, a myriad of other ways of improving the quality of the anti-racist teaching. To teach something better, educators research, reflect, and hone their craft; they don't chuck it out.
2. Remember there are students of colour in your classroom. Nothing in the blog post suggests the author is considering the reactions of these students (!). Teaching equitably means recognising our own biases and norms, before we can seek to teach well to all of our students. If we're only thinking about, or prioritising, the wellbeing of our white students, then that's white supremacist teaching. Consider how the blog post title alone is a discursive act of marginalisation (my added text in red):
3. Students of colour do not have the luxury of choosing to be ignorant of whiteness. Again, the blog post makes no attempt to consider this. Avoiding discussions of it disadvantages them, whilst insulating their white peers. This is whiteness in action.
4. Systems are not necessarily “abstract concepts” to people, especially to those who are disenfranchised by them. The black female educator who realises she is paid less for the same job as her white colleague is not confused by the abstract design of the system we live in. Though her job spec isn't stamped with the words 'Intersectional disadvantages', her observations and wage slip offer sufficient concrete understanding; she knows precisely why. As does the black student who knows the teacher gives her a harder time than her white peers. What students may not know is the history that has produced current oppressions. Which is where good teachers can help (see point 1).
5. The personal anecdotes exhibit textbook white privilege. There are tools of whiteness that white people often use when discussing racism. Whilst I am loathe to focus on the author's autobiographical narratives, there is no alternative if we wish to better understand tangible, concrete whiteness in action. The author's 'two students of African heritage', his 'working trip to Uganda', and his 'great-grandfather', tick boxes including but not limited to: proximity to blackness, false equivalence, misrepresentation of history etc. This book and this article are useful in understanding this.
6. White men often try to unilaterally dictate what is and what is not worthy of being included in curricula. And what is or is not 'true'.The realities of the white-privilege-of-racism are not “contestable”; racism and white privilege are facts. Also - what does endure mean? What are the values and criteria that underpin it? (Hint: it might be colonial epistemology). Could the blog post point us to the enduring theory, evidence, and consensus that negates the existence of white racialised assets? If so, could it confirm it has endured for longer than anti-colonial movements, post-colonial and decolonial theory, and anti-racist knowledge? And if not (and even if so), could it explain why it's accepted as the norm? Why it relegates ‘white racism as privilege’ to the counter/radical viewpoint, and not the other way round? Plus - what does contestable mean? It’s a truism anyway, since all ideas are essentially contestable. Does the devil need an advocate? Not here, because, and I repeat: It is not debatable that there are privileges specifically derived from being racialized as ‘white’. Aside from this issue (‘white-passing man of limited expertise and metacognition declares himself gate-keeper of what qualifies as worthy for inclusion in curriculum’), this does not reflect the nature of the contestations to which the post refers. Theory and evidence for anti-POC racism and whiteness has endured for centuries. Postcolonial theory has its genealogy located in anti-colonial movements and French poststructuralism, with the first manifestations of decolonial theory appearing in the Hispanic viceroyalties in the 16th-century, continuing (via e.g. Baldwin, Dubois, Césaire, Fanon, Malcolm X) onwards with contemporary scholars (e.g. Bhambra, Chakrabarty, Mignolo, Roediger, Sabaratnam, Wolfe). It relates to the work of critical scholars such as Ahmed, Andrews, Bell, Crenshaw, bell hooks, Gilborn, Hall, Ladson-Billings, Lorde, and Williams; it is also found within the works of authors of anti-racist texts such as DiAngelo, Eddo-Lodge, Kendi, and Oluo. Depending on one’s bias and lens, these theories are as enduring and contestable as any other theories.
7. History should not/cannot be taught without sociology.I'm astonished this needed to be said.
8. History taught “regardless of perceived race” is a well-intentioned (?) attempt at colour-blindness that is anything but neutral. Considering the historical actions of “people as people” sounds lovely, but is at best ludicrously naive and at worst an act of white supremacist censorship. As would be the censoring of how history is relevant to the here and now.
9. Contradicting oneself to justify a colourblind approach is...awkward. The post's author is reluctant to upset his white students with the reality of whiteness, but has previously argued for teaching "truths that may be inconvenient". Inconvenient to whom? It’s clear the inconveniences of his students of colour are not being considered. See point 2.
10. Consistently declining suggestions to read about the very topic he himself has tried to write about is a sinister brand of selective anti-intellectualism. For a proponent of a 'knowledge-rich' approach, this drips with hypocrisy. It's a common tactic used to ignore an argument, or to eschew the hard work required to more fully understand it. The example below sees Greg asking someone to read something specific, yet resisting the same request back to him. I imagine asking Donald Trump to go read a book that explains MOUs might be easier.

So - Should we teach students about racism and its unearned advantages of whiteness?

Yes - because understanding whiteness is fundamental to understanding systematic oppression and the personal, collective, and institutional responsibility to act for a more equal world in a racialized society. It is not about personal guilt. Nobody should be saying to white students only or simply that they're better off because of their skin colour. It is not about framing white privilege in a vacuum. Yes it as an exclusive 'knapsack', but it is not devoid of a wider understanding of its socio-historical origins and context. Nor does it mean that white people do not suffer from other oppressions, such as low socio-economic status. Yes, McIntosh’s metaphor is important, but it is not enough; on its own, or with an unskilled communicator, it could well backfire. Whiteness is a tricky topic (you may have gathered that thus far!). It is good that Greg's blog post highlighted this.

Understanding whiteness should take place within a decolonial praxis. If it doesn't then it's a hollow act of performative 'diversity'. Noody should be telling white students that colonialism was their fault. However, white privilege in a post-colonial (late-colonial? neocolonial?) world means their actions now may be contributing to ongoing racial inequalities, and it is this that they should be taught about.

The solution? Better teaching of racism, whiteness, and anti-racism - not less of it, or indeed avoiding it all together.

To be continued...(in the final Part 3)

________________________________________________

Interested in learning more and being part of the solution?

• Lots on twitter, here's just a couple: @RunnymedeTrust, @BAMEedNetwork, @AdvanceHE, @ResearchCRED
• And perhaps choose one of these to read this year :-)