I don’t normally blog about frustrations in teaching. Well, I did vent about the flood of email I got last week (which has blessedly abated, and I’ve washed up on the beach like inert seaweed until the next deluge). As a rule, though, I don’t bitch and moan about student behavior. I don’t want my students to think I despise them, because in fact I’m very fond of them. I also don’t want them to worry that what they do and say will end up all of the intertubes, read by the audience of millions that Kittywampus reaches every day. (Ahem.) So to any students (past, present, or future) who might read this post: This is not about you. This is about me, as a teacher, and my thought process when I’m blindsided by a discussion that runs off the rails.
And so I need to think through what happened in my intro to women’s and gender studies class this morning. The topic of the day was racism. We read Peggy McIntosh’s classic “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Patricia Hill Collins’ “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination,” and Renee Martin’s blog post, Womanism/Feminism … Feminism/Womanism. We started off by talking about white privilege, which was framed (as always in my class) by emphasizing that structural racism usually looms larger than interpersonal bigotry, and that we can discuss the legacy of slavery more fruitfully if we don’t get all tangled up in guilt about the past but instead focus on our shared responsibility for a less-racist future.
Quickly, though, the discussion veered into the potential ills of affirmative action and reverse racism. And there we remained for most of the second hour. I tried to introduce the idea of intersectionality (which was on the syllabus, after all) to defuse the idea that there’s a hierarchy of oppressions. They loved the term Oppression Olympics, but then we were right back to affirmative action. I’m fine with devoting some time to the problems of justice that affirmative action can create for individuals. Having once administered a summer program that included affirmative action goals, I know there are better and worse approaches. However, we spent so much time on “reverse racism” that ACTUAL RACISM racism got short shrift.
I tried again to keep the train from derailing by repeating a definition of racism that Renee often uses at Womanist Musings: prejudice + power = racism. A couple of the students got solidly on board with that formulation, but others were visibly and audibly pissed off. I pulled the teacher trump card and said, “I don’t care if you guys don’t personally embrace this definition; it’s the one that we’re going to use in this classroom.” I stopped short of saying, “And it will be on the test!” but only because I was too slow on the uptake. 
So, even though I resorted to borderline bully tactics, that train drove straight into the ditch. And I’ve gotta take responsibility for it jumping the tracks, since I was the only engineer on board.
I’m not sure why the discussion unfolded as it did. This has been a group of open-minded students so far. During today’s discussion, they demonstrated more sensitivity to issues of socioeconomic class than is typical (and since class is the focus on Thursday, I’m hoping that discussion will be more fruitful). My students are overwhelmingly white. I myself am ultra-white (see my avatar if you doubt me.) This complicates my job as a teacher: When you’ve got maybe 15-20% people of color (POC) in the classroom, you’ll get a range of viewpoints, but no one will be able to sustain the fiction that racism hurts white people just as much as it hurts people of color.
A few hours later, while I was discussing my frustrations with a colleague, the puzzle pieces finally snapped into place. My friend (and occasional Kittywampus commenter) Sorra said, “Well, it’s no surprise, what with all the talk of Obama being a racist.” Ka-ching! As much as I’m tempted, I’m not trying to pass the buck from me to Glenn Beck, whom most of my students surely don’t watch anyway. It’s still my job to be an effective moderator in the classroom, no matter how the cultural climate degenerates. But even folks who don’t watch cable news absorb the vibe that Beck and his minions are spreading. Suddenly, with a black biracial man in the presidency, we’re allegedly living in a colorblind society where any expression of prejudice is considered equally harmful. While I don’t countenance hateful remarks or behavior toward any group, it’s just silly to say resentment of white people by POC is anywhere near as virulent as the systematic, structural, and pervasive racism backed by a multitude of enforcement mechanisms that most POC experience every day.
This video by Victor Zapata of Think Progress (via Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise) illustrates how the “reverse racism” meme is circulating. It might be hilarious if it weren’t so horrifying. Unfortunately, it’s not a parody.
I can only think that the resonance of “reverse racism” – which is just ludicrous applied to Obama! – testifies to the return of the repressed. In some of my fellow citizens, what’s repressed is plain old-fashioned racism. In others, it’s guilt over racism – theirs or their parents. In still others, it’s the denial of persistent inequality by basically good-hearted people who want to believe we inhabit a colorblind society. And of course affirmative action is a lightning rod for all of these feelings.
I really do believe my students are a bunch of good eggs, and so I’m optimistic that when we meet again on Thursday, we can move past the Oppression Olympics. We had a wonderful, empathetic discussion about Caster Semenya at the start of today’s class, with several students expressing their disgust at her loss of privacy and the freak-show tone of much of the coverage. More than arid intellectualizing, it’s empathy, after all, that can lead to an understanding of racism that’s broader than one’s own personal experience.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Sungold – excellent post! And true I think but so sad. At the moment, Obama’s election seems to be causing an ugly backlash. I hope this shifts somehow. I hope it’s a phase in the journey to understanding rather than a step backwards. But I’m not sure. I’ve had something like this conversation more often than I’d wish in the last months – also with respect to Justice Sotomayor’s decision in the “Firefighter” case. I wonder if it isn’t also a question of what happens when people are forced by circumstances, such as the tightening up of economic resources, to fight for those scarce resources, like scarce jobs. Maybe then the relatively powerless fight with whatever they have, even if it’s racism or sexism. I note also that many people are announcing the outbreak of gender equality – because women are more likely to be employed these days than men, among other things.
Yes, and one other important scarce resource is college financial aid and scholarships. My students had a real pile-on about affirmative action in the awarding of aid. There’s a large group of freshmen in this class, so they’re not looking for jobs just yet, but their families are feeling pressed and I’m sure my students feel this too.
I agree, too, that people “fight with whatever they have.” I’m pretty confident that none of my students would consider themselves ot be racist. And yet, there are festering resentments that people are loathe to call racist, yet can be played upon by demagogues. The desire to declare our society “colorblind” also serves to paper over racism.
I’m still not sure how much my students are absorbing of the hate campaigns. Most of them are tuned out of current news, so they aren’t watching CNN or Faux. For that reason, I’m reluctant to say that they’re definitely reacting to the country’s new mood. At the same time, the coincidence is striking – in my seven years of teaching this class, I’ve never before had such trouble keeping a discussion of racism on track.
1:
Sungold, prompted by Hysperia’s comment, I wonder if your study of 20th century German history prompts you to say anything further about the role of racism as a handy hook on which to hang the fear and anxiety created by a recession.
2:
Certainly here in the UK, women are more likely to be employed than men because, in many fields, they remain, regrettably, cheaper to employ.
3:
I have a sentiment that many good people in your country will have voted for your President, seeing race as part of his identity, and as a symbol of their wish for change. The fact that someone with his origins can reach out to be so inclusive with such easy oratory and, I think, such obvious sincerity, must have been a key element in his election. Now that he’s fighting the grubby realities of office, I hope those same good people don’t lose faith, and don’t forget that they elected a human being, not a magician.
I found Jimmy Carter’s words on this quite disturbing, particularly insofar as, in the current atmosphere, politicians can’t say anything without its being interpreted as some kind of ploy by their opponents. Well-intentioned interventions can often simply ratchet up the hysteria of the debate, so that it’s no longer a debate in any real sense. I hope cool heads, and the memory of why the majority voted as it did, will prevail.
Hi Reg!
To 1: Yes, there are definitely historical parallels. The Great Depression certainly worked to the advantage of fascists. But that still doesn’t explain why Germany and Italy and Spain embraced fascist regimes, yet racism was so much more virulent in Germany than in Italy or Spain. There were other factors at work, including the spread of “scientific” racism and anti-Semitism.
2: I agree that women’s lower wages are a major reason that they’ve been more likely than men to hang on to their jobs in this recession. The “outbreak of gender equality” that Hysperia gently mocks is liable to be just another of those “trend story” that the media love to peddle.
3: The reaction to Carter is disturbing but predictable. We’ve reached a point where the word “racist” is kryptonite, and anyone who uses it is accused of being the real hater. I tend to agree that the majority of Americans have good intentions, but unfortunately the radicals are sucking up all of the air time.
Ive been wondering about the who “reverse racism” thing. Okay I’ve always carried the understanding that racism is to do something to someone based on their race. Well now that we have the “privilege + power” thing going on I think its lead people to think that racism only works one way. A feeling that whether or something is racist or not is being determined by the who instead of the what and the why.
This leaves people thinking that the unfair acts against them based on their race suddenly don’t count as racist. Thus they come up with the term reverse racism as a way of saying “well since racism has been declared as only going one way then when it happens the other way is the reverse.”
Not trying to say it is correct to think that way (as far as I’m concerned all it takes is a racial motivation and where the people involved on the historical power scale is icing on the cake and should be discussed but is not what makes the act racist or not) but I think that’s where they are coming from.
Hi Danny – the forumula is actually prejudice (not privilege) + power. I do think that plenty of people of all colors harbor hate and prejudice based on race. There are resentments *between* various communities of POC, as well as from POC toward white people.
The key feature that distinguishes racism from other, race-based prejudice is that racism has a social, political, and economic power apparatus to reinforce it. That gives it a *structural* dimension that’s very important in perpetuating it.
I also think that people have legitimate grievances (such as anger at being unemployed stuck in a dead-end job) that get diverted into racial resentments, and illegitimate ones (such as resentment that a black man is now president). To the extent we can redress some of the real injustices, racism will diminish, but the second set of resentments are more intransigent because their roots are irrational.
The key feature that distinguishes racism from other, race-based prejudice is that racism has a social, political, and economic power apparatus to reinforce it. That gives it a *structural* dimension that’s very important in perpetuating it.
True however what I think is happening is that people (whether they admit it or not or whether it is intentional or not) are starting to say that the lack of the “structural dimension” in and of itself makes an action racist or not. In fact I wonder if the fact that people treat certain acts of racism are not as bad as others is evidence of a structural dimension at hand in which people are trying to prioritize some acts of racism as being worse than others.
Like I say nothing wrong with talking about the historic balance of power between races but that historic power balance should not be what spares some people from having their actions being called racist.
I see no problem for calling out racially motivated act, statements, and attitudes for being hateful or prejudiced. I do think the term racism should be reserved for those instances of hate and prejudice where the target gorup suffered historically (and today!) from being subordinated as a race.
Sungold
“I do think the term racism should be reserved for
those instances of hate and prejudice where the target group suffered historically
(and today!) from being subordinated as a race.”
Isn’t it simpler, and a more logical definition of the word “racism” to use it to describe any action or statement resulting from prejudice based on race?
As Danny says, we can bring in the humiliations and atrocities inflicted on one race by another in mitigation of one race’s racism, as born of understandable resentment in the face of privation or hhumiliation, but to start saying that “racism” means, effectively, something other than a simple definition of that word, over complicates matters.
In exactly the same way, I might find a woman’s prejudice against a man, born of the experience of oppression, more excusable than male prejudice, based simply on clinging to existing power and privilege; but I’d still call it sexism.
Murder is murder, although the sentence may vary. Rape is rape, whatever the imagined justification of the perpetrator.
Can’t we keep it simple?
In the usage of racism, there’s a tradeoff between simplicity and precision. Yes, it’s simpler to call all race-based hatred and prejudice “racism,” but this overlooks the broader power dynamics in society.
If a woman holds contempt for a man, we’ve got a pretty usable term for that, too: misandry.
Maybe this comes from living with a philosopher for the past 17 years, but I consider precise language important as the basis for analysis. I’m sure I don’t always meet that ideal, myself – I was surrounded by philosophers at a conference last spring, and I was humbled by their clarity of thought and expression – but I still see it as worth striving for.
Yes, it’s simpler to call all race-based hatred and prejudice “racism,” but this overlooks the broader power dynamics in society.
It could be said that trying to elevate the systematic above the individual does a disservice to the individual by way of telling them that since they share race/gender/etc… with the people that committed horrible things in the past the attack/insult/etc… they suffered somehow does not count or that its not as bad.
Which is why I (personally at least) insist on calling all such actions -ist with room discuss the systematic vs the individual. In my opinion they neither should be elevated above the other.
Maybe this comes from living with a philosopher for the past 17 years, but I consider precise language important as the basis for analysis. I’m sure I don’t always meet that ideal, myself – I was surrounded by philosophers at a conference last spring, and I was humbled by their clarity of thought and expression – but I still see it as worth striving for.
Perhaps this is your reason but with a lot of people who insist that women can’t be sexist against men and whites can’t be racist against people of color I am starting to wonder if they make such a strong case for the sake of sparing particular groups from the power behind those words. I say this because most of the time its people of color deciding that they can’t be racist against whites and women deciding that they can’t be sexist against men and they do so by deciding whose offense is systematic and whose is individual. People of color point out that they will not stand for whites to label and define their victimization yet they turn around and do that exact thing to whites.
So what you have is people deciding for members of other groups that they are not a part of what is and is not -ist by the who and not the what and why.
Forgive my persistence, but it seems a shame to hijack words which sound in their every sylable as if they should be general in application, and arbitrarily ascribe to them a particular meaning.
Misandry can be clearly understood in its particularity of application, just as words such as racism and sexism sound completely general, in that the word contains no clue that any particular power relation is being described.
So who decided this? Who steals general sounding words and ascribes particular meanings to them, presumably because they can’t be bothered to coin a term of their own which would better fit their purpose?
Hi Reg. I do see your point and it’s often difficult to explain to peope the different uses of the word “racism”. I’d bet that many or even most people understand its simple useage and don’t think of the systemic. At the same time, it’s more than a little artificial to ask people to talk about “systemic racism” and “simple racism”. And I’m not sure how far that would go toward resolving the misunderstandings anyway. The point for me is that when I’m discussing racism in an academic or educational setting of any kind, even in my more serious discussions outside the academy, I think it’s fair enough for me to define what I mean by the word.
“The point for me is that when I’m discussing racism in an academic or educational
setting of any kind, even in my more serious discussions outside the academy, I think
it’s fair enough for me to define what I mean by the word.”
Thanks Hysperia. If all those involved in a discussion are aware of the meaning of the words being used, especially potentially contentious words, then the discussion can make progress without getting bogged down in avoidable misunderstandings. I genuinely had not realised that words like “racism” and “sexism” had come to be used in ways which belie the apparent general application the words themselves would indicate; I.E., racism doesn’t refer to particular races, and sexism doesn’t refer to any particular sex.
However, now I know, and thanks again.
I second Hysperia’s remarks – thanks for jumping in while I was too swamped by my non-virtual life to respond!
Of course I can “enforce” a definition in the classroom in a way that I can’t do in the outside world. However, it still makes sense to have a term that includes *systemic* effects, as opposed to just interpersonal ones. So I’d like to advocate for my definition outside of the classroom as well. However, as usual, everyone can take what makes sense to them, and leave the rest.
[...] 27, 2009 by Sungold In response to the comments sparked by my post last week on reverse racism, I’d like to let Stephen Colbert have the final word. But first, I’ll try to be concise [...]
Sungold, I give you mad props for stepping back and reflecting on your practice. Doing so makes one a better teacher. Clearly you have students with a lot of their own reflecting to do.
Unfortunately, you will most likely not be able to cure what ails them in one semester. Often it takes a lifetime, and, even with that, some never get there. That said, you are touching lives, and changing minds and hearts.
Thanks, Marcy. Reflecting is part of the job. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don’t. Examining our own privileges and prejudices is a lifetime task for *all* of us, myself included.
This is an interesting group of students, because I’ve heard a lot of openness from them on transgender and intersex issues. I don’t have reason to think they’re any more or less progressive on racial issues that other groups I’ve taught; they were just more open in expressing concerns that usually lurk below the surface. Once they’re out in the surface, you can start to address and question those concerns. I just didn’t get the discussion to that stage.
I used to teach Women’s Studies and would talk about the prejudice plus power definition. In terms of whether POC could be racist, I would said that an individual could be racist or perform a racist act, make a racist remark, etc. But I asked them, What would happen if all of a sudden all of the POC became terribly racist, and refused to hire white people or depict them on TV, etc? The answer? Not much, since whites hold much more of the power, money, influence, etc. in society….Thus, POC racism doesn’t have much power.
This is a wonderful approach, and I’ll try it next time. It really underscores the systemic aspect of racism. Thanks so much for the idea!