Encountering “Non-Racist,” “Non-Racial,” “Non-Color-Seeing,” Do-Gooders
MICHELLE R. DUNLAP, CHRISTINA D. BURRELL, AND PENNEY JADE BEAUBRUN
Give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day, but teach a person to fish, and you feed them forever.
—Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie
There’s that moment when a well-liked or even maybe even well-loved, well-intentioned, wonderfully “non-racist” supposedly social-justice-seeking person tells you that they see no color, or their parents saw no color in their entire lives, or every problem on earth is all about socioeconomics and not at all about race, and blah, blah, blah. We can’t emotionally tolerate it anymore, mostly because both history and contemporary research after research study is not tolerating it anymore as it reveals that we do all see color, and as early as 6 months of age (Bronson & Merryman, 2009). Further, by denying it, more harm is exacted on minorities in either micro-aggressive or macro-aggressive forms, whether it is consciously perceived or not (Schofield, 1986; Sue, 2010). Not to mention that denying it warps social justice efforts by allowing people to ignore racial history, with them having bought into the idea that social justice is giving people something that they don’t have enough of rather than fixing the structures that historically have caused the inequities. The contemporary scientific fact is that humans do see color throughout our lives, and if we think we don’t or that we shouldn’t, we become dangerous to those who already are the most disenfranchised, misunderstood, shunned, or otherwise excluded in our society (Dunlap, Burrell, & Beaubrun, 2017; Evans, Taylor, Dunlap, & Miller, 2009; Schofield, 1986). Thus, the colorblind are more likely to put the blame for disenfranchised others’ plights mostly on the victims themselves instead of on the discriminatory structures that have played a key role in hindering whole groups of people. This is because the colorblind can’t see those structures—they are colorblind to them (Dunlap et al., 2017; Schofield, 1986). As two former students and a professor of color educated and working in predominantly White, often liberal, higher education and social service environments, we have faced our share of micro- and macro-aggressions. Having come from African American, Haitian, and biracial African/Euro American backgrounds, we are all too familiar with the pain that colorblind do-gooding can do, and its deleterious impact on social justice efforts and individual and community understanding. If partners can’t get past this first, initial phase of just hearing one another, with open eyes, willing to look, see, and learn from one another, then they most likely won’t get far enough into their engagement to actually get something productive and social-justice enhancing done.
This chapter discusses the role of our mindset for listening to the unheard, seeing beyond the lone minority representative, and understanding White privilege, colorblindness, and early racial identity development stages. We also share the resources and strategies we use to try to best traverse these interpersonal challenges while attempting to conserve our energies for the students, colleagues, and communities with whom we engage who have interest in learning and growing with us as we work collaboratively within social justice efforts.
We’ve been learning while engaging in higher education environments and grassroots communities for 60 combined years of our adult lives. These environments include educational settings, faith-based organizations, social-service settings, nonprofit organizations, community youth-oriented engagements, and community family support endeavors. We learn while also teaching, service-providing, volunteering, or otherwise facilitating in these environments. Thus, we often find the lines blurred between learner and teacher/facilitator, as we go about our engagements within a variety of communities. We find that the three of us share commonalities in our personal philosophies for engaging about difference, diversity, race, racism, racial-identity development, and colorblindness as we traverse the aforementioned environments. Like many Black women professionals engaged across venues, we negotiate these environments frequently in the course of our responsibilities, but also with the hope of inspiring some degree of shaking up of others’ sometimes rigid and stereotypical notions about communities of color—which historstatistically (our invented word) are disproportionately poor. By shaking up stereotypic notions and pushing for a more informed advocacy, we hope that social justice interests also will be shaken up and motivated. At the same time, we don’t want our heads cut off in the process—in other words, we’d rather not lose our support systems, our jobs, our friends, our health, and so on, but the reality is that we all know a fair share of women who have paid far too great a price for trying to be heard, resisting oppression, and/or fighting for what is right. Being brave in spaces can be much riskier for us, and certainly can cost us more (Hamblin, 2017).
Topics surrounding race and other identity categories such as sexuality, politics, and religion can be particularly touchy topics in general. When these conversations occur in settings where participants’ identities conflict across single or multiple categorical lines, they can be significantly more difficult (e.g., a conversation about sexuality between an opinionated conservative heterosexual person and an outspoken gay, lesbian, or bisexual person, who may or may not be of the same race or gender). Having difficult, brave, even contentious conversations is not the problem—it’s being able to hear the unheard partners, and move forward having seriously taken into account what has been said. We have selected what we see as four of the main obstacles that hinder not only conversations about race, other diversities, and social justice, but also social justice action. Our list is not exhaustive by any means, but we see it as a starting point for delineating some of the challenges that we (and no doubt many others) have experienced in our years of educational and community engagement even with well-intentioned, liberal do-gooders who still don’t get that they have not cornered the market on understanding minorities, racism, poverty, and the diversity of community perspectives that exist with respect to our society’s inequities and injustices.
It’s been our experience as women of color that sometimes unaware but well-intentioned do-gooders approach us and those with whom we partner in the community in ways that are perceived as maternalistic, condescending, and suggestive that the speaker has not heard one word that we have tried to communicate. It would be helpful if everyone could just stop and listen—not for the purpose of responding right away—but just to listen and digest, in order to process and at least grapple with what the other person is trying to say. Far too often, we are experiencing a do-gooder who attempts to “chastise” us in one way or another for our own feelings and impressions of the world around us or, worse, tries to tell us how we should feel. Two or three or four times of that from someone, and we’ve already emotionally checked out and moved on to the next thing on our very busy list of responsibilities. The opposite can also happen. For example, in many courses and community environments, when the time comes for liberals, and especially White liberals, to speak about race or other sensitive topics, it is not uncommon to observe them to shut down right away when challenged (Ladson-Billings, 1996). This leaves an unfair burden on minorities to do all of the grappling, risk taking, and speaking on these issues. Every time we speak, we put our neck on the line—and why should that burden fall only on us. Our observation is that the liberal colorblind would like the privilege to speak, but not the burden of possibly getting their heads chopped off, so to speak, if others don’t like what they are saying. This is a burden, however, that minorities live with every second of their entire lives. Another challenge involves do-gooders distancing themselves from conversations by speaking about others’ experiences without grappling with their own issues, socialization process, and experiences. These individuals may initially provide input as if from an outsider’s perspective, rather than by making “I” statements that indicate first-hand experiences or ownership of feelings and experiences that they themselves hold. From the perspective of others observing this, such depersonalization of the issue(s) may serve the purpose of removing oneself from any emotional attachment that may come with whatever they are sharing. Diversity work can be stressful emotionally, especially for students in early stages of racial identity development (Dunlap, 2011, 2013). As a protective measure, some may create a buffer against whatever response or rebuttal another person may have to their statement, story, or experience that they may share with them. This tendency to avoid the conversation or keep it at a very basic level takes away the ability to create any new, more authentic, understanding of one another, as any hopes for advancing the conversation on race, other differences, and/or social justice to any significant extent are diminished.
While we are promoting the idea of increasing our comfort with difficult dialogues so that there is greater ease in sharing, we are not promoting the idea that healthy conflict is always negative. We believe that completely shutting down or holding back during difficult discussions may be detrimental to the advancement of the conversation, while healthy conflict can lead to more authenticity in discussion and ideally provide those dialoguing with viewpoints that foster better understanding and social justice efforts in the future. Some collaborators have engaged dialogues proactively and consistently rather than waiting for future incidents. As minority former students, we have observed that when race topics were being discussed in academic settings, many students from a variety of backgrounds who shared their dilemmas and opinions with the groups did not appear as attentive to others’ issues. They seemed mostly eager to share their side of the story but did not seem as eager to listen to their peers who may have different experiences and opinions. As a result, no one seemed to have left the room with solutions to the problems or any general deeper understanding about how others experience race or other diversities. Thus, some left with the same point of views that they had before attending the classes or meetings, which made us feel that our and perhaps others’ valuable time and mental and emotional energy had been wasted. From the perspective of a minority faculty who has served on many diversity-related committees both inside and outside of academia, the experience has been similar to that of students. It is similar in that faculty, staff, and administration also struggle with issues of race, power, difference, silence, and so on. Whatever age group, diverse collaborations, even with colorblind do-gooders who may think they have already “arrived,” will be more successful when there is space and respect for authentic sharing and earnest listening and processing. Without it, any endeavor may likely mirror the social inequities against which we often have already unsuccessfully fought.
In situations where minorities are in the minority, both in terms of power relations and numerically speaking, conversations surrounding race can be especially difficult in meetings, classrooms, and other such settings. Many community members, professors, and fellow students expect minorities to know or relate to certain topics due to their apparent racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, or class categories. Occasionally, these facilitators of meetings or even professors may target a minority as a “spokesperson” unconsciously based on this assumption. Such action can create varying levels of discomfort in the student or person being targeted. In the classroom, if the student is the only minority in class or is the “token” minority student chosen as a spokesperson for the entire group, this discomfort may be escalated (Dunlap, Beaubrun, & Burrell, 2009). When members of a minority are targeted in this way, they may not have a readily available answer or opinion, which can be embarrassing, even humiliating—especially when the facilitator, teacher, or other students appear to expect the targeted individual to have a canned, well-formulated response. If an individual is targeted multiple times during a conversation or is repeatedly targeted throughout the span of the meetings or course, the person may come to dislike the class, the teacher, committee work, and/or fellow participants. They might also isolate themselves from the situation, emotionally checking out, or skipping meetings altogether to avoid being put in an uncomfortable situation. Diversity-related work is hard enough, but when colorblind do-gooders get the notion that it should be primarily the work of the few minorities in a situation, it overburdens the already burdened few, and allows the do-gooders to skate by without having to get into the trenches of this hard work.
From time to time we are called on to serve as diversity consultants to organizations or agencies. The biggest challenges that we observe in those situations are: (1) people who think they see no color, therefore they have no need for diversity training; (2) people who have a friend of color, spouse of color, child of color, neighbor of color, or office-mate of color who think that ensures their non-racism and makes them a diversity expert. They thus believe they have no need for further learning, teaching, or sharing about diversity issues; and (3) people (and these are the most difficult) who take pride in helping the poor, the illiterate, the sick, the less fortunate, and so on while remaining convinced they see no color. This latter group is often convinced that they have not a biased thought anywhere in their imagination for reasons such as their parents never in their entire lives saw color, or they never heard of the N-word until they were 52 years old, or perhaps they took a 2-hour (usually 90 minutes or less) diversity course in 1991 that taught them everything they needed to know about diversity to cover them until the end of time. This can present quite a challenge for consultants like ourselves who believe that 50% of the most effective diversity work is internal and long term—that is, it’s on the facilitators’ and participants’ internal selves, and over the course of entire lifespans. Therefore, we are very upfront with whomever we are engaging that our work will be a partnership, and most likely will barely scratch the surface of possible learning that can happen. Nonetheless, learning to posture ourselves for listening, and in terms of how to observe and ask questions and engage dialogue may be the skills that, when continually developed, are just as important as learning specific histories and “facts” about cultures/races/ethnicities that themselves are variable from individual to individual and day to day. So, what we’ve learned from the participants with whom we’ve consulted is that knowing how to ask questions, listen, and observe is just as important as knowing histories, well-researched cultural tendencies, and so on. In other words, learning how to position ourselves for engagement and learning is just as important as the passing on of specific knowledge because what we think we know about a group can change from person to person, group to group, and moment to moment. Both history and process, together, are important.
Recent research that we’ve conducted suggests that those who work hands-on with disenfranchised communities still also can hold colorblind ideologies, and further, these colorblind ideologies are associated with negative impressions of youth. To be specific, in a recent data analysis of 200 social workers and teachers, it was revealed that the more that these social service providers ascribed to colorblind ideology, the more significantly aggressive and out of control they saw a group of minority children they were asked to evaluate, even when controlling for race, gender, and social desirability (Dunlap et al., 2017). Therefore, naïve, colorblind ideologies, as in past studies, continues to be a challenge for community members who are engaging with well-intentioned, colorblind do-gooders.
Whenever race is discussed, the concept of White privilege (McIntosh, 1990) is often unwittingly overlooked or perhaps defensively ignored among some of our classmates and colleagues. An example of a White privilege is being able to walk into a store at the mall and not have the staff assume you are there to steal, or being able to use checks and credit cards without it being assumed that you may not be financially responsible (Dunlap, forthcoming; McIntosh, 1990). Throughout our experience of being minorities on majority White campuses and communities, we have participated in numerous race conversations with White students and faculty. We have observed that some are unaware of their unearned daily privileges, while others are, and yet others may choose to ignore their privilege perhaps as a defense mechanism (Dunlap, 2011, 2013; Dunlap, Scoggin, Green, and Davi, 2007; McIntosh, 1990). Many White students are unaware of their privilege because they have never been confronted with a situation that actualizes it for them. So, once they enter conversations, experience media, or engage in community settings that help bring their Whiteness and the unearned day-to-day privileges that often accompanies that Whiteness, they can begin grappling with what it means to be a White person in a broad range of U.S. society environments. Those grappling with this may need extra support and resources that will enable them to acknowledge and recognize where they are situated with respect to race, class, privilege, and oppression (Dunlap, 2011, 2013; Tatum, 1992). This will enable them to better understand how the cycle of privilege, racism, and discrimination is perpetuated in our society, and what role it has played in their social justice endeavor(s).
The concept of Racial Identity Development (RID) was defined by Janet E. Helms in her White Racial Identity Development Model and by William Cross in his Black Racial Identity Development Model (Helms, 1995; both reviewed in Dunlap, 2011 & Tatum, 1992). Individuals can be situated anywhere between being seemingly oblivious to the existence of racism altogether to being significantly aware of racism. Whites, specifically, can fall along the range of believing that they and our society are totally free of racism to being fully aware of their own racial identity and the privileges or disadvantages that accompany them, and can use their awareness as a home base from which to branch off and explore other groups with a more open mind, better informed, and with appropriate intentions. People of color may fall on one end where they place Whiteness on a pedestal and attempt to assimilate and be accepted, while others may actively seek to immerse themselves to one degree or another in their own culture so as to have a stronger cultural identity with their own group. Many people do not fit neatly into one or the other of these two models, as they may not consider themselves to be exclusively White or Black racially, therefore other models have been developed in order to assist anyone in thinking about and grappling with how the socially constructed concept of race and its history across the world has shaped us individually (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1989; Dunlap, 2011, 2013).
In spite of the growth in racial identity models since the early ’90s, we still find—both in academic and nonacademic settings—that most people have not yet done the work of grappling with their own racial identity stages. Therefore, they may not yet be able to examine their own developmental progress with respect to race and other diversities, much less anyone else’s. In classrooms and other working environments where racial identity development has not been addressed, individuals may find it more difficult to understand the origins of the experiences and points of views of their peers. They may have difficulty engaging authentically with others because they have not yet confronted the ways in which racial identity development stages have shaped and are affecting their own and others’ viewpoints. Some may be unwilling or unable to see the validity in what their peers are sharing with them because of the stage of racial identity development in which they find themselves (Dunlap et al., 2007; Dunlap 2011, 2013; Tatum, 1992). This hinders growth of individuals who are unaware of their racial identity progression, and often is frustrating for individuals who have explored such matters and are versed in their developmental progress.
Our stage of racial identity development, especially if it is an early stage or level, may not allow people to quickly connect that socioeconomic issues go hand in hand with race, and have an even more devastating and long-term impact on Blacks and other minorities than anyone (Dunlap 2011, 2013; Tatum, 1992). As the old saying goes, when White America catches a cold, Black America already has pneumonia, figuratively speaking, and research has truly confirmed this (Adelman, Smith, & Cheng, 2003). We’ve also noticed a tendency for well-intentioned grassroots do-gooders to want to help poor and/or minority communities exclusively by giving them things such as food, clothes, and school supplies, which is helpful indeed, and we would never suggest that this not be done. But we find ourselves feeling some frustration when we don’t see more efforts devoted to also incorporating a progressive component so that providing assistance is combined with teaching strategies and methods for demanding social justice and equity while also working to become more independent or self-sufficient. In other words, besides volunteers bringing clothes and food to those in need, can’t we also work on efforts to educate and empower those with whom we assist, which is a deeper level of engagement requiring the development of mutual trust? Otherwise, what we see happening is that our community-based volunteering help and efforts go out to the same families for years, decades, and even generations without families and their loved ones having the opportunity to engage a learning base that will help to both question the system while also working to move themselves out of their circumstances, if at all possible, and into a more empowered situation.
It’s been our experience that when suggesting this to well-intentioned do-gooders, while they are highly motivated to keep giving fish, they may not be as motivated to put resources into teaching the poor and disenfranchised how to fish. It’s been our experience that the more adept at critical thinking a person is, and the higher they are in their racial identity development, the more willing they may be to offer resources and supports for longer-term, more sustainable solutions, in addition to short-term immediate remedies. So, referring back to our “give a fish” notion, from our perspectives, first comes giving, then accompanied with that comes teaching or empowerment, and then accompanied with that comes social justice in which we can work toward structural change. We should always be striving to move toward greater sustainability and structural change, if we can, in our community engagements. Those still in denial about whether structural racial inequities still exist may be stuck at the exclusively “giving a fish” stage. We can no longer exclusively bring people food and clothes. Thus, understanding the role of racial identity development is helpful to us as we try to engage with diverse groups and work collaboratively toward self-empowerment and community social justice goals.
The four areas outlined above involve the interpersonal, and from our experience are preconditions to our ability to really see people for who they are, rather than for the stereotypes that we might imagine them to be, and thus to move forward to empowerment and social justice. In other words, if we don’t have our minds right, how are we going to collaboratively build something, fix something, rectify a wrong, and truly engage in social justice? We’ll be too busy exclusively collecting and handing out tons and tons of fish to figure out what needs to be changed in the system so that individuals won’t have to rely their whole lives and for generations to come on that same handing out of fish. The negative effects of all four of the key interpersonal challenges we have discussed can be diminished when students and faculty are educated on topics such as White privilege and racial identity development, and when there are various resources and supports made available to help facilitate conversations and collaborative efforts so that partners can more effectively move forward with their social justice collaborations.
One’s mindset can affect how one opens or closes themselves to really seeing the bigger picture beyond assumptions. Sometimes, being angry with or dismissive of the bearer of new information is easier, and often less effective. Over the years, a variety of methods, strategies, and resources have been engaged to assist with the interpersonal beginnings of community engagement and social justice work (Dunlap et al., 2017; Dunlap, 2000b, 2011, 2013; Dunlap et al., 2009; Dunlap et al., 2007; Evans et al., 2009). We will discuss some of the interpersonal strategies we have found to be helpful in community engagement and social justice endeavors in the sections that follow.
Decades ago, co-author Dunlap found that some students had difficulty seeing her as teaching about “children” whenever she incorporated children and families of color into her Children in a Multicultural Society course lectures. She did this in an effort to counter the exclusively White text discussions that were common in those days. She would get questions, complaints, and course evaluations questioning whether she should be talking about culture and race in a child development class. In other words, child development was seen as a White middle-class phenomenon, and to have to hear about the similarities and differences in developmental concepts and assumptions regarding other groups of children made some students feel they were being cheated out of their education. Some of these same students also saw her as having ulterior motives if and when she mentioned anything about the historical contexts of poverty, privilege, access, and disparities that their children and families faced. This made her life and teaching difficult for a short time. She brought this to her department chair, and together they tried to determine how Professor Dunlap could better support both herself and her students. Since there were no other African American women professors on campus at that time with whom she could consult, they turned to professors in similar situations at other institutions, the two men of color at our institution at that time, White allies doing multicultural work, and the reading resources available at the time (two of which she still uses: McIntosh, 1990; Tatum, 1992).
Professor Dunlap also found herself inspired to give her students a hypothetical analogy from the field of medicine. She asked them that if she were a heart surgeon who also happened to be good at brain surgery, would that make her any less of a surgeon in either area? They all agreed, no. She explained, then, that if she brings not only the conventional curriculum to them, and is expert at that as her education, training, and experience demanded, but also brings multicultural expertise to give them a fuller and deeper educational experience that will better prepare them for the real world, then she is doubly expert, and not less expert at either one. The resistant students seemed to get that, and were less resistant (Williams, Dunlap, & McCandies, 1999). Sometimes people need assistance in understanding how diverse research and perspectives strengthens their work rather than dilutes it.
We have found particular materials to be extremely useful over the years. One crucial resource has been Beverly Tatum’s article, “Talking about Race: The Application of Racial Identity Development in the Classroom” (1992), and the other Peggy McIntosh’s article “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” (1990). Students and community partners tend to love these two resources even to this day and have relied on them for two decades. Because these two articles tend to focus on Whiteness and Blackness exclusively, sometimes Asian, Latina, Indigenous, and biracial students would complain or find themselves confused as to where they fit within the models. So, over the years, Professor Dunlap developed alternatives models and resources that anyone, no matter their background, could use to examine their current stage, level, or depth of racial identity development (Dunlap, 2011, 2013) or what kind of diversity they may be experiencing in their community engagement (Dunlap, 1999, 2000b; Dunlap et al., 2007). So, to sum up, concerning her students, what she has learned is that when helping to prepare them for community engagement, they find it very useful to explore their own social location and understanding of themselves, their assumptions, and stereotypical ideas and expectations (Dunlap, 2000b, 2011, 2013). Exploration of racial identity development (Dunlap, 2011, 2013; Tatum, 1992) and, if applicable, White privilege (Dunlap et al., 2007; McIntosh, 1990) assists students and community partners in examining themselves and their own developmental stages with respect to reflecting on and grappling with race and racial issues, which also helps them to understand others who are at different stages than they are. This then can assist partners in their social justice endeavors, as interpersonal relations is the first step in any engagement. Collaborative partners can begin to see one another as potentially in process, and can use their own experiences and sharing to help engage and teach others, and learn from others, with Racial Identity Developmental theory, White privilege, resistance to colorblindness, and so on as backdrops for processing their engagements with others. As Black women in academia, we do not think we would ever want to teach or take a course without using Racial Identity Development as the preliminary self-work for ourselves and those with whom we engage (Dunlap, 1999; Dunlap et al., 2009).
Based on our experiences, we would agree that when well-trained professors and facilitators include constructive methods in their engagement strategies such as multimedia resources, participants likely feel more comfortable about expressing themselves regarding race and other diversity issues (Dunlap, 2000a, 2011; Williams et al., 1999). When minorities, alone, are not being targeted and the environment is not only inclusive but also welcoming, discussions surrounding diversity and social justice can be more gainfully facilitated. But in many situations such diversity unfortunately does not exist. While the following is not a substitute for appropriately diversifying an environment, it is one strategy we have used while also challenging organizations to improve the diversity of their staff, governing boards, and other areas needing attention. In our experience, media resources in combination with other communication dialogue strategies can help shift focus from the few minorities in a training and onto a media stimulus in which characters tell a story that can be critically analyzed by all participants (Dunlap, 1999, 2000a, forthcoming). All participants have the opportunity to project their thoughts, feelings, emotions, stories, and connections onto the characters and circumstances in the media, and then move from that to more personal engagement and eventually social justice discussions with each other.
Multimedia resources cannot substitute for the human diversity for which we should earnestly strive, but they can have some impact on our interpersonal development, as illustrated by the way that television and other media have shaped individual lives and society in general. Within a multicultural educational setting, media that offer realistic portrayals of the struggles, injustices, and added layers of stress that African Americans and other minorities encounter daily (Hamlin, 2017) are helpful for provoking conversation surrounding multicultural issues that may lead to greater diversity and social justice efforts (Omi, 2006). Through our studies and work at the college we have encountered numerous materials that have served as educational tools and stimulated authentic dialogue across groups in our classrooms (Dunlap, 2000, forthcoming; Dunlap et al., 2009). These tools are particularly useful because they appear not to provoke the same degree of defensiveness and resistance among students and community partners that discussions or readings alone often provoke (Dunlap, forthcoming; Williams et al., 1999). When culturally relevant multimedia are combined with readings and/or course discussions, we have noticed that the four hindrances discussed earlier are reduced.
Documentaries in particular can be very useful. For example, one of the tools professor Dunlap uses in both her Adolescent Development and her Children and Families in a Multicultural Society courses is the documentary A Girl Like Me, created for a high school literature project by then-student Kiri Davis (2005). This documentary explores the stereotypes and distorted viewpoints of what it means to be beautiful in mainstream America and how these views affect Black children, especially females. A Girl Like Me was modeled after the Kenneth Clark doll studies conducted first in the late 1940s. Essays and studies can be paired with such films, such as the essay “See Baby Discriminate” (Bronson & Merryman, 2009), which Dunlap uses in conjunction with A Girl Like Me. In this essay we are shown how racial attitudes are perpetuated in children even younger than 3 years old. We see how minority parents are more likely to explicitly talk about racism with their children than their White counterparts, and we see how this lack of openness in race discussions leads to children forming their own uninformed opinions and meanings about other racial and ethnic groups (Bronson & Merryman, 2009). This article is an eye-opener for many individuals who believe that colorblind practices in early childhood are most appropriate. These two resources together suggest that ideas about race begin in early childhood and should be addressed earlier than we have done in the past. Also discussed in conjunction with A Girl Like Me was a study conducted by the Black Women for Black Girls Giving Circle (BWBGGC, 2009), which explored not only the struggles that accompany being a Black girl but also the resilience we may hold seemingly from birth, according to the researchers. This is yet another essay to pair with documentaries to use as learning tools for students when difficult race discussions arise.
A fourth resource is Race the Power of Illusion (Adelman, 2003), a three-part documentary focused on understanding what race is and how the concept of race disproportionately advantages people who are White. The third and final segment of the documentary focuses on how institutions and policies advantage some groups at the expense of others. It also conveys how housing became a racialized matter, including the emergence of suburbs and ghettos. In her freshman seminar Black Children and Families, professor Dunlap used this film as a tool in discussing both current issues such as housing discrimination and its impact on children and families today, as well as the origins of these issues over the centuries. The use of these kinds of resources provided many students and community partners with a wider perspective of the racial situation in America (Dunlap, 1999). Another exceptionally useful resource is Ava DuVernay’s (2016) 13th, which offers an in-depth and shocking examination of the preschool-to-prison pipeline in historical context. We have all noticed that the use of film invokes a variety of reactions from students and community partners that otherwise might not be shared, such as surprise that racism and self-image remain issues with which minorities must grapple in our society. If employed strategically, these documentaries can be used in classrooms and community environments to foster more engaged and less silent or volatile educational discussions of multicultural, policy, and social justice issues for children and adults of all ages. With the aid of these tools, we can more actively engage students and community partners in conversations that are more productive than if we attempted to do so without the use of projective resources.
Feature films (e.g., Crooklyn) used in classrooms and community engagement settings can also reduce some of the hindrances previously discussed. In our experience, the silences that can occur out of fear of speaking and sharing can dissipate, and the tendency to single out minorities as spokespersons for their racial group can be minimized. This may be because, as mentioned previously, students and community partners are able to project their emotions, opinions, and frame their reactions around the individuals depicted in the film as opposed to using solely their own experiences as a basis for discussion (Dunlap, 1999; Dunlap et al., 2017). Such resources may make it easier for students or community partners to engage in discussion that allows them to branch off into more contemporary discussions related to social justice issues and endeavors at hand.
Based on our experiences, other recommendations for creating more multiculturally friendly classrooms and community engagement venues conducive to open and progressive conversations include providing an inclusive environment with a diverse staff and ample diverse resources for those who will engage in that environment. These resources should come in many forms—books, films, documentaries, posters depicting multicultural individuals as opposed to only White individuals—and be readily accessible to everyone. We also recommend that if multimedia resources are used they be paired with appropriate readings, discussion, or experiential activities (e.g., service learning), and that students or community partners should be provided with ample time to process the media. Because students and community partners all have unique experiences and understandings of race due to individual differences, processing time is necessary so they can hear and share their reactions and questions with peers, teachers, and/or facilitators.
While we have suggested several particular resources, others are also readily accessible, such as the website www.teachingtolerance.org. Websites of this nature provide free teaching kits and classroom or community activities to help teach a diverse array of students and groups.
In this chapter we have shared both written and multimedia resources that many instructors and other friends have found extremely helpful (even our do-gooder friends who just don’t get why we aren’t always impressed by what they are saying or doing) … and then there are those who, no matter what resources you suggest, will not consider any view other than their own. This is when we must make the decision to conserve our energies for those who truly want to engage in a two-way, not a one-way, conversation.
In summary, race is one of America’s taboo topics. Discussions surrounding race-related issues can trigger varying degrees of emotional responses and create a silent and tense atmosphere among individuals involved in the attempted discussion; this can be counterproductive to the interpersonal relations required for truly collaborative social justice work. Such a situation tends to perpetuate the cycle of racism, discrimination, stereotyping, and victim-blaming already so deeply rooted in American society. When these negatively stereotypical ideas are passed directly and indirectly along to our students and/or community partners, any hope of improving race relations and social justice in America diminishes. We believe the use of approaches and resources discussed in this chapter can help overcome obstacles and set an atmosphere of equity in collaboration toward social justice. We hope the information presented here can be used to improve the interpersonal experiences of both minority and mainstream individuals in settings where there are means to do so, such as in schools, community collaborations, and other social and social justice environments. Such practice tends to better engage students and community partners, helping us move beyond “do-gooding” toward social justice endeavors that promote the equitable changes we all want to see in our society.
Adelman, L., Smith, L., & Cheng, J. (2003). Producers, PBS Series, Part 3—The House We Live In. Race: The power of an illusion, Vol. 3. California Newsreel.
Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1989). A minority identity development model. In D. R. Atkinson, G. Morten, & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Counseling American minorities (pp. 35–52). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Black Women for Black Girls Giving Circle of the Twenty-First Century Foundation (BWBGGC) (2009). Black girls in New York City: Untold strength and resilience. Washington DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, pp. 1–63.
Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (Sept. 5, 2009). See baby discriminate. Newsweek.
Clark, K. (1955). Prejudice and your child. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dunlap, M. (1999). Tolerance and intolerance for African American children and families: Lessons from the movie Crooklyn. In J. Robertson’s (Ed.), Teaching for a tolerant world, Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English, Committee on Teaching about Genocide and Intolerance, 121–146.
Dunlap, M. (2000a). Teaching about children and families in a multicultural society. Transformations: The New Jersey Project Journal for Curriculum Transformation and Scholarship, 11(1), 28–34.
Dunlap, M. (2000b). Reaching out to children and families: Students model effective community service. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Dunlap, M. (2011). Thriving in a multicultural classroom. In C. P. Harvey & M. J. Allard (Eds.), Understanding and managing diversity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Dunlap, M. (2013). “Cross-cultural community engagement, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’s model of death and dying, and racial identity development.” In H. Fitzgerald, J. Primavera, and C. Burack (Eds.) Going public: Civic engagement, the scholarship of practice. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Dunlap, M. (forthcoming). Shopping while Black: Minority experiences in retail marketplaces & other consumer environments.
Dunlap, M., Beaubrun P. J. & Burrell, C. (2009). Minority perspectives on enhancing engagement and belonging in a liberal arts environment. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, Vol. 20/1.
Dunlap, M., Scoggin, J., Green, P., & Davi A. (2007, Spring). White students’ experiences of privilege and socioeconomic disparities: Toward a theoretical model. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 19–30.
Dunlap, M., Shueh, T. F., Beaubrun, P. J. & Burrell, C. (2018). Belief in colorblindness and perceptions of minority children during a fictionalized parent-child discipline scene. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 27(2), 193–213. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2017.1344946. Retrieved at www.tandfonline.com/eprint/AzpBSS4VBcGtF9iEfS2s/full
DuVernay, Ava (2016). 13th (documentary film). Netflix.
Evans, S. Y., Taylor, C. M., Dunlap, M. R., & Miller, D. S. (Eds.). (2009). African Americans and community engagement in higher education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Fox, J. [Prod./Dir.]. An American love story. (1999). NY: Zohe film Productions, www.pbs.org/lovestories
Hamblin, J. (2017). Why succeeding against the odds can make you sick. New York Times, January 27, 2017. www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/sunday/why-succeeding-against-the-odds-can-make-you-sick.html?
Helms, J. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and People of Color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1996). Silences as weapons: Challenges of a Black professor teaching White students. Theory into Practice, 35(2), 79–85.
Lee, S. [Prod./Dir.]. Lee, J. [Writer]. Crooklyn. (1994). Universal City, CA: MCA Universal Home Video.
MCC [Prod.]. Free indeed: A video drama about racism [1995, videocassette], Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee and MCC U.S.
McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, July/August.
Omi, M. (2006). In living color: Race and American culture. In S. Massik & J. Solomon (Eds.), Signs of life in the USA: Readings on popular culture for writers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Reed, T. [Prod./Dir.]. Once upon a time when we were colored. (1996). Los Angeles: Republic Entertainment/BET Pictures.
Reel Works Teen Filmmaking (Producer), & Davis, K. (Director) (2005). A girl like me [documentary]. United States.
Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes & consequences of the colorblind perspective. In J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, & racism (231–253): San Diego: Academic.
Smith, L. [Prod.] & The Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2003). Race: The power of an illusion. San Francisco: California Newsreel.
St. Pierre, S. [Prod.] Too good to be true? (The story of Marva Collins). 60 Minutes. New York: Columbia Broadcasting System.
Sue, D. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.
Warnock-Graham, O. [Prod./Dir.]. Silences. (2006). Octave Films.
Williams, M., Dunlap, M., & McCandies, T. (Fall, 1999). Keepin’ it real: Three Black women educators discuss how we deal with student resistance to multicultural inclusion in the curriculum. Transformations, 10(2), 11–22.