LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
0 3 2002 MAYr2~8 ram 07 £004
APR 2 9 2004 APR-32599
APR 3 0 2003

/

I 0‘0 f2 2018

32

 

m1 cJCIHCJDmDuopBS—p. 15

 

BUILDING COMMUNITY ON CAMPUS: THE INTERDEPENDENT THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF THE MULTIRACIAL UNITY LIVING EXPERIENCE—MRULE

By

Jeanne Gazel

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
American Studies

2001

ABSTRACT

BUILDING COMMUNITY ON CAMPUS: THE INTERDEPENDENT THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF THE MULTIRACIAL UNITY LIVING EXPERIENCE-—--—MRULE

Bv

d

Jeanne Gazel

Racial tension has remained a consistent problem throughout the 1990’s on
college campuses and Michigan State University has been no exception. Asked by the
Provost ofthe University in 1995, to develop programming that would build community
among the diverse student body, I set out to study what would happen if students were
given opportunities that challenged their racial thinking and corresponding behaviors.
The research question I posed that subsequently guided the creation and maintenance of a
vibrant undergraduate race relations program-- the Multiracial Unity Living Experience
(MRULE) was: Can a multi-faceted university experience that engages a diverse group of
college students to: learn, travel, interact and serve together empower them to become
active change agents in their college years and beyond?

Using three major fields of scholarship: history, sociology, and women‘s studies
in an interdisciplinary paradigm, the MRULE program is designed to exemplify the
interdependency of theory and practice in an academic living/ learning environment.
Based on the following three pillars: social justice, human agency, and action research,
the program educated over three hundred students in a five year period. Using Action
Research methodology we identified problems together and took steps towards solutions,
continually shaping and reshaping both theory and practice as the learning community

evolved. Thirty students participated in an in-depth interview that focused on their

family backgrounds and their experiences since coming to Michigan State University.
The outcomes from these interviews, focus groups, and student evaluations demonstrated
that students: (I) acquired increased knowledge of history and contemporary social
problems, (2) experienced inspired activism around racial/social issues, (3) formed new
and genuine friendships, and (4) made life-changing decisions.

Several foundational conceptual and practical components shape the theory and
practice of MRULE. The conceptual components challenge conventional norms in racial
thinking and are studied in depth to empower students with applicable knowledge. These
include: (1) studying history from a multiracial lens, (2‘) understanding historical agency,
(3) contrasting the social construction of race and the oneness of the human race with
fixed and distinct racial categories, (4) interrogating racial hierarchies, power and
privilege, (5) exploring expansive definitions of unity in diversity which problematizes
unity as sameness and diversity as divisiveness, and (6) looking at genuine, authentic
interracial relationships based on mutuality and trust in both historical and contemporary
settings. The MRULE practical components include: (1) substantial skill building in
dialogue around sensitive and controversial issues, (2) building and sustaining genuine
relationships, (3) developing leadership skills, and (4) community outreach.

This study outlines how the MRULE program is a living, breathing example of
scholarship and activism. Those concerned with the responsibility of higher education to
create and sustain inclusive living and learning programs that: (l) attract a thoroughly
diverse learning community, (2) provide academically challenging material on
racial/social issues, and (3) offer meaningful opportunities to build genuine relationships

across traditional racial lines, may find these discoveries compelling.

Copy Right by
Jeanne Elaine Gaze]
2001

Dedicated to the students of the Multiracial Unity Living Experience
(MR ULE) for their willingness to shine a light on the continual need to
struggle for social justice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly indebted to my Committee chair, Dr. Richard Thomas who has been
a colleague, friend, and stalwart support through the years leading up to and throughout
this study. He challenged me consistently from the moment he suggested that my
consulting work in race relations was scholarly material, crying out to be structured in a
doctoral program. Once I entered the program, I had the honor to work with some of
Michigan State Universities’ most distinguished scholars. Committee members: Dr.
Maxine Baca Zinn, whose meticulous and careful reading of all my work inspired
precision, organization, and intersectional analysis. Dr. Darlene Clark Hine, whose
passion for speaking the truth through African American women’s history immediately
caught my attention and provided a road map to refocus the historical lens that has
subsequently influenced all my work. Dr. Joyce Ladenson provided years of scholarly
exchange on feminist history and theory that became integral to the pedagogy of the
MRULE program. Although she could not remain on the committee, I owe thanks to Dr.
Gloria Randle for the guidance and scholarly inspiration she gave to me as I looked at
race relations themes in American literature.

If it were not for Provost Lou Anna Simon, this dissertation would more than
likely have been something entirely different. It was her vision that called for the creation
of a community building program on campus that provided me the opportunity to work in
an Action Research mode. She has consistently sent a message through the years that
University Administration valued the MRULE program and that support has been
invaluable to the development of the theory and practice. Dr. Robert Banks in the early

years and Dr. Lee June in the later years, have been sounding boards, problem solvers.

vi

and strong supporters of MRULE’s growth and development.
In the early years as we sought to find a university unit to house MRULE, former
Dean of Urban Affairs Programs, Dr. Joe Darden graciously offered the support.
Throughout the years he has remained interested in MRULE and my professional
development. This interest continued with acting Dean Dr. Dozier Thorton who shared
office space and staff assistance. I am grateful to Administrative Assistant to the dean,
Gloria Simmons who provided invaluable assistance with financial and procedural
matters, and computer assistant, Harsha Gangadharbatla, who responded competently to
several help calls throughout the writing process. Graduate Assistant Shiela Rodolfo
assisted with data collection and organization. Graduate Assistants, Ron Byard and
Shannon Hefter helped in leading MRULE dialogues and worked on community building
assignments.

Working hand in hand with the Departments of Residence Life and Housing at
Michigan State University has given the MRULE program much appreciated support.
The sudden and untimely death of Ann Bolger, Director of Residence Life—1999 and
2000, left a void in my heart as I had learned so much from our interactions during her
18-month tenure. I looked forward to a partnership with her that would have strengthened
the connection between MRULE and Residence Life through the vision and scholarship
we shared, and still call upon the memory of our many exchanges as I problem solve
today. Ann’s short stay here at MSU has profoundly affected me. The MRULE of today
feels the influence of her spirit. Former Director of Residence Life, Mary Haas, made
implementing MRULE possible in the first place with her keen interests in student

development and diversity. Her encouragement was a model for Residence Life Staff

vii

who wholeheartedly embraced MRULE’s ideals and helped to get the message to their
constituencies. Her choice to place the MRULE pilot program in Wilson Hall under the
leadership of Teresa Isela-Vandersloot was simply the best. Teresa’s hard work and
enthusiasm contributed to the great success of that first year and helped me to envision
continual growth. I will always look to that brief partnership with Teresa as the healthy
seed from which so many of MRULE’s successes have sprouted. I thank all of the
Residence Life staff but would like to name those whose support has particularly stood
out. Dr. Kate Murphy, Dr. Cindy Helman, George Athanas, and Angela Todaro. I thank
director of Housing, Angela Brown, and director of the Office of Minority Student
Affairs, Rodney Patterson, who have been supportive through the years.

There are so many MRULE students to honor that I cannot mention them all
individually but want them to know that their participation and dedication has assisted me
in the development of the program and the writing of this dissertation. Those listed
below had such an impact on my research and writing that they must be named. They
have each shared unique aspects of themselves that has given MRULE its richness.
Stephanie Beckstrom, Kyle Dubuc, Lori Goldammer, Rischard Gray, Nolan Gretzinger,
Beth Hawald, Lamont Howell, Marquis Hudson, Andy Lee, Erica Nero, Asmae Otmani,
Kristen Peitzsch, Eric Pratt, Beverly Purches, Raquel Reyes, Jasmine Rivera, Matt Trunk,
Robert Tyson, and Sasha Williams.

During the past year of intensive writing while directing the program, Sara
Deuling arose to help me with whatever was needed including transcribing interviews.
Laura Gresehover was always thinking of my well being and offering to help in whatever

way she could, and Steve Serling on several occasions put in extra time and effort to

viii

ensure an MRULE sponsored event was successful.

When Tiffany Gridiron walked into her first MRULE meeting in 1997 as a
freshman, I was struck by her radiance. Skeptical that MRULE was another feel good
group with little ability to make a difference. she reluctantly agreed to give it a chance
and from that moment I could see what was possible with MRULE. Tiffany embodied the
principles of MRULE and through the years has demonstrated outstanding and
courageous student leadership. I cannot think of how this dissertation would have been
completed without her constant feedback. She kept it real and immediate for me
throughout the entire process.

I am so indebted to Kamala Kiem for her assistance with formatting, proofreadinO,
defense presentation, and overall companionship through the last phases of completing the
work that I can find no words to adequately express my gratitude. I only hope that the
mentorship I have provided her these past two years will propel her further into achieving
her academic, professional, and personal goals, and that somehow it will begin to repay
her for the countless hours she spent helping a technical neophyte produce state-of-the-art
work.

I thank my supportive friends, many who endured an extended hiatus from seeing
me in any social settings. My dear friend and colleague Dr. Pat Naidoo has been a
listening ear, always willing to exchange ideas on scholarship and activism. His keen
mind and eye have made their mark on my work.

I am blessed with a family that has been a stalwart of support through the years.
My sister Sharon, and my beloved parents Edward and Esther Gazel have patiently and

continually given me the assistance I needed to keep myself and my children strong and

ix

healthy through the years of intense work and study. They embody unconditional love
and generosity. My daughter Carmel and my son Nathan gave me the greatest gift--
being responsible adolescents and responding well to parenting by remote when I worked
through the night on numerous occasions. At the time of this writing, they are first and
second year college students and active participants in the MRULE program. I am

thoroughly delighted that they are learning and growing with the program—all comes full

circle.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ xv
CHAPTER ONE: CONVERGING THEORY AND PRACTICE—WHAT DOES IT
LOOK LIKE? ................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................................................... 3
RACE RELATIONS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES-—THE LARGER CONTEXT ............................. 7
SOCIAL JUSTICE ETHICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 11
ACTION RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 12
OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS .................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER TWO: SOCIAL JUSTICE, HUMAN AGENCY, ACTIVIST
RESEARCH AND THE MULTI-RACIAL UNITY LIVING EXPERIENCE ......... l6
ORGANIZING THEMES AND PRINCIPLES ......................................................................... 16
Vision of Social Change ............................................................................................ I 7
Social Justice ............................................................................................................ 22
Human Agency .......................................................................................................... 27
EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD ........................................................................................... 35
Case Studv One ......................................................................................................... 35
Case Studv Two ......................................................................................................... 36
Case Studv Three ...................................................................................................... 3 7
EDUCATIONAL PRINCIPLES AND ACTION RESEARCH ..................................................... 38
EXAMPLE FROM THE FIELD ............................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUALIZING RACE, POWER, AND
PRIVILEGE .................................................................................................................... 50
THE CENTRALITY OF RACE ............................................................................................ 51
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE ........................................................................... 57
Either/or Thinking around Essentialist vs. Illusionarjv Racial Realty ..................... 59
Persistence of Racial Stereotypes and their [mad on Social Relations ................. 61
“Coercion and Consent " .......................................................................................... 65
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF WHITENESS AND WHITE PRIVILEGE ............................ 69
RACISM ............ . ............................................................................................................. 76
RACISM AND POWER ...................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER FOUR: HOW MRULE USES HISTORY: HISTORICAL AGENCY IN
THE FORMATION OF A MULTI-RACIAL SOCIETY ........................................... 90
SHIFTING THE HISTORICAL LENS—RECONFIGURING THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE ...... 92
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S HISTORY AND INCLUSIVE HISTORIOGRAPHY ............. 101
A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America ................... [03

xi

Gender and Jim C row: Women and the Politics of White Supremacv in North

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carolina 1896-1920 ................................................................................................... 105
Pauli Murray: The Autobiography ofa Black Activist, F eminist, Lauj'er, Priest, and
Poet ......................................................................................................................... 108
CLARIFYING THE DISTORTIONS, EXAMINING TI IE SILENCES ........................................ 112
EXAMPLE FROM THE FIELD .......................................................................................... 128
HISTORY 480—THE TRAINING GROUND—LEARNING WHY HISTORY MATTERS IN
THEORY AND PRACTICE ............................................................................................... 128
Course Description ................................................................................................. I 29
Course Structure .................................................................................................... 129
Student Testimonials: Feedback on the Process ..................................................... 130
CHAPTER FIVE: UNITY IN DIVERSITY AND THE ROLE OF
DIFFERENCE ............................................................................................................... 132
UNITY IN DIVERSITY—THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................. 133
MULTIRACIAL COALITIONS .......................................................................................... 142
THE ROLE OF DIFFERENCE ........................................................................................... 145
Less Than. Other ..................................................................................................... 145
Color Blindness ....................................................................................................... 1 4 9
INTEGRATING THEORIES OF D1FFERENCE—INTERSEC‘TIONALi'l‘Y ................................ 154
Relational Nature (iDitferences ............................................................................ l 5 7
EXAMPLE FROM THE FIELD—HOW IT WORKS IN MRULE? ........................................ 162
CHAPTER SIX: DURABLE BONDS: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF
GENUINE, AUTHENTIC INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIPS ............................ 168
FRIENDSHIP LITERATURE ............................................................................................. 169
GENUINE RELATIONSHIPS ............................................................................................ 178
Genuine Relationship Continuum ........................................................................... l 79
THE ROLE OF DIALOGUE .............................................................................................. 188
LESSONS FROM HISTORY—INTERPERSONAL SiTL’ATlONS BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE
WOMEN IN THE STRUGGLE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE ......................................................... 192
EXAMPLE FROM THE FIELD ........................................................................................... 208
Pushing Through the Process ................................................................................. 210

 

CHAPTER SEVEN: STUDENTS TELL THEIR STORIES—HOW
PARTICIPATION IN THE MRULE PROGRAM CHANGED RACIAL

 

THINKING AND ENKINDLED A SPIRIT OF ACTIVISM .................................. 213
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MRULE STUDENT PROFILES ..................................................... 215
FIRST TIME MADE AWARE OF RACE ............................................................................ 216

,RACIAL IDENTITY: WHAT IT MEANT AND MEANS 222
FAMILY RACIAL THINKING 226
WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU? ........................................................................................ 233
WHAT SURPRISED YOU? ............................................................................................... 235
MRULE AND COLLEGE EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 241

Social Relationships ................................................................................................ 24]
Academic Challenges 243

 

xii

Job and Career Preparation ................................................................................... 245

 

 

 

KEY TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 247
The Social Construction of Race ............................................................................. 24 7
The Social Construction of Whiteness and White Privilege ................................... 24 7
Genuine Relationships ............................................................................................ 248
Leadership ............................................................................................................... 248
Activism ................................................................................................................... 249
WHAT WILL YOU TAKE AWAY AFTER YOUR PARTICIPATION IN MRULE? ................ 250
DESCRIBE YOURSELF IN THE FUTURE—FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS 252
CLOSING COMMENTS ................................................................................................... 253
THE WAY FORWARD .................................................................................................... 256
HOW UNIQUE? ............................................................................................................. 256
APPENDIX A: MRULE STUDENT EVALUATION-SPRING 2001 ..................... 262
APPENDIX B: MRULE STUDENT LEADER COMPETENCIES ........................ 267
APPENDIX C: THE MULTI-RACIAL UNITY LIVING EXPERIENCE (MRULE)
STUDENT LEADER SEMINAR ................................................................................ 268
APPENDIX D: RACE RELATIONS GLOSSARY FOR DISCUSSIONS ON
SOCIAL AND RACIAL INEQUALITY .................................................................... 272
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 275

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Relationship Continuum .................................................................................. 183
Figure 2: MRULE Student Alumni ................................................................................ 255

xiv

AR:

ANC:

ASWPL:

CIC:

FUBU:

MCSUI:

MRULE:

NAACR

NDI:

SNCC:

WDL:

VVPA:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Action Research

African National Congress

Association Of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching
Commission for Interracial Cooperation

For Us By Us

Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality

Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
New Detroit Incorporated

Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee

Worker Defense League

Works Progress Administration

X V

Chapter One
Converging Theory and Practice—What does it Look Like?

Introduction
Calling on the inspirational vision of Black feminists and activists, Patricia Hill
Collins (2000) explains how Black feminism is a “self-conscious struggle that empowers
women and men to actualize a humanistic vision of community” (p. 39).
We take our stand on the solidarity of humanity, the oneness oflife, and the
unnaturalness and injustice of all special favoritisms, whether of sex, race,
country, or condition . . .
Anna Julia Cooper (Lowenberg and Bogin 1976. p. 330-31)
The lesson of history that human rights are indivisible and that the failure to
adhere to this principle jeopardizes the rights of all is particularly applicable.
Pauli Murray (1970, p. 102)
. . . feminism is. . .a commitment to eradicating the ideology of domination
that permeates Western culture on various levels. . .a commitment to
reorganizing U. S. society so that the self —development of people can take

precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.
bell books (1981, p. 194')

Throughout her seminal work Black Feminist Thought: Knmvledge,
Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, Collins invokes her readers to
remember that thought and action are interdependent processes in the human experience.
Black women have historically been exemplary in demonstrating that, however powerful
ideas are they can be shaped, changed, even eradicated by individual and collective action
in pursuit of greater human freedom and dignity. The humanistic vision Of creating
community is very much in line with my own life-long beliefs in the organic unity of the
human race. It is the process of creating unity in diversity while promoting equity and

social justice that inspired my colleague Richard Thomas and me to found the Multi-

Raciall Unity Project at Michigan State University in 1995. We were confident that, if
given sustained support and attention, the Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience
(MRULE) could provide students with an experience that would transform their racial
thinking and inspire them to become active change agents in improving race relations. In
a world characterized by the simultaneous forces of increasing interaction and polarization
among people from diverse racial backgrounds there is a vital need for change agents who
can competently build community among diverse groups. Certainly a Big Ten, world-
class, Land Grant University supplied students with both possibilities. More often than
not, racial polarization appeared a stronger force, particularly in the wake of the 1995
Simpson verdict (Hunt 1999, Hutchinson 1996). Polarization simply got more press and
it was much more visible in daily life: the famous segregated cafeteria tables (Tatum,
I997), scathing letters to the State News Editor. social settings, even classrooms sent a
message to students that it “was easier, safer, and more “natural” to “hang” separately. The
invisible hand Of pluralism (Waters 1990) was not able to bring students together even
though they were occupying similar spaces.

Provost Lou Anna Simon asked us if we could work on a community-building
aspect to the many diversity projects that had been underway throughout MSU for the past
seven years. There was a strong institutional commitment to diversity and
multiculturalism, but there was much confusion over What that meant. Did it encourage
separatism? Why was there still so much tension around Minority Student Affairs? Were
diverse groups vying for self interests only? Why were African Americans labeled the

“majority-minority” in sometimes-negative terms as if they were receiving special

 

' When referring to the MRULE program I use the hyphenated version of Multi-Racial. Otherwise. I use
the one word multiracial.

k)

treatment that set them apart from the others? Why were there so many hostile White
students? How/W here did they fit in? We acknowledged the importance Of these questions
and decided that the most effective way to find answers was to provide an alternative
forum and, in the best of the "Field ofDreams"2 tradition, see who would come.

Our first challenge was to identify the Willing participants in the 40,000+ student
body filling lecture and residence halls. It was here that we decided on a division of labor.
Thomas would concentrate on the classroom experience; I would focus on the living
experience in the residence halls. Since my research interests centered around building
genuine, authentic relationships across traditional racial lines in both historical and
contemporary settings, the living environment would be fertile ground for me to look at
how relationships are developed and sustained and to what degree they affect racial
thinking and, consequently, social and political action. I started out with the following
research question that has guided the development of theory and practice for the MRULE

program throughout the years.

Research Question

Can a multi-faceted university experience that engages a diverse group of
college students in a Racial Project requiring that they learn, interact, travel, and serve
together empower them to become active change agents committed to social justice in
their college experience and beyond? If so, What has to be in place in such an experience?

Who are the players? What is the nature Of their interactions? What is the appropriate

 

3 The 1989 movie that popularized the notion of fulfilling dreams by acting on them with the confidence
that they will be fulfilled—thus building the baseball stadium for the movie’s hero was the action that
brought Shoeless Joe Jackson back to tell the truth of his story.

amount of time? What are the key components of the project? These are the
questions that I answer through this study.

Simultaneously pursuing my doctoral work in American Studies provided me with
an academic climate that continually challenged and inspired my thinking as I set out to
bring something tangible, meaningful and sustainable into being. A multidisciplinary
approach to race relations gave me a comprehensive background as I drew upon works in
history, literature, sociology, feminist and cultural studies, and was able to demonstrate
how bodies Of work complemented one another and provided students with several
pathways to greater understanding. An example of this can be found in the increase of
contemporary texts in my three major fields of study: history, sociology, and women’s
Studies. All of these fields have begun to systematically include scholarship on diverse
people as well as personal voice pieces as an integral part of the epistemology (Kerber &
De Hart, 2000, Andersen & Collins, 1998, Takaki, 1998, Golden & Shreve, 1995).

It was my consulting work in the public and private sectors3 that led me to want to
explore race relations in greater depth with a clear focus on genuine, authentic interracial
relationships and with more attention to interdisciplinary works. I consistently discovered
that however genuine an organization’s willingness to embrace diversity was, there
remained a good deal Of unfinished business around race relations that prevented
meaningful and long-term change. The 1996 Texaco racial discrimination case came to
light at this time (Roberts and White 1998) and silenced many of the critics who believed
in the “end of racism theory” (D’Souza 1995). Healthy interactions across traditional

racial lines leading to genuine relationships were rare, while a plethora Of diversity

 

3 From 1990 to 1998 I was Director of Training and Development for a race relations consulting firm and
designed program for a range of clients on diversity in the workplace.

training workshops were the norm. Over several years the expectations to learn how to
“appreciate” or “manage” diversity left many believing that you could understand
individuals different from you if you knew something about the characteristics of the
group they were historically and culturally tied to. However, this formula could not
possibly account for the range of diversity in individuals. For example. genuine efforts to
understand the historical contexts of oppressed peoples in the United States created real
and unpopular discomfort. Consequently, many diversity training programs moved away
from educating around race and gender inequality and more towards a broader diversity,
including personality types, skills, and educational background (Thomas, 1992).
Although this may have been important work to help people understand each other better.
many of these programs did little to address persistent racial polarization, which in turn
has an effect on work place relationships. Through the years, I understood that much of
the resistance to taking on race and gender inequality in the diversity training programs
had to do with a fear of getting caught up in an endless quagmire of “oppression studies”
(Boot, 1994, Glazer, 1993.). This resistance coupled with a lack of understanding of the
history and structures of racial inequalities pointed me to the university environment. It
was here, it seemed that the greatest opportunities to educate were being missed.
Notwithstanding increasing racial/ethnic and national diversity in the Michigan
State University student body during the 1990s, there was little emphasis on bringing
these diverse elements together in a unified community. As a result the need arose for a
college campus race relations program. In general, few White students and students of
color share meaningful interracial connections that enhance their educational experience.
The increased enrollment of students of color has also meant an increased visibility of the

support systems designed to help them succeed. These “minority aide” programs generate

heated discussions among MRULE participants as many students believe they are set up to
encourage separatism and have no idea of the historical and social context in which they
were created (MRULE Round Table Discussions, 1997-2000). Every year we educate all
MRULE students on the need for these support groups and the need for experiences that
bring diverse people together in the same forum. We strive to get this message out to the
larger campus environment as well but it is not an easy task. It is not uncommon at
Michigan State University for White students and students of color to remain socially
segregated. They frequently speak about the “racial clusters” in the cafeterias and in
classrooms. They enter on separate racial tracks (coming primarily from segregated areas
in the state of Michigan) and for the most part exit on those same tracks (Gurin 1999).
This contributes to a racial process that reinforces racial segregation in the larger society.
The lack of any intervening educational experience to develop multiracial social skills
contributes by default to racial polarization. For Whites it does not come up as an
opportunity lost until they enter the work force and find themselves having to deal with a
diverse work team, unprepared to understand social issues that have a range of effects on
their working relationships. For students of color, separate tracks reinforce the social
isolation they have come to expect as the norm in predominantly white settings. This point
was brought home when I was consulting with a major corporation in Detroit who hired
heavily from MSU. When I asked this new management class—90% White--to share
something about meaningful interactions with someone of a different background than
themselves, there was little said. There were some experiences with international students
but very few had meaningful experiences with fellow Americans of different backgrounds.

“Itjust never came up,” they would say. “It’s not the kind of thing you can force. You

can’t pick your friends because of their race or ethnicity” (“Diversity in the Workplace,”

New World Associates Training Course, 1997).

Race Relations on College C ampuses—T he Larger Context

As with many critical social issues the college campus has been a battleground
where opposing views on racial equality find intense expression. Through the late 1980's
and early 1990's racial conflict was all too commonplace—over 100 college campuses
reported incidents and caught many university administrators off guard (Hurtado 1992).
Incident after incident reported racial hostility directed most vehemently to the African
American student population with an underlying message that they did not belong. Each
incident prompted the university administration to look at its policies and practices and
design and implement programming to insure the recruitment, retention and inclusion of
students of color. Consequently campus diversity programs have mushroomed over the
last decade. These programs range from curriculum transformation resulting in new
course requirements on multiracial historical and cultural studies, to inter-group dialogues
in and outside the classroom, to rigorous recruitment and retention programs for both
students and faculty of color (http://www.inform.umd.edu/DiversityWeb/). In addition
race relations dialogues on college campuses have been a concern nation wide as the
President’s Initiative on Race: One America has established National Campus Week of
Dialogue inl998 and 1999 (http://www.ed.gov/campusdialogue/).

Along with increased numbers of diversity programs and their corresponding web
sites with links to a plethora of resources is the research on program need and
effectiveness. I will mention a few of these here to set the MRULE project in the larger
context of race and ethnicity in US. tertiary education. According to the extensively

researched 1999 report “Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial

Dynamics in Higher Education” released after the Stanford University conference on:
“Facing the Courts of Law and Public Opinion: Social Science Evidence on Diversity in
Higher Education,” the need for systematic intervention to insure parity remains great.
An impressive team of scholars concluded:
(1) there is clear evidence of continuing inequities in educational opportunity
along racial categories;
(2) test-based definitions of merit are incomplete;
(3) race is a major social psychological factor in the American consciousness
and behaviors; and
(4) racially diversified environments, when properly utilized, lead to
improvements in educational outcomes for all parties
(http://www.aera.net/reports/dynamics.htm).

The wide scale attack on affirmative action in college admissions has generated a
substantial number of expert reports and testimonies as to the overall benefits of a diverse
college campus in determining learning outcomes. University of Michigan Professor
Patricia Gurin (1999) has researched the impact of a diverse college campus on learning
using multi-institutional national data, extensive surveys of University of Michigan
students and data from a classroom program.

It is clear from all three analyses that interaction with peers from diverse racial
backgrounds, both in the classroom and informally, is positively associated with a host of
what I call "learning outcomes." Students who experienced the most racial and ethnic
diversity in classroom settings and in informal interactions with peers showed the greatest
engagement in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and

motivation, and growth in intellectual and academic skills

(http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/ 1ega1/expert/toc.html).

Former Princeton University President William Bowen (1999) concluded in the

study which he co-authored with Derek Bok4 that: “the data in our study prove what I
have Observed that diversity is valued and that "learning through diversity" actually
occurs. Our study indicates that diversity is a benefit for all students, minorities and non—
minorities alike” (http://www.umich.edtI/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bowen.html).
University programs that emphasize diversity in a “student centered” environment where
faculty takes a personal interest in the student's learning are showing more positive
outcomes for the overall undergraduate experience (Hurtado 1996). Despite the evidence
over the last fifteen years that diverse learning environments are key to preparing students
to live and work in an ever-increasing global society, resistance to change in the racial
status quo continues to cause tension. According to Hurtado:

At the same time that institutions and individuals are engaged in

conversations about the future and their role in educating a

diverse citizenry, practices to promote diverse student

enrollments are being called into question. This seemingly

contradictory state is not inconsistent with our history on

diversity issues. Both resistance and change are inevitable parts

of the major transformation that is under way in the mission of

post-secondary institutions--a mission that includes diversity as a

key component (p.28).
Nowhere is this resistance more acute than on the ideological battlefield over affirmative
action in college admissions.

The most recent attack on affimtative action in universities began in 1995 with the

University of California Board of Regents and has resulted in a significant decrease in

minority enrollment (Daily Californian U. C alifomia-Berkeley, .luly 21, 2000). Both the

 

The Shape of the River: Long- Term Consequences of C onsrdermg Race In College and l’nn'ersrtt‘
Admissions, Princeton University Press ( 1998).

states ofCalifomia and Texas (1996) have made it illegal to consider race as a factor in
admissions. This past July the University of Georgia followed suit. (Associated Press:
Web Posting, July 25, 2000). All eyes are upon what has been characterized as the suit
that will determine the fate of affirmative action in admissions throughout the country—
the two lawsuits against the University of Michigan both set to go to trial in 2000-1
(http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/index.html).

Affirmative action has consistently been a key discussion topic in the MRULE
Round Table Discussion. We focus on distinguishing myth from fact in a historical
context. So that students are less apt to fall prey to the trap of the United States of America
as a colorblind society we unpack the mythology of colorblind constitutionalism (Siegel
1998). With the national attention upon the University of Michigan and the significance
of these cases in determining the future of affirmative action, Michigan State University
MRULE students are poised to challenge their thinking, know what they believe and how
to discuss it. They know from studying history that affirmative action is a remedial policy
meant to increase the pool of diverse candidates. Whatever its flaws or abuses, it is clear
that the diversity we do have on predominantly White campuses would have been much
less had affirmative action not been used. We encourage them to critique the flaws with
facts but always in a context of the larger community. After we present data on the
historical and institutional patterns of exclusion towards people of color, we engage them
in an interactive exercise by asking them to design an alternative to affirmative action that
would meet their standards of fairness and remedy racial inequities. “What would you do
differently? How would you insure that the individual and community are served? What
would you give up? What would you expect Others to give up?” This discussion places

affirmative action in both a collective and individual paradigm and is one of the first

10

lessons MRULE students encounter in the social justice ethical framework that defines our

mission and purpose.

Social Justice Ethical Framework

The interdependent theory and practice of a race relations program with social
justice at the center demands a constant examination of the individual within the
community in a both/and conceptual framework (Collins 2000, Miller 1999, Harvey
1996). According to Iris Marion Young:

Justice should refer not only to distribution, but also to

institutional conditions necessary for the development and

exercise of individual capacities and collective communication

and cooperation (1990, p.39)
Social justice theorist David Miller discusses the plurality of justice and embeds his theory
in the “modes of human relationships.” It is by association in an increasingly complex
global world that principles of social justice must be understood.

Human beings can stand in different kinds of relationships to one

another, and we can best understand which demands of justice

someone can make of us by looking first at the particular nature

of our relationship. In the real world such relationships are very

often complex and multifaceted, but it is possible to analyze them

in terms of a small number of basic modes. If our aim is to

discover what social justice means to the denizens of modern

liberal societies, we need to consider three such basic modes:

solidaristic community, instrumental association and citizenship

(1999 p. 26).
The notion of individuals in a community engaged in the process of defining and
establishing social justice implies moral values and responsibility. Among several
psychological theories used to explain why people chose moral values over other values
is: “the experience of living in ajust community and in caring relationships. Having these

experiences leads a person to prize these relationships among other values” (Narvaez &

Rest, 1994). Acting morally and responsibly is foundational to a healthy democracy. The

11

vitality of a democracy over time and into each new generation is dependent on how well
young people embrace democratic practices. Whatever language we speak concerning
diversity, social justice, and democratic values it must be a language understood by
today’s youth. Educational theorist Henry Giroux states it clearly:

We need a language to make youth in all its diversity a central

focus for addressing how we take up the relationship between

social justice and democracy. Youth have increasingly been left

out of discussions about democracy, rights, justice, and

compassion. As educators, we need to create spaces for youth to

speak, represent themselves, and organize. Social justice in the

curriculum must be rooted in a sense of hope, connected to the

future, solidarity with others, and a willingness to fight for what

one believes in. . . . social justice can frame our work as

educators only to the degree that it connects with the experiences

and histories of the students we teach and work with (1998, p.

290)

MRULE came into being to give voice to and capture the real lives and

experiences of a group of college Students in order to inspire them to value the
Opportunities they have to create thriving diverse communities and empower them to

“fight for what they believe in.” My task was to come together and step by step figure out

how.

Action Research

From the onset of the MRULE project the research agenda was driven by the belief
that research must be done for students and not on students (Spalter-Roth & Hartmann
1996). Influenced by qualitative research methodology and feminist research, I sought to
apply the theory and practice of Action Research in education to the MRULE program.
The process of MRULE demonstrated how theory and practice inform one another, what
some researchers have called a “feedback loop” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1996). The challenge

for me was to structure the knowledge I was certain students needed to acquire in order to

12

 

function effectively in an increasing diverse world. This would mean applying knowledge
experientially so that it would complement their course work and reinforce learning in
multiple settings. In addition, I had to look at the impact that gaining new knowledge and
experience would have on students’ lives. This meant starting with an understanding of
the lives of the students, wherever they began in the program, and continually evaluating
at several stages in their individual development, as well as in the development of
MRULE as a whole. Action Research in education literature provided several principles to
guide this process. Those most salient are: (1) research that is for the purpose of
improving practice, (2) research that is collaborative and participatory in nature using
planning, Observing, action and reflection and, (3) research that is concerned with social
change (Kemmis & Wilkinson 1998, Smith, Willms, Johnson, 1997, Selener 1997,

Stringer 1996).

Outline of Chapters

Each chapter is set up to discuss the theoretical framework and corresponding
practices—examples in the field— as they have been developed in the Multiracial Unity
Living Experience. Chapter Two looks at the theoretical basis, organizing themes and
principles that provide the foundation of the MRULE program. I focus on how and why
social justice, human agency, and social change in the scholar-activist tradition are key
components of MRULE’S goals and objectives. I use an action research model to help
develop and sustain the work and demonstrate the collaboration among students and
faculty in the process. Chapter Three looks at the concepts involved in understanding the
social construction of race and the related themes of whiteness, privilege, and power. I
outline those concepts that are fundamental for the Students to grasp in order to prepare

them for in depth and meaningful discussions and cite some of the most illustrative

l3

examples in the field. Chapter Four discusses the role of history in understanding present
conditions. I define what it means to reconfigure the historical narrative by calling on
several prominent historians who have trail blazed this path, using African American
women’s history as one example. I look at what is missing in how history is taught and
focus on the traditions of anti-racism and interracial cooperation as critical historical
realities deserving of attention. This approach is particularly vital for the MRULE students
as knowing history is at the core of the work we do. Chapter Five takes us into an in-depth
discussion of unity in diversity and the role of difference. Definitions of how these terms
and concepts are used in MRULE are important as they are all easily misrepresented and
misunderstood. Since creating unity is central to what we are about, we make sure we
have a vision and understanding of what we mean by unity in our multiracial context.
Chapter Six looks at the role of genuine relationships across traditional racial lines in both
historical and contemporary settings. Again, I define important terminology and share a
concept I have developed and used with corporate clients called the “relationship
continuum” where we look at how relationships move through phases and some of the
particular pitfalls that make interracial relationships vulnerable. Chapter Seven is based
on my interviews with thirty MRULE students, women and men, from diverse
racial/ethnic backgrounds. In this chapter I weave together their stories that explore their
racial thinking and action before and after their participation in the MRULE program. I
conclude this chapter and the entire work by highlighting the strengths of the program and
those aspects we wish to develop further. The MRULE students and I share a vision and
hope of sustainability of the MRULE and other such programs of its kind.

What we have learned in the four years that we have shaped the Multi-Racial

Unity Living Experience is the subject matter of this study. Demonstrating that theory and

14

practice are interdependent processes in the development of educational experiences
dedicated to equity and social justice, drives the work. Providing students with
alternatives to the racial status quo they find in the residence halls, classrooms, and social
worlds at a Big Ten University is the practice. Ensuring this practice is tied to scholarship
and activism are the critical components. Those concerned with higher education’s
responsibility to create and sustain inclusive living and learning programs that: (l) attract
a thoroughly diverse learning community, (2) provide academically challenging material
on racial/social issues and ( 3) offer meaningful opportunities to build genuine
relationships across traditional racial lines, will find the discoveries outlined below
helpful. Although I am speaking directly to administrators and faculty looking to explore
interdependent theory and practice in an undergraduate race relations program, most
importantly this study is intended to serve as a guide to the students who lives and future
are inextricably linked to breaking the cycle of racial polarization. They have
unprecedented opportunity to do so and I wish to offer them this work as a humble road

map for at least the first leg of the journey.

15

Chapter Two

Social Justice, Human Agency, Activist Research and the Multi-Racial
Unity Living Experience

We don 't have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change.
Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people can transform the world.

Howard Zinn—You Can ’t be Neutral on a Moving Train. p. 208

Because social worlds resultfrom human agency, they remain inherently dynamic and
changing. Patricia Hill Collins—Fighting Words, p. 96

Organizing Themes and Principles

The Multi—Racial Unity Living Experience came into being to address campus race
relations because there were clearly many missed opportunities both institutionally and
individually for raising consciousness and providing alternative ways to be in a racially
diverse campus environment. The MRULE project is grounded in: (1) a vision for social
change relational in nature and informed by historical realities (Donati 1995), (2)
principles of social justice set in an ethical framework (3) educational theory that speaks
to the developmental nature of the human being (Murphy 1998), simultaneously capable
of reflection and action (Freire 1970), and (4) the acknowledgement that human beings
have agency to construct meaning from the events in their lives and act upon those
meanings (Griffiths 1998). We do not come to MRULE with any kind of blank slate or as
some scholars call it the premise of “optional inequalities” (DeVault 1995). We are up
front with our interest in challenging racial thinking and expanding what is possible to do
in race relations as individuals conscious of our collective reality.

We draw heavily upon scholarly literature in the fields of sociology and action
research for social justice that builds theory and practice without dichotomizing the

individual and social structure, thought and action, theory and practice (Collins 1990, Omi

16

& Winant 1994, Harvey 1996, Griffiths 1998, Kemmis & Wilkinson 1998). Scholarship
and activism are used as two interdependent processes to aid in the development of both
theory and practice. One without the other is not sufficient to address the complex issues
of social justice that define MRULE.
Vision of Socizd Change
Aware that two of my major fields of study, history and sociology treat social
change differently, I set out to find the strengths in both to support my vision of the kind
of world I would like to help create and leave for future generations.g I have also drawn
liberally from the action research literature as I am most aligned with scholars concerned
about change as praxis. I’ll begin with a brief theoretical discussion.
Theories of social change abound but as sociologist Donati characterizes, they
often remain ambiguous or exclusionary.
Social change was seen as society passing from one social order
to another (for instance, from the “ancient regime” to democracy,
From an agrarian society to an industrial one, from capitalism to
socialism, etc.) This called for a description of how society
constructed each new social order. It was usually assumed that
this change or construction was subject to some form of more or
less “finalism” (pg. 52).
Although I find the discussion of social change theory fascinating from the
holistic6 paradigms in the Marx, Durkheim, Parsons, Luhman interpretations to the
methodological individualism7 paradigm where Weber, Simmel, and Habermas weigh in,

it is not the purpose here to debate these positions. Donati has offered another way to

conceptualize social change—one that does not accept or deny either the holistic

 

5 Fundamental to this vision is: Equity and Justice understood and practiced by individuals and institutions
of society to ensure all people have access to education and opportunity and can prosper peacefully. with
dignity, free from violence, aggression, tyranny, oppression. and exploitation.

6 Holistic paradigm is based on the conceptual framework of a totality (social Structure—historic or
systemic “laws”) which acts upon its component parts thus producing social change (Donati p. 60-1).

17

symbolic, structural interpretation or the individualist position. In his effort to align
historical and sociological aspects of social change he shifts paradigms to engage in
relational thinking.

Citing the work of neomarxist Jurgen Habermas, Donati suggests that sociology
has been slowly moving towards an integrative approach between the structural and
individualistic arguments. However, Habermas’ reliance on communication theory
narrowed his field so that it was impossible to fully integrate the structural and
interpersonal. Scholars continued to battle with the micro-macro link, making intellectual
contributions to the field but still according to Donati coming up short in connecting them.
Influenced by postmodern trends at “unprecedented differentiation of relationships” in a
socially complex and rapidly changing world demands that to fully understand social
change we need to observe both the individual and society in relationship to themselves
and with one another. Departing from an either/or conceptualization, a relational theory
validates aspects of both while creating a new paradigm, one that focuses on the
relationality.

. . .any current relational theory must take as its starting-point
Simmel’s concept that for an understanding of social change an
element must be found that functions both as a differentiator and
as a point of union. It must be different and distinctive from what
it “does” (insomuch as it “is”) society, and it must be an
integrator of agents (individuals in relation to one another) and of
structures or social mechanisms (forms) (p. 70).

From the relational point of view, the social change involved in
the passage from modernity to post-modernity represents an
overflow of society beyond its proper limits, an excess which
cannot be understood or explained on the basis of a “totality” (as

well as perhaps what is described as a culture of difference”) or
on the basis of individual choices. On these lines, then, one can

 

7 Social change is the result of individual agents. their subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Donati p. 64).

18

begin by defining social change in terms of social relations, that
is to say, as a way of redefining the forms of relations in society

(p. 80).

The practice of history by professional historians and the telling of histories by
ordinary people speak to this relationality without necessarily naming it so (Takaki 1993,
Harding 1994, Lerner 1997.) Human history is the recollection of human actions,
individually and collectively. in social structures of time and space that give specific
meaning to those actions. Social relations are at the core of the historical process as we
seek to advance civilization. History chronicles change from the big picture of world
systems (macro history) to the everyday world of individuals (micro history). As
explained by macro historian Galtung:

History is the story of how “things human” hang together through time
diachronically, and more particularly, how they change. The individual is the most micro,
even indivisible, human thing there is, so evidently the story of the individual through
time, with a particular emphasis on change, is microhistory. Then there is structure,
particularly the microstructure of OH. Mead’s “significant others.” but also the
macrostructure of local, domestic, and global society. Finally there is culture, the values,
norms, and rules; the microculture of the immediate age, gender, race, class and ethnic
surroundings, and the macroculture or civilization in which the individual is embedded,
with an inner core of “deep culture” or “cosmology.” (Galtung 1996. l997—pg. 221)

With an understanding of(1) a relational theory of social change and (2) the role of
macro/micro history in creating social change, we sought out a research agenda that best
reflected the process we were creating. From the action research/social justice literature
we found MRULE to be suitably aligned with the “cultural revival and social movement

theory of social change” (Selener 1997, p. 264). Selener’s discussion on social change

19

theories and participatory action research has been helpful to the theory building process
in the MRULE project. Citing the work of Paulston (1977) on social movement theory
Selener describes the unique features of six theories categorized in two paradigms:

Paradigm One: Equilibrium
Theories: l. Evolutionary and non-evolutionary, 2. Structural-functional, 3. Systems

Paradigm Two: Conflict
Theories: 4. Marxist and neo—Marxist, 5. Cultural revival and social movement, 6.
Anarchistic and utopian (p.262).

The six theories are presented here as distinct approaches to social change. Upon
careful analysis it is clear that there are useful components in all six and some overlapping
features. For example systems theory focuses on making society more efficient through
innovation that responds to new social needs. This is used most often in the business
world by organizational development specialists and can address many structural issues
that transform organizations to be among many things more inclusive of a diverse work
force (Kanter 1983, Senge 1990). The difference among the theories in the equilibrium
paradigm— which see the process of change as one in which social structures are
balanced into a uniform order— and the conflict paradigm in which change comes as a
result of a struggle for power and control, is the salience of power relations. Those in the
equilibrium paradigm tend to downplay social inequalities and thus differences among
those who hold power and those who do not, while those in the conflict paradigm center
upon it. Although we can gain insight into social change theory from those frameworks in
the equilibrium paradigm, in MRULE we are more closely aligned with the conflict
paradigm Since understanding social inequalities and ways to address them are key
components of the MRULE educational process. We gain valuable insight into power
relations from Marxist theory and agree that we have to have a vision of the kind of

society we would like to create as the utopian theorists do. But it is the cultural revival

20

social movement theory that speaks directly to our goal of “bringing into being new
cultural norms based on new social norms and behaviors” (p. 264). Selener explains what
a research agenda in cultural revival theory might look like:

. . .focus on the unique contributions of different people, elements

of their knowledge, culture, ideologies, values, and experiences

that promote change in the name of social justice. Change is not

necessarily a structural phenomenon, but can take place in

consciousness, in the way people think, behave, and perceive

reality, i.e. in social and cultural behavior” (Selener 1997).

A relational view of social change and a theory that looks at change in thinking
and behavior, is critical to the MRULE project as it places value on the individual who is
fundamentally located in social structures (that many students are only beginning to name
and understand). It is the consciousness that they develop within themselves, the
relationships with each other and with the material, that clarifies this. Knowledge
empowers them and engenders commitment to the work. It is a dynamic process,
involving give and take, trial and error. and the development of communication skills that
contribute to creating sustainable relationships. Some may enter and leave with only a
slight raise of consciousness. Several may find their racial thinking challenged, no longer
able to substantiate a simplistic worldview that attaches labels and undermines human
dignity carelessly. Others may be so moved by what they learn and see is possible that
they end up committing their lives to working for racial and social justice. At whatever
level they enter and depart, our charge is to awaken and inspire them to use their
knowledge and experience to affect change in their immediate circles of influence and
beyond. Relationality is at the core of this work. Otherwise we might be hard pressed to

engage the students beyond themselves out of the larger cultural influences that reinforce

the mantra: success is all about getting your own.

21

Social Justice

Increasing controversy around issues of racial justice particularly fueled by
affirmative action in admissions and special minority-based recruitment and retention
programs provide a baseline of confusion whereby MRULE participants explore the
tension around individualist and collective worldviews. Few of today’s college students
are prepared to think in terms of community as growing up in the United States in the
1980’s and 90’s has schooled them well in the belief system that individualism reigns. As
Levine discusses in When Hope and Fear C ollide: A Portrait of Today 's College Student,
(1998) the 20‘h century experienced periods of ascendancy of community: Progressivism,
the New Deal Era, and the Civil Rights Movement followed by periods Of individualist
ascendancy: post WW1 and II, and Vietnam. Building on Locke’s social contract theory“
Levine argues that all democratic societies struggle to find the balance between individual
and community and this is reflected in all of society’s institutions. Since young people
today attend college in record numbers in US. history-~over 50%--the college experience
is fertile ground for the playing out of the larger society’s social and political issues
(Levine 1998).

Despite swoons of uncertainly and instability throughout the past two decades as
witnessed by increased globalization, up close and personal world conflict through
television, environmental deterioration, job insecurity learned through downsizing,
unprecedented corporate mergers and restructuring, in the midst of the internet revolution
and a wave of political scandals, this generation of college students has seen time and

again the United States reign supreme on the world scene, economically, militarily, and

 

Members of SOCIety are bound together by a tacrt agreement. a compact among Indrvrduals. In \\l11Cll they
cede a portion of their autonomy for the “greater good.” In exchange they receive common services,
protections, and agreed upon freedoms. (Levine, pg. 147.)

22

socially. They have witnessed a change in demographics also unprecedented with
increased numbers of immigrants from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America,
and the Caribbean (Time, Fall 1993 pp. 14-15). The message that many young Americans
get from this is that despite the problems in the United States, it is one of the most sought
out places to live by immigrants from all over the world. It is built on the promise of
freedom and democracy for all. Those who work hard can make it. Those who can’t
should quit complaining and try harder.

It is precisely at this juncture where the principles of social justice must be laid out
as a necessary road map for all to travel on if we hope to affect meaningful change. Here,
individualism is put to the test. Although forces of individualism are powerful and
influential on the world, they cannot be allowed to overshadow structural inequalities,
domination and oppression as critical components of our social world. Race relations
discourse is often impeded by tendencies to individualize and personalize social reality.
This can lead to blaming the victim or denying the existence of group identity. Though
seemingly benign, erasure ofgroup identity in favor of treating everyone as an individual
in a racialized world does not bring about the desired outcome of social justice for all. Iris
Marion Young explains:

Assuming an aggregate model of groups, some people think that
social groups are invidious fictions, essentializing arbitrary
attributes. From this point of view problems of prejudice,
stereotyping, discrimination and exclusion exist because some
people mistakenly believe that group identification makes a
difference to the capacities, temperament, or virtues of group
members. The individualist conception of persons and their
relationship to one another tends to identify oppression with
group identification. Oppression, on this view, is something that
happens to people when they are classified in groups. Because
others identify them as a group they are excluded and despised.

Eliminating oppression thus requires eliminating groups. People
Should be treated as individuals, not as members of groups, and

23

allowed to form their lives freely without stereotypes or group
norms (pg. 46-7).

Young captures what is so often expressed by most students despite their
backgrounds struggling with racial issues. Treating everybody as an individual makes
sense as a way to address racial injustices across the board (MRULE Round Table
Discussions 1998, 99, 2000). Once the formula is applied to all. a clean slate is created
and everyone will know that it is their individual behavior that will determine their
success or failure--nothing more. nothing less. What a relief to all the wrangling. many
students believe. Finally we can move on! But it is not that simple of a move. We have to
upset the apple cart when we explain that of course individuality exists and should be
valued and nurtured, while at the same time acknowledge that individuals exist in assigned
social places where access to opportunity is socially and historically situated.
Individualism as a formula cannot stand on its own because of larger social forces that do
not allow individuals to simply be individuals. It must be aligned with the understanding
of social Structures, the individual in the community. There must be an ethical framework
that reflects this vital connection between the individual and the community.

The goal here is to help the students see themselves as a part of a community
where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The whole cannot be truly whole
when parts are disadvantaged and excluded. Upon knowing this, we then cultivate a sense
of caring, a deep feeling that starts with self-awareness and expands outward towards a
concern for the welfare of others. The quest for social justice can not be a theoretical
process alone. It has to move people to action. Patricia Hill Collins draws upon the
example of Sojourner Truth where “thinking and feeling do not live at cross purposes but
rather seem to energize one another” (pg. 244). The energy needed to conquer injustices

is great—there can be no minimizing of this reality. At the same time as history has shown

24

us ordinary people have harnessed this energy to battle oppressive systems and transform
social and political relationships. They have done so because they believed it was right,
they were spiritually and morally compelled. “When feelings are involved—when
individualsfeel as opposed to think they are committed—and when those feelings are
infused with self-reflexive truths as well as some sort of moral authority. actions become
fully politicized” (Collins 1998, pg. 244).

Anthropologist Ashley Montagu has studied race and racism for the greater part of
the 20 century. In his 1997 sixth edition of Man 's Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of
Race, he warns us to not underestimate the power of the human beings loving capacity.
He acknowledges that precisely because scientists have not valued the study of love in
solving human problems, it propelled him to devote so much attention to it. Critiquing an
educational system that is more caught up in technology than nurturing and developing
human beings, he states:

In the name of education our schools have become institutions for
the promotion of illiteracy in the most important of all the areas:
the art of being a warm, loving human being. Our educational
system is largely responsible for producing a population of
illiterates in a time when it has become imperative for each of us
to care for others and think of the world not as full of strangers,
but as full of friends we have not yet met.

There is only one way to express a deeper truth or meaning than
words themselves can do—by action! The meaning of a word is
the action it produces.

If we are ever to extricate ourselves from the Slough of
despondency into which we have fallen, we must recognize that
there is only one way; through education, education as love, the
deep involvement in the welfare of others. It is only through
learning to love that we find our true identity (p. 517-8).

How do we engender this level of caring in a university community particularly

when the energy is so concentrated on material and technical education? It is by no means

25

an easy task. The first step is modeling. To the degree that we as faculty demonstrate the
value of caring for the welfare of Others in our professional and personal lives is the
degree that we are “walking the talk” and thereby getting the attention of students. The
next Step in bringing it home for students is by helping them to make the connections
between their local world and the larger world in which people experience quite different
realities. That some of us are more privileged than others simply by where we were born,
family stability, access to education, and employment is one of those differences. That
some of us are born in a country where we can worship freely, protest against injustices,
choose and Shape a future based on our own independent thinking is another level of
difference that we often take for granted. We have to know these things about ourselves
and our world in order to build a genuine learning community.

To illustrate this point upon their arrival at the university we ask the students to
consider the following questions: Did they have to face barriers to get to come to the
university? If so, What were they? If not, why not? To what degree did they have control
over how the barriers got there or what had to be done to overcome them? Why do they
have differences in experience? Does race, class, or gender have anything to do with it?
In most cases, where honest dialogue takes place, coupled with the articles we provide,
there is consensus that injustice does exist in the United States. Some people experience it
regularly, some occasionally and some not all. Arousing the sense of injustice can often
move people to action where a discussion on justice as an ideal condition may merely be
contemplative (Greene 1998).

The sense of injustice does not arise mainly because of some
cognitive recognition. The reasons lie much deeper, below the
threshold of feeling. Moreover, the experience of the sense of

injustice is fundamentally social, involving a recognition that
what may or may not affect the individual human being in his or

26

her immediate situation will inevitably touch someone
somewhere.

Opened, by means of the arts or an “almost common language” to

what the suffering of others may mean, brought through active

and collaborative learning to name the cause of it and the

expanding consequences, students may come to see that each

one’s status really depends on a just order (Maxine Greene,

p. xiv).

An ethical framework that values the individual in the collective whole and

requires thinking and acting upon the knowledge of a whole is where we begin. Our next
move then is to figure out what we can do about it and act.

Human Agency

I ’m here because I know that what I 've been told about people from different racial
backgrounds in my home and community isn ’t all true.

(MRULE Participant, White female, freshman, September, 1998)

I remember listening to this young woman explain the reason for attending a
Multi-Racial group meeting in the residence halls. Her graphic depictions of the rural
Michigan environment where she grew up were imprinted upon all of us listening. “There
were clear labels for Black people. We knew they weren’t to be trusted or respected. We
knew these things about them but we didn’t know them.” My mind wandered as she
spoke and I tried to remember that the year was 1998 although her comments could have
been representative of any previous decade. The durability and embeddness of racialized
thinking was striking. This young woman was the same age as my own daughter.
Although ‘her descriptions of the negative education she received were more detailed than
many of the others, it was clear that her experience was not an aberration. As I
contemplated the fact that these students were products of my generation’s parenting, I

was bewildered. What happened to the energy and ideals of my generation? Why was the

seemingly obvious work of eradicating useless, hurtful stereotypes, accepting the dignity

27

and humanity of all people, and thriving on diversity such an elusive prospect? Was it
arrogance? Did we assume change would be guaranteed by the consistent recitation of
our lofty ideals? Upon listening to story after story of students coming into the Multi-
Racial Unity Living Experience project since 1996, it was clear that my generation did
not figure out that we had to live differently in order to be engaged in meaningful change
of the racial status quo. And we had to be engaged if we wanted to impart anything of
significance upon our children. Of course, there were many of my generation that were
not particularly interested in change as long as their interests were served. Most
institutions were set up to uphold the racial status quo until individuals made enough
noise to challenge them. We will discuss this in detail in subsequent

chapters. Additionally, there can be no underestimating of the power of apathy and
disinterest aligned with the belief that particular social problems are permanent fixtures
of our social world. These forces can immobilize agency and send the message that all is
well, and even if it’s not there’s nothing much we can do about it. Comments on racial
climate surveys like “Racism has always been here, it always will be” or “Surveys like
this create problems where they don’t exist” or “Things would be fine if people would
just leave us alone and Stop shoving it down our throats” alerted us to these sentiments.
(In-house Racial Climate surveys, 1996.)

Despite these forces, something led these young people from a variety of
backgrounds to the MRULE project. For several, it may have been curiosity, for others it
was the need to challenge the status quo. Many were looking for a group to gain a sense
of belonging, Others were determined to have their peers of different backgrounds hear
them out. Whatever reason brought them in the door they had a similar lesson to learn

about human agency and social change once inside.

28

The pivotal question for the students that had to be asked and answered through
the process of committing and engaging in a multi-racial project was the classic “What’s
in it for me?” That this answer would differ for students depending upon social location
was one of the first aspects that captured my attention. The challenge was to find ways to
nurture differences while staying focused on a vision of equity and social justice. The
“what’s in it for me?” became paradoxical because the answer was intertwined with
another question—what can you give of yourself to further the cause of equity and social
justice for all people because what’s in it .for you depends on what you give it. And these
were followed by more questions: What do you need to know about yourself and your
racialized thinking in order to engage in dialogue and activism across racial lines? Where
are you socially located? Why is understanding power and privilege so critical to
effective race relations dialogue? What is it about the racial status quo that you need to
understand? What are the historical factors concerning race in the United States that
continually shape our social world? How does that affect you? How does it play out in
the residence halls, the classroom and even more importantly, how will it play it out in
your future professional and personal life? What are the contemporary global issues that
affect race relations today? Once you know these things, what can you do about it? How
can you use your knowledge to engage in meaningful change?

I began to ask some of these questions of myself as an undergraduate studying
race/ethnic relations. However, it would be a decade later as a Fulbright Research scholar
in South Africa that I would grasp the meaning of agency in a way that would make an
indelible impression on me. Living there while the apartheid regime gasped its last dying
breaths in 1989 finally to lose its hold with the release ofNelson Mandela in 1990, taught

me how intense race was lived by all members of that society. There were no places to

29

hide or retreat as conscientized South Africans worked tirelessly to change the racial status
quo at every turn. There was daily vigilance on the part of those fighting for their freedom
and those determined to hold on to the status quo. Every aspect of life in South Africa at
the time was poisoned by the oppressive structures of apartheid. Racism was expressed
overtly and covertly in daily interactions and among all aspects of the infrastructure from
the bank to the grocery store to the petrol station, throughout the housing, education, and
employment sectors with impunity and directly in the open for all to see. I was powerfully
influenced by the tension created among those with resolve working to dismantle
apartheid at all costs and those determined to hold on to it to a bitter end that they could
not see beyond.

I distinctly remember the culture shock I experienced upon my return to the States
when I had to relearn that complacency and dedication to the status quo were the order of
the day. The United States was gearing up for the 1991 Gulf War. The clear message
rallying the country was that US. interests and way of life were to be maintained at all
costs and we would wage a high tech war to make sure the whole world understood this.
It would be quick and easy and we would get right back into acceptable social stability
with even more resolve of US. supremacy. The war on CNN as it came to be known
would soon fade in our memories. While all this was going on, my mind and spirit
remained in South Africa. It took quite some time for me to embrace the US. as home,
part of me will always be connected to and inspired by those lessons in agency from that
time and place.

I had studied liberation theory and pedagogy in class but was given the
opportunity to see and experience it practiced in raw and immediate circumstances in

South Africa. My experiences there and my untimely return to the States intensified the

30

need for me to answer difficult questions as to how I would use what I had learned. How
would I refrain from falling into complacency? It was now my responsibility as a
scholar/researcher/educator to bring this praxis into my circles of influence. 1 was
determined to make my mark in some way that nurtured my own agency and empowered
me to nurture it in Others.

As I set out to create and research this racial project that came to be known as
MRULE, I knew one thing for certain. We would attract a range of diverse students.
Some would embrace it wholeheartedly, others may come to check it out and stay long
enough before something else comes their way. If I successfully answered my research
question with one group, I would have to find ways to replicate it so that other sets of
groups could have a similar experience. As the numbers of groups involved increased, I
would have to determine ifthe principles and objectives were achieved while they were in
the program and what they took away as they moved on from the university into their
professional lives. The real 51ng of accomplishment was what students did outside of the
group meetings in their circles of influences. Human agency would be progressively
understood and practiced by the students as they engaged in the MRULE project and
beyond.

What did I understand about human agency that I wanted to apply to the MRULE
project? There are five key points that informed what I believed human agency looked like
and how I would know when it was applied.

1. Student participants are agents of knowledge who would inform the project on
several levels (Collins, 1998, Griffiths, 1998). They were both tellers oftheir own
histories and potential makers of new and different histories especially as it related to

the patterns of racial thinking and acting they had learned up this point. Starting from

31

their lives and experiences, we formed a learning community that would have to work
with whatever they brought to the table (Palmer 1998). Although I uncompromisingly
set out to take them from where they were to another place where more critical
thinking and acting would develop, it had to be with their buy—in at some level. Every
member of the learning community had to be patient with every other member Since
there were such vastly different starting points.

2. Students are active participants in a dynamic learning process where reflection
and action are simultaneous processes (Freire 1970). They construct meaning
around the events in which they participate (Griffiths 1998). As they are presented
with knowledge and experiences that expand and challenge their thinking, reflection is
required. Since our subject matter concerns self-awareness in a socio-political
environment, this reflection and consequent action results in a raising of consciousness
or as Freire calls it conscientization." More than the acquisition of knowledge
conscientization has transformative power to set agency in motion. Conscientization
questions previously formed mental constructs and continually serves the learner to
search after deeper meanings about who they are and how they can make a difference
in their world.

3. To uphold agency we need to understand something about the nature of human
capacity for change. We are often met with cynicism when students discover what we
have set out to do. “It is human nature for people to stick with who they are
comfortable with, it has nothing to do with race” would be the comment we would

hear relentlessly. “Human nature is lazy and selfish, it hasn’t changed much and it

 

9 The term conscientization refers to learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and
to take action against the oppressive elements of reality (Freire. pg. 19).

32

won’t in the future” are other common statements. We categorically disagree with
these positions and have based our work in the principle that human beings have a dual
nature, capable of altruism and selfishness, with the free will to choose which they will
develop. Without engaging in endless debate that forces an either/or explanation, we
once again work within a both/and relational paradigm. Whatever belief system a
person subscribes to, all can acknowledge that growth and change are driving forces in
the human being as demonstrated by the history of social movements and the heroic
individuals who built them (Zinn 1994, Harvey 1996). History is full of those who
terrorized and those who triumphed over terror, dominators and resisters, oppressors
and freedom fighters, the selfish and the selfless. All is possible. How we direct our
will to develop qualities that nurture, sustain, and honor human life and the healthy
development of communities speaks to the capacity of our evolving human nature.

We are intelligent, rational, self-aware creatures who, because of

the tools evolution has provided have some dynamic potential

within the evolutionary process of which we are a part. And this

potential is essentially not only a possibility in a process but a

possibility in process, itself ongoing and open-ended (Murphy,
pg.49)

Agency is employed when participants are co-creators and take ownership of the
process. Not unlike Freire’s concept of the critical co-investigator of problem posing
education, we have placed many aspects of the MRULE’S development in the hands
of the student participants. We consistently reinforce that the quality of their learning
involves an interdependent relational process and ask two questions: What do you
expect to get out of your participation in MRULE and what do you expect to be
giving to MRULE to ensure this happens? As they complete one or two years of

participation in the program, they may be selected to serve as Student Leaders, which

increases their responsibility to themselves and their fellow participants. In this role,
they demonstrate to their younger colleagues, that students can confront one another
about contemporary and historical racial issues. They can openly discuss issues.
realize that they may not know all there is to know, expand their knowledge base,
Open themselves up to different experiences by developing relationships with people
from different racial/ethnic backgrounds, and change their way of thinking about
what is possible in race relations.

Agency requires a sense of responsibility to the larger community. Once
transformative thinking and behavior begin to take place, it is critical to ensure that
participants have an outward vision. Throughout the four years of our program,
whenever we go on a trip into the larger community, we are a unique sight to behold.
We are a thoroughly diverse large group, “hanging out” in diverse small groups,
learning about our multiracial history and culture together. Visits to historical
Underground Railroad sites, cultural centers or activities, even restaurants have
consistently aroused interest from those we come in contact with. They inevitably ask
who we are and what we are about. At least once a semester the MRULE groups
engage in a community service project in the greater Lansing area. We have worked
with Habitat for Humanity and the Council Against Domestic Assault. Students learn
that community service is a key component of the MRULE. It is a way of building
community based on caring for others and brings us closer to the kind of education

Montagu, Greene, Freire and others are calling for.

34

Examples from the field

The following examples from the field are recorded in field notes and in MRULE
student evaluations (1997 -2000). In all cases, I have had individual conversations with
those directly involved and many others who watched situations unfold. Although each
case study focuses on one or two students it is important to note that the whole MRULE
community was at one point or another sharing the discoveries of these students
sometimes directly through close friendship circles and sometimes indirectly in the larger
group. The examples cited here reflect the five principles discussed above to greater or
lesser degrees.

Qse Study One

In the first year of the program we had one student Sheryl, a White female,
repeatedly say things that made some Black students cringe. The Black students felt that.
even though she seemed to mean well, She talked down to them, especially when she
used the words “you guys” they heard a derivative of “you people,” while Sheryl
intended a reference to the specific people she was talking to.” This went on for several
sessions and was brought to light one day when things got tense with one of the Black
students, Terri, who was consistently irritated with everything Sheryl said. “I can’t stand
her, She grinds on my nerves,” were her often repeated words to herself, her friends, and
on occasion, to me. For Terri, it wasn’t just Sheryl’s personality; it was that it was
embodied in whiteness, which was synonymous with irritating ignorance. For Sheryl, it
wasn’t just being misunderstood; it was being misunderstood by a group of Black women
after successfully building several interracial friendships last year as a freshman.

When it was time to assign small groups for teambuilding and to prepare for the
Community-Building Trip, I put Terri and Sheryl in the same group. I knew this was
risky because they could have walked out from out volunteer project at any point. My
colleague suggested that I not push it too fast: if they had an explosion it could potentially
scare them and others away. But I didn’t want to wait. I wanted to know if what we
were trying to do could work at least in this very specific situation. I was confident I
could handle the fall out.

Upon getting their assignments, Terri complained, and Sheryl resigned herself,
but they went about their group business of doing personal profiles on one another’s lives
with the other three members of the group. They balked at the realization that they were
going to be traveling and rooming together. The bottom line was that they wanted to go
to Toronto more than they wanted to antagonize each other, so they accepted that they
were going have to figure something out.

 

It)

MRULE roundtable meetings, Wilson Hall. April 1997.

35

The long bus ride gave them plenty of time. They engaged in several activities
together that gave them the chance to see each other as human beings. Terri was struck
with Sheryl’s genuine desire to build a friendship even though she treated her as an
irritant. Sheryl’s patience put the ball in Terri’s court. She knew that as long as She was
in MRULE She couldn’t back away from the effort. She was going to have to do her part
to make it work. So she jumped in. They started talking seriously in an interactive game.
One thing led to another and they emerged from the trip as friends. Though Sheryl left
MRULE the following year to concentrate on her job and studies, Terri remained and
developed leadership Skills. On her final evaluation that spring she wrote: “I now believe
that anything is possible for Whites and Blacks. I think everyone can change” (MRULE
evaluations, Spring, 1997).

This happened in MRULE’S first year and was the kind of boost that propelled us
forward as Terri was not someone who was known for her optimism particularly when it
came to interacting with Whites. We know that one experience, however enlightening,
cannot be responsible for sustaining life chances. We also know that we are engaged in a
process whereby each valuable step made along the way gives us reason to hope that
people can change rigid patterns of racial thinking and acting. We cannot know the full
impact that this experience had on Terri and Sheryl but can be sure that the both learned
valuable lessons that will remain with them well into their futures.

C_aie Study Two

Shortly after the program began I received a call from a Black student who heard
about MRULE from the Residence Life staff and was moved to question me directly
before he attended. Eager to know what we were “really about,” John confidently
asserted, “I don’t believe it is possible for Blacks and Whites to come together other than
to argue. . .I mean if it is going to be real there has got to be a lot of conflict.” I spoke to
him for some time encouraging him to give it a try. I assured him that he should feel free
to bring up his concerns and if they were confrontational we would handle it. He
attended that very evening and came prepared to challenge the White students in the
group as well as the entire concept of creating unity among diverse people. “I wanted
them to hear me. All my life I never thought White people listened to Black people. We
always had to listen to them. They’re everywhere, our teachers, our bosses, on the news,
in the stores. They make the rules, we’re supposed to follow. I was angry at the whole
system and I wanted those White students in MRULE to know that.” (Interview with
John, Spring, 1997).

John attended MRULE regularly and found himself intrigued by the fact that he
could argue and more often than not leave with a greater understanding of an issue than

36

he came with. There were several White Students in the group who were engaging in
extended conversations with Black people for the first time in their lives. There were bi-
racial students who found comfort in the group because they didn’t feel forced to choose
loyalties. John was consistently one of the most involved contributors to the dialogue.
He challenged the group and in turn the process challenged him. We knew John was
hooked when within the next month, several new Black men joined the group on his
recommendation. “In looking at the initial Sign advertising MRULE I never would have
imagined that I would have taken part in so many different experiences and met so many
people. I intend to continue to be a part of this program and venture outside of my
comfort zone trying to establish relationships outside of my race and also to stay in touch
with my new peoples” (MRULE Student Evaluations, 1998).

C_ase SttgdyThree

Mark was dragged to an MRULE meeting by a friend who didn’t want to attend
alone. He wasn’t sure what the group stood for or why it was needed on campus, but once
there he liked the people and came back consistently. Mark grew up in a racially
segregated working class community and didn’t think about race much. Coming from a
working class White family, he knew that many things in life didn’t come easy for him
and just figured it was similar for others. Joining MRULE opened worlds of knowledge
to him. He began to notice when race and class intersected and when race remained
salient in spite of class similarities. He found himself questioning all that he thought he
knew, specifically the purpose and practice of affirmative action. At the beginning of the
year, he was arguing against using information he received from others about how unfair
it was. By the end of the year he was arguing for affirmative action with someone who
was using the same information he had used earlier to knock down. As he listened to the
argument he was struck with how much opinion and little fact were used. Mark got
excited about his new knowledge and eagerly pursued learning more through dialogues
with us in and after the meetings. This led to course work where he would challenge
himself to delve deeper into the historical and sociological aspects of race in the United
States.

One of the most difficult aspects of Mark’s experience in MRULE was dealing
with the bigotry he was exposed to by family members. They thought he was wasting his
time dedicating his life to a concept of working for racial equality. They laughed at what
they called his naivete about the world—he didn’t seem to understand that racial
inequalities are the natural order of things, simply the result of innate characteristics——
whites are on top because they are superior, everyone else beneath them, getting what
they deserve. Over the years, Mark challenged them but it seemed to always result in
them telling him he was too young and inexperienced in the real world. His college
education and his racial idealism may sound good in the books but it had nothing to do
with day to day life in the world.

The contradictions that many of his family members used came to light when
recently his father asked him to help a cousin who was incarcerated for breaking and
entering. He got a ten-year sentence and was coming upon parole soon after eight years.
While in prison, racial tensions have been extremely volatile with clear racial/ethnic
group separatism. The cousin is angry and bitter and frequently uses racial slurs
carelessly. Upon hearing this, Mark’s father asked Mark if he would be willing to
correspond with the cousin and try and strike up a renewed relationship. He thought Mark

37

could influence him positively so that upon his release from prison he might have a
chance to survive and carry on with his life. As Mark told me this Story I smiled thinking
now that is quite a tall order for a “naive, racial idealist” from Michigan State University
(MRULE Student Evaluations, 1998, 1999 and interview with Mark, Summer, 2000).

Educational Principles and Action Research
With a vision for social change, driven by social justice, fueled by human agency,
there is one additional component to complete the theoretical framework used to create

MRULE. What were the educational principles? How would they shape practice and

how would they be researched? As an educator with years of experience teaching in

diverse settings, I have always been motivated by educational principles. As a

scholar/activist I had to ensure that I could research the process and outcomes, improve at

each juncture and replicate on larger scales within each new phase of development. The
following principles are based on lessons I have learned about true education throughout

my professional career. This includes a wide range of teaching positions: English as a

Second Language adult education, multicultural pre-school, theater arts college

instructor, race relations consultant, teacher of university race relations history course and

director of MRULE.

1. Transformative, empowering education is an interactive process—involving thought
and action. The original meaning to “bring or lead forth” captures the essence of the
educative process and as Freire so powerfully critiques human beings are not empty
vessels to dump knowledge in (banking method) but rather “co-investigators” of their
own learning (Freire 1997). Genuine learning takes place when students interact with
teachers, other learners, and the material.

2. Education is about expanding the mind’s capacity and using that greater capacity to

develop healthy social relations. It is for the purpose of conscientization. Technical

38

training to learn a skill or trade is an important aspect of learning but does not
substitute for understanding the human condition, the social and political
ramifications of the quest for equity and social justice and the continual development
of creative and innovative thought that can advance community.

Educational programming that seeks to change the “status quo on the ground” needs
to be shaped by collaborative efforts among faculty/staff and the student participants.
A learning community in which all share ownership for the qualitative development
of the program is necessary to carry out the work.

The more diverse the learning community is, the more opportunity for “real life”
examples to be brought to light, the more accessible the material becomes and the
more substantial is the learning experience. In this context diversity refers specifically
to racial/ethnic diversity as MRULE is a racial project but we are also concerned with
gender, class, sexuality, and ability. This diversity must be thorough. It cannot be a
majority of one group with a sprinkling of difference. It must be diverse enough so
that students learn that there is no monolithic community of any group of people
despite their similar historical and cultural ties. This thorough diversity challenges an
in-group-out group paradigm by expanding the definition of the in-group to include
everyone present to develop community.

Both teachers and learners have a responsibility to the process. In a truly functional
learning community they are interchangeable roles. A teacher succeeds when the
learner is empowered to take hold of the learning process, master the material and
maximize the experience by taking it outside of the learning community and into the

circles of influence in his/her life.

Once we began to get the MRULE project off the ground, we had to decide
research methodology that would help to determine whether: (l)We were meeting our
goals and having an impact on the students and the community whenever possible and (2)
We could replicate what we were doing on a small scale to an increasingly larger scale.
Our first attempt was to do a survey questionnaire with students who lived in the building
where we piloted MRULE and a control group in another building that did not have the
project. We had our research methodology in order but we were over optimistic about the
impact our pilot project could have on the whole building in its first year. It would take
much more time and attention. AS this was our first survey conducted in the residence
halls we were not prepared for the degree of resistance and outright disinterest on the part
of the students. Even with the incentive of pizza bought for the floor with the most
returned surveys we had less than a 20% return rate. Some of this was due to the fact that
they felt “surveyed out” by the various questionnaires that continually come their way and
part was due to the disdain many had for the subject matter of race relations in the
residence halls. Since we were just getting the program started we did not have well-
developed relationships with the students and staff of the buildings. Consequently our
influence over the process was weak. The attempt at survey research taught me that it was
too soon to get the kind of data we were hoping for. Much more relationship building
would have to be done. Meanwhile we looked at other fomts of evaluation.

The next phase of research was to develop an evaluative instrument where the
students self report on their experience. (See Appendix A for the latest version of this
instrument that is given at the end of the year throughout the MRULE program.) In 1998

and 1999 a focus group was held by outside researchers to evaluate key components of the

40

program. The results varied depending on the individual experienceflin general the focus
groups told us they had interest in and commitment to MRULE. It needed some tweaking
here and there but for the most part MRULE had captured the attention of the students and
they were both grateful for the opportunity and detemtined to do their part to help it to
grow (MRULE Student Evaluations, l997-2000).

From the onset MRULE developed through the interaction and contributions of the
faculty and students, unfolding organically. Initially, I knew very little about participatory
action research, although one thing was always made clear to me as I struggled to develop,
evaluate, change, develop and evaluate. This was the realization that no matter what I did,
success was defined by how well the students owned the work, internalized the principles,
reflected on their roles, shared with others in and out of the group what their learning
meant to them, and committed to a different way of being as they confronted racial issues.
Studying this process led me into Action Research (AR) in education. Although much of
this literature focuses on public school curriculum, pedagogy, administration and
functioning, I found pockets of helpful information to draw from. I wanted to find a
research methodology that would assist me in developing an interdependent model of
theory and practice for the MRULE project.

Participatory and/or Action Research are research methods primarily concerned
with action or practice that seeks to solve problems that have been identified by the
community through collaborative means. (Stringer 1996, Selener 1997, Kemmis &
Wilkinson 1998). Action research came into its own during the 1960’s as researchers
concerned about issues of dominance and subordination became increasingly salient

between researchers and subjects. Traditional quantitative survey research came under

41

criticism as well intended researchers found themselves missing the mark either because
the complexity of human feeling and experience were reduced, respondents forced
answers in structured interviews or questionnaires that did not accurately reflect their
perceptions, or survey instruments were ahistorical, lacking in content, structuring
individuals as ifthey had no past or future. (Hall, lecture at MSU, February 2000, Selener
1997). The most striking criticism of all was that often this research did not focus on
solutions to the problems but rather prided itself on increasingly more precise and intricate
definitions of the problem. For those being researched it reinforced the power relations
between those who could arrive to study the problem, write it up, publish and vanish and
those in the community whose conditions did not change whether the researchers had been
there or not.

Participatory research combines three principled activities:

research, education, and action. It is a research method in which

people are actively involved in conducting a systematic

assessment of a social phenomenon by identifying a specific

problem for the purpose of solving it. It is an educational process

because researcher and participants together analyze and learn

about the causes of and possible solutions to the problem

addressed. It is an action-orientated activity since findings are

implemented in the form of practical solutions. All three

processes are conducted in a participatory way between outside

researcher and participants (Society for Participatory Research in

Asia, 1982).

There are some distinct differences between MRULE and most communities who have

successfully used participatory action research to understand and solve problems. The
first is that our community is not an established one but rather one that comes together for

a short time and changes constantly. Given the tremendous fluidity, this time is critical in

the ideological and social development of the young adult. We have them in our Space

42

from anywhere between a semester and four years. Second, our community is a
relatively privileged one, university students. Although many students of color have and
continue to experience racial oppression, they are, in most cases in positions where they
will have opportunities to do something about it at the university and beyond. They don’t
come to us because they are conscious of needing to solve problems. Third, only a small
percentage seeks us out because they want an altemative academic/social experience. The
majority of our students happenstance upon the group and are not quite sure what they
are up for learning. They soon discover that they are in positions to learn something
about structural inequalities and everyday acts of racism and do something about them
(MRULE Student Evaluations, 1997-2000). There is, during these years, a heightened
opportunity for conscientization (Freire, 1970, Smith, Willms, Johnson, 1997, Murphy,
1998) in the pursuit of social justice. Together they learn to name phenomenon that many
students of color live on a daily basis. For example, White students are challenged with
the notion of whiteness as the norm--in a way most have not previously thought about.
We will discuss the content of this material in Chapter Two. The important thing to note
here is that the concepts are not only learned in an intellectual way but the learning
community creates social relationships where the concepts are experienced. This leads us
to our stated problem and methods of inquiry.

Can a multi-faceted university experience that engages a diverse group of college
students in a Racial Project requiring that they learn, interact, travel, and serve
together empower them to become active change agents committed to social justice in
their college experience and beyond? If so, what has to be in place in such an
experience? Who are the players? What is the nature of their interactions? What is the
appropriate amount of time? What are the key components of the project?

Our first step as in any research project is to understand the problem. As was

discussed in Chapter One, racial polarization as evidenced by animosity, segregation, and

43

tensions on campus are all aspects of the problem that MRULE was created to address.

There are several critical steps in this process.

1. Ensure that students understand the historical and social contexts of this polarization.
Help them with key definitions: race. racism, anti-racism, power, privilege, racial
status quo, social change, activism, community. (See Appendix D for full list of
terms.)

2. Create practices that seek to reduce polarization and create interracial unity. These
include: the weekly round table discussions, monthly social activities, semester
community building trips. and community service. In addition to the above the
Student Leaders participate in: weekly race relations seminar, recruitment and
retention activities for group members, acting as liaisons with other student groups,
making presentation to relevant classes, serving larger university “Building
community through diversity” initiatives.

3. Evaluate the development of understanding and actions for meaningful and
sustainable change.

4. Adapt these changes to practice accordingly.

This is how the interdependent theory and practice of the MRULE program came into

being. Next, we will turn to an example from the field that demonstrates how we

engaged in the process of learning by doing.

Example from the field

Upon successfully completing the pilot of MRULE in one building with 24
students in the 1996/97 academic year, we entered the next year eager to take on another
residence hall and build upon our small victories. We concentrated on the content of the
program and bringing graduate advisors onto the scene and did little to recruit. To our
astonishment, the group of 24 became a group of 48 in one building and an additional 25
in the other. Immediately it became clear that we were growing fast and were going to
need to empower the undergraduates to take leadership roles if we expected to survive.

44

Our small family was expanding and as new people came in, the dynamics that we
carefully cultivated by having dinner once a week, intimate, open and frank discussions
and trips together were challenged. The numbers alone made it impossible to have the
same degree of intimacy. The first year students complained that it wasn’t the same
experience, the new students were filled with expectations as they listened to stories of
the previous years, and graduate students struggled when they led discussions and were
compared with Dr. Thomas or me.

I conducted one-on-one interviews with all first year participants that year
because I felt I needed to get to know them better. I smile at this now since our
subsequent numbers render this impossible. Several students made it a point to tell me
they remembered those interviews and felt uncharacteristically valued. I used their
feedback to help me conceptualize changes in our day to day functioning. We also held a
focus group with a cadre of Black women who felt the discussions were not relevant to
them. We heard them out, explained some of the terminology and took their feedback
back to the whole group, which made a qualitative difference in that discussion.

At the end of the academic year, there were mixed feelings. We retained our
numbers and there seemed to be a strong commitment to the group and its growth. Our
diversity was impressive, a thorough mix of Black and White students and several who
identified as bi- or multi-racial. The graduate student group leaders were an invaluable
asset to me but it was a one-year deal. The undergraduate students who were now going
into their second or third year were eager for the chance at leadership. Focus groups were
held and evaluations were studied. Discussions with students and residence life staff
about the potential of the group were frequent. There was interest on the part of the
university to Start two more groups so we would be represented in the four major areas of
the campus. The student leader teams of the 1998/99 academic year were formed that
summer. With great enthusiasm I took on the growth challenges, unaware of the degree
of internal problems that may arise in the student cadre. I offered student leadership to a
large number of students, those who had shown interest and commitment. My goal was to
maintain diversity on the leadership teams.

I wanted the teams to be thoroughly diverse for two critical reasons. (1) Students
who come into the program need to see us model the principles we are teaching. We
know from social learning theory that role modeling has an important role in shaping
behavior (Bandura, 1977). We saw the effect that Dr. Thomas and I had on them as they
watched us worked together, agree, disagree, never afraid to get our hands dirty or
confront the difficult issues whether we had to do it alone or together, always willing to
be there, always supporting the other. (2) Student participants needed to see someone
they could relate to in a leadership role, someone they thought represented to the degree
possible their experiences.

I formed the teams with second and third year students, with an impressive
racial/ethnic and gender balance. There were five teams with five to six members per
team. Commitment to the program was the only criteria as this was our first cadre of
student leaders. AS a new director of a new program I could not begin to fathom what
could go wrong. I enthusiastically entered the year, prepared for the kick off summer
retreat and entered a quagmire of difficulties.

45

Sparing all the gory details and there were many, I will outline here what we

discovered did not work with our Student Leader teams.

1. The teams were too big. They did not develop a sense of cohesiveness because for
the most part they had interpersonal problems with one another that they could not
work out. The responsibility of being a leader did not in their minds afford them the
time to work on these issues. Most of them had to do with personality conflicts and
previous history they had in their relationships. Very little, if any, of their conflict
was related to race.

2. They had varying degrees of commitment. Enthusiasm in undergraduates can wane
quickly when another exciting opportunity comes along. The screening process was
inadequate. Interest in the program did not necessarily translate into leadership ability
and staying power.

3. The work of a student leader is time consuming and impossible to monitor if the
Students “work” as volunteers. The majority of students work while going to school
and MRULE added at least another 6-10 hours to their week depending on how
thorough they were. When comers had to be cut, MRULE was often the first to go.

4. Student leaders who did not live in the buildings where the program was running
were ineffective because it was impossible to make the necessary connections with
residents. This was particularly problematic in the new buildings where we did not
have a program in the previous year.

5. Where our relationship with the Residence Life staff was strong, our program had
more chance for success. Some leaders were more willing to make those connections
than others.

6. There was grossly inadequate training. . .this was due to primarily to the volunteer
nature of the work where I had limited time I could demand of them. They were
under trained, under prepared, making obvious the uneven development between
those who brought skill to the table and those who did not.

7. There was confusion over their role as a leader. Despite my definitions and job
descriptions, they struggled with role identity. Do they share who they really are with
their participants (YES, I SAID OVER AND OVER) or do they play the neutral
facilitator? (NO TO THE NEUTRALITYI EXPIAINED, NOT IN THIS WORK, THE
PARTICIPANTS HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK WHILE YOU WORK TO
HELP THEM ALL EXPRESS WHAT THEY THINK. DISAGREEMENT IS NOT
ONLY OKAYIT IS DESIRED AND THAT IS HOW WE CAN GET CLOSER TO THE
TRUTH.) Do they hang out with their participants? Do they go to parties with them?
Do the older ones invite the younger ones to parties where alcohol is served? Do they
date each other or their participants?

46

8. Many of them were not prepared for leadership as service. They thought of leadership
as an opportunity to develop skills, get a plus on the resume or an excellent letter of
recommendation but service and all that it demands for many of them was a whole
different world.

9. Related to the above, many of them were not ready for activism while some were so
eager for activism that they could not ground their feet in the content.

In response to the rapid growth. I formed the teams and directed every ounce of
energy I had to nurturing them to form and maintain healthy groups. We succeeded in
one of the buildings although we lost student leaders rapidly—with 50% attrition. I
spun a lot of wheels, but saw the trouble early enough in the process to know that
changes had to be made. In the action research tradition we paid attention to what
each group was saying to one another and me. We listened to the participants and
heard what sparked and waned their interests. We took the necessary actions
immediately. By the following year:

The teams were reduced in size to three—diversity remained a core value.

Volunteer positions were abolished as Student jobs were created.

Training increased from a once a month seminar to a once a week seminar.

Extensive summer training for new leaders coming in was added to the 2000

group.

4. Responsibility was increased. The voices of leaders were encouraged. Active
participation with other student groups and university wide activities was set
in motion.

5 . Ownership Of the groups became more the responsibility of the leaders than
mine, as they were the ones on the ground making the connections. I kept the
connections strong with them and attended as many meetings of all groups as
possible—some meet Simultaneously.

6. The role and responsibility of the leader was made clearer. Dating was

restricted. A leader was asked not to date a participant or fellow leader on a

team while they were in a leadership role for their assigned academic year. If

a leader didn’t feel it was possible to wait till the year was over, they could

step down from leadership, otherwise they could concentrate on the friendship

aspect of the relationship while they were serving as leaders. It became policy
that the older MRULE student leaders could not invite underage MRULE
participants to parties where alcohol was served.

waI—i

47

“This project is a living project and is always changing” (MRULE participant
evaluation, 1998). I was pleased to read this from a student who had grasped the ever-
changing nature of MRULE. Students cannot help but learn that they are co-creators of
the change and because of this their ownership in the process is more immediate. We are
driven by our purpose to bring their academic and social worlds together while igniting a
spirit of racial/social justice activism that will endure throughout and beyond their college
years. We are learning from the practice how to breathe life into theory. We are learning
from theory what must substantiate practice. AS we document the process we engage in
action research and develop the techniques that respond to the needs of the program.
According to Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998), seasoned scholars in the field of action
research, this approach is commonly used.

What makes action research ‘research’ is not the machinery of
research techniques but an abiding concern with the relationships
between social and educational theory and practice. Before
questions about what kinds of research methods are appropriate
can be decided, it is necessary to decide what kinds of things
‘practice’ and ‘theory’ are—for only then can we decide what
kinds of data or evidence might be relevant in describing
practice, and what kinds of analyses are relevant in interpreting
and evaluating people’s real practices in the real situations in
which they work. On this view of action research, a central
question is how practices are to be understood ‘in the field’, as it
were, so they become available for more systematic theorizing.
Once having arrived at a general view of what it means to
understand (theorize) practice in the field, it becomes possible to
work out what kinds of evidence, and hence what kinds of
research methods and techniques, might be appropriate for
advancing our understanding of practice at any particular time.

(p. 34)

Social Justice, Human Agency, and Action Research are the pillars that provide the
MRULE project with a structure to develop an interdependent theory and practice. It is

most helpful for me to conceptualize it as a road map that seeks to guide students on that

48

journey towards becoming active change agents. As mentioned earlier, we have the goal
of going from one place of intellectual and emotional development to another. Our
destination is that place where thought is more critical and in-depth, where feelings to
understand and act are nurtured and encouraged, where action is self-initiated and
generative of more action and interactions. There are importath steps in the journey that
are structured around key concepts in race relations. We now tum to a detailed discussion
of the critical elements of understanding race and racism that students encounter when

they commit to at least one year of participation in MRULE.

49

Chapter Three
Conceptualizing Race, Power, and Privilege

The history of the concept of race is a truly dreadful one. From its beginning and by its
very existence, the term has served to narrow the definition of humanity through the
establishment of a hegemonic hierarchy of discrete entities. These entities, the so-called
races, were primarily based on differences in physical traits. Such physical traits were.
soon linked with cultural and social differences, educability, and intelligence.

Ashley Montagu, Man '5 Most Dangerous Myth, p. 515

T 0 argue that race is myth and that it is an ideological rather than a biological fact does
not deny that ideology has real effects on people 's lives. Race serves as a “global sign,
a “metalanguage, " since it speaks about and lends meaning to a host of terms and
expressions, to myriad aspects of life that would otherwise fall outside the referential
domain of race.

Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, “Afi’ican-American Women’s

History and the Metalanguage of Race,” p. 3

To challenge the racial status quo in the thinking and actions ofindividuals while

simultaneously assisting them to understand social structures that perpetuate inequalities
in a way that inspires them to want to act is by no means an easy process. It demands as
clear of a road map as is possible and as was discussed in Chapter One, adaptability at
every turn. The conceptualization of race, power, and privilege has several components.
The first is the centrality of race in relationship to ethnicity, culture, class, and the most
popular buzzword of the 90’s—diversity. Second, the social construction of race and its
counterparts; the social construction of whiteness, white supremacy and white privilege
are the underlying pillars to the ideology and practice of everyday and institutionalized
racism which are situated in dynamic power relations. Breaking it down for the students
requires teaching and using each concept and making vital connections with their own

experience. This is done with the help of history, anthropology, sociology, and current

events.

50

The C entrality of Race

After two semesters of participation in the MRULE project a student commented
on her evaluation. “1 was attracted to this group because ofthe name...I think
multiculturalism is important.” I read over this response several times. We have always
used the term multiracial, but somehow for this student it was multicultural. In another
Situation we were asked to change the word Multi-Racial in our title to multicultural to be
more inclusive. We insisted that this was a racial project that included everyone because,
as far as we could tell, everyone was racialized in this society. “But people don’t really
like the sound of the word race. It’s loaded...lt’s too close to racism, and people want to
move beyond that” were the comments I heard. Educator Ann Dummet says it succinctly:
“ ‘Race’ makes everyone lose their nerve.” (p. 11)

By the time we started the MRULE project in 1996 1 was well versed in a variety
of unnerving comments.ll I encountered this reality directly upon returning from South
Africa where I had grown accustomed to race relations of some kind or another filling
every waking moment of existence. It was the norm so to speak, no one could escape it,
and no one expected to. When I reentered the US. in 1990 the cultural diversity
movement was just getting off the ground. (Loden & Rosener 1991, Fernandez 1991). At
first I was excited anticipating that there was a renewed vitality in the air around racial

issues and we were going to make some profound movement toward equality, social

 

H Prior to Starting the program I worked as a race relations/diversity consultant in the publiciprivate sector
and was the recipient of many attacks for the program we delivered. We always persisted and managed to
educate a good number of people who started the class under protest and without concern for the subject
matter. My favorite Story with one client was reported to me several years after the class took place. One
of the participants who was angry and resistant told a co-worker that she wished she hadn’t been so
resistant because much of what she learned in the class, has been reinforced by subsequent experiences on
the job and in her life.

51

justice and all around more healthy race relations, whether it be the work place,
educational, or social environment.

It wasn’t long working in the field as race relations consultants that my colleague
and I were made aware of the degree to which race had been diluted in the diversity
discourse. We had a variety of clients from the public and private sectors: city and state
government, public schools, hospitals and corporations. Although our particular approach
was far from an “in-your-face tirade on white racism, we were not prepared to dilute race
or racism from either a historical or sociological perspective. We presented a broad view
of a “changing America” while keeping race in the forefront of the material. Inevitably
complaints abounded. “Why did we insist on focusing on race since diversity was so much
more than race? Weren’t we reinforcing racial problems by reminding people of the
history? Aren’t we way past that? Why does everything have to come back to
Black/White issues? What about women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled? What about
poor people, overweight people, ugly people? After all everyone is different and has some
reason or another to be excluded or marginalized.”

We acknowledged that many of the issues the diversity project was tackling were
important and Should not be diluted. Likewise we did not want race diluted. Precisely
because of our history and the patterns of resistance to changes in the racial status quo, we
could not back down. So we titled our class “Diversity: the Unfinished Business of Race
Relations” and demonstrated that if by focusing on other aspects of diversity, we push race
under the carpet, it will emerge again, still unfinished and unnerving, and quite able to

adversely affect the constructive possibilities of the diversity work.

52

We received a considerable amount of support for this message in 1997 when
President Clinton instituted Executive Order No. 13050 which created the Initiative on
Race and authorized the creation of an Advisory Board to advise the President on how to
build one America in the 21St Century. “The President recognizes that, even as America
rapidly becomes the world's first truly multiracial democracy, race relations remains an
issue that too often divides our nation and keeps the American dream from being real for
everyone who works for it”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/lnitiatives/OneAmerica/about.html). The national attention
given to race relations, and the corresponding statistics on racial and ethnic inequalities,
the need to learn our multiracial history and study persistent discriminatory practices in
housing, employment, and the criminal justice system challenge the argument that we
have resolved racial problems in the United States.

The university environment is ripe for controversy over the centrality of race.
We hear on a regular basis students telling either their own or their friend’s story of how
they did not get accepted to the University of Michigan because they were White. (This is
why they attend their second choice—Michigan State University.) In the scenario all
things being equal as of course they are in the United States of America, these students
are being unfairly discriminated against. They have better grades, better test scores, more
AP classes so the story goes. “It is no wonder that race relations on campus are tense and
deteriorating as you can’t correct a wrong with another wrong,” they repeatedly tell us.

A skillful response is required in this debate if we hope to keep the student
engaged. Many times they aren’t looking for engagement but rather a place to vent. Once

they’ve completed that goal, they usually leave. But every so often a few linger on

53

looking for answers to this seemingly pinnacle ofinjustice. I will most likely mention
something about the history of racial discrimination so that we can be closer to the same
page regarding how we got to the state we are in today but that doesn’t always catch their
attention. “What does that have to do with us now? We can’t keep living in the past,”
they declare. (We will discuss the dismal relationship this generation of students has
with history in detail in Chapter Three.) So I move on to other bodies of research.
Social science researchers have been looking at these questions diligently over the

last decade and thanks to the joint Sponsorship of the Russell Sage and Ford Foundation
Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality (MC S U1) has recently been published (Spring,
2000). With a team of over forty researchers from fifteen universities collecting data
from 8000 households (African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and White) and
3,200 employers in Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and LOS Angeles, they have documented
persistent trends in housing and labor markets. They also look at racial attitudes by
interviewing both employers and employees and people in a range of neighborhoods.

In all four cities, the multi-city study found that persistent racial

stereotyping constitutes an important barrier to integration and to

labor market opportunity, whether reflected in employer’s beliefs

about potential workers, or households’ resistance to living with

social stigmatized groups. For example, while 54% of Boston

area Hispanics would not move into an all-white neighborhood,

as many as 85% would not move into an all-black neighborhood.

The evidence points to a widespread sense of a racial hierarchy,

that consistently ranks African Americans below others and

routinely ranks whites at the top. (Preliminary Findings from the

Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality)

(http://www.russellsage.org/special_interest/point_9_divide.htm)
Many White students who attend MSU have no context in which to place this kind of

information and often retreat to what is accessible in their memory. “It’s because those

people are poor and don’t have opportunities to compete—they don’t have the same

54

values and that’s why they are stigmatized. It wouldn’t be so bad if we concentrated
upon helping them. But that’s not how it is. It’s not only about race because there were
Black kids in my school who had more money than I did. They still got the chances over
me. And that has nothing to do with those poor kids you were talking about” (MRULE
Round Table Discussions 1999, 2000).

There is much going on in this statement and we cannot unpack it all at the same
time. It is our hope that this student will stay with the MRULE program so we can work
on the layers over time. The first thing we are concerned about is conveying that race has
much to do with those poor kids as well as having something to do with the Black kids
that have more money than they do. Throughout the prosperous 90’s race still matters
(West 1993) —thiS is not merely our sentiment. We invite them to look at the evidence.
The data from the MCSUI helps here. In the Detroit study for example researchers found
that it took unskilled, unemployed white workers an average of 91 hours to generate a job
offer while it took Blacks 167 hours (Farley, Danziger, Holzer 2000, p. 139). Why is
this? The study finds that persistent stereotypes on the part of the employer makes it
harder for Black men to secure jobs. And this does not only occur in the unskilled labor
market but in the professional world as well. Black executives report “a cornucopia of
discontent” which includes consistent exclusionary practices, questions as to whether a
person of color really belongs in the corporate world, has competency to move up or is
just the right fit (Cose 1993, p. 77, Thomas & Gabarro 1999).

We present contemporary data which highlights the centrality of race not to the
exclusion of other factors, but sometimes on its own or more accurately intersecting with

other factors, as the meaning of race persists in social structures and interpersonal

55

relationships. AS has been discussed it is our goal to understand and transform these racial
meanings in the MRULE project. To do this we need clear concepts of the social
construction of race from anthropological, historical, and sociological frameworks.
Building on the work of Omi and Winant (1994) we look at: “the social nature of race, the
absence of any essential racial characteristics, the historical flexibility of racial meanings
and categories, the conflietual character of race both at the “micro-” and “macro-social”
levels, and the irreducible political aspect of racial dynamics” (p. 4). AS they
convincingly argue attempts at solely characterizing racial reality in either an ethnicity,
class or nation paradigm reduces and distorts racial dynamics. '2 Although many White
students enter the university wishing for the erasure of race in the debate about access,
opportunity, and fairness we insist that they cannot escape it. We must have an accurate
road map of the racial landscape, complete with land mines and gold mines, desert and
oasis if we hope to be effective at challenging the racial status quo. We have to insist
upon this because as studies have shown and continue to Show we remain a racially

divided country that adversely affects all (Hacker 1992).

 

’2 Ethnicity theory reduces race to ethnicity and is based on the premise that different ethnicities come
together and create a pluralistic society where the many become one. . .this gave rise to the melting pot
theory which falsely subsumes racial minorities in a group which they were historically and systematically
excluded from. The class theory explains race by “reference to economic processes, understood in the
standard sense of the creation of and use of material resources.” (p. 26) The nation theory explains race in
the relationship between the colonizer and colonized and explores power dynamics of this oppressive
relationship. Although the nation theory is the most constructive of three because it does not make
assumptions about the primacy of its factor to explain race, Omi and Winant introduce a new theoretical
construction—racial fomtation—“processes as occurring through a linkage between structure and
representation.” Racial projects are the link and are defined as: “simultaneously an interpretation,
representation, or explanation of racial dynamics, and an effort to reorganize and redistribute resources
along particular racial lines. Racial projects connect with what race means in a particular discursive
practice and the ways in which both social structures and everyday experiences are racially organized,
based upon that meaning.” (p.56)

56

The Social Construction of Race

The remarks of reporters, scientists and politicians announcing that they had
mapped over 90% of the human genome in the decade long Human Genome Project on
June 26, 2000 once again captured our attention over the reality of race. Sponsored by the
federal government with the assistance of private corporations and the cooperation of
several other countries, the Human Genome Project is making unprecedented progress
into understanding human DNA with the goal of matching diseases with their genetic
source. What struck me was that in two reports it was stated enthusiastically what has
been known for some time by scientists and anthropologists— from Weber to Boas to Du
Bois to Park that race has no genetic basis and is a social construct (Omi and Winant
1994). Yet, in 2000 it is still necessary to state it publicly. Commenting on the make up
of DNA, one science reporter put it like this: “Human DNA is 99.9% identical from
human being to human being” (NPR, Morning Edition, June 26, 2000). That is certainly
something to ponder while studying the vast social structures created to uphold
differences. Celera Genomics President Dr. J. Craig Venter reported the details:

We have sequenced the genome of three females and two males

who’ve identified themselves as Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian, and

African American. We did the sampling, not in an exclusionary

way but out of respect for the diversity that is America and to

help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific

basis (June 26, 2000 National Public Radio, All Things

Considered).
It is the 21St century and much scientific inquiry has been put into verifying this
throughout the past century (Montagu 1997, Gould 1994, Turner 1994, Murchie 1978).

Yet it was only recently (1994) that scholars once again had to bring forth the evidence in

full steam to fight off the assault of The Bell C urve fury. Many of us remember the ABC

57

Nightline footage of the printing press as large book sales were advertised. It didn’t
matter that the authors Hemstein and Murray were clearly rehashing pseudo-scientific
racist theory linking “race” to genetic disposition and intelligence as they had learned
from their old mentor Arthur J enson, supported primarily by one journal The Mankind
Quarterly of avowed racist contributors (Montagu 1997, Daniels 1997). The Bell C urve
hit a nerve for the “well-meaning whites who fear they are closet racists” and for the rest
of us who mistakenly believed the fallacy had been put to rest.

This “manifest reality”——in which physical appearance,

individual ability, and group achievement are inseparably linked

by heredity—is what is generally understood by “race.” It is in

other words, the popular, or social, concept of “race.”

What is wrong with the social or racist view of “race” is that,

among other things, there happens to be no genetic association or

linkage between genes for physical appearance, individual

behavior, and group achievement. Nevertheless, believers in the

doctrine of “race” choose to take it for granted that such linkage

exists (Montagu, p. 156).

Perhaps it is for those “racial” doctrine believers that Dr. Venter made his
statement. I am not so sure. Somehow it doesn’t seem that The Bell C urve could have
caused so much of a stir if many people did not in some way or another see “race” as a
determinant of individual and group success. They may or may not make the connection
to the lack of a biological and/or genetic basis. It may just be socially constructed
“common sense” (Montagu 1997, Omi & Winant 1994). It makes salient the question:
How do we know what we know? Citing sociologists Berger and Luckman, Montagu
discusses their support for his long held conviction that knowledge is socially constructed.

Omi and Winant cite Italian philosopher Gramsci’s definition of hegemony in which

“ruling groups must elaborate and maintain a popular system of ideas and practices—-

58

through education, the media, religion, folk wisdom, etc—which he called “common
sense.” It is through its production and its adherence to this “common sense,” this
ideology (in the broadest sense of the tenn), that a society gives it consent to the way it is
ruled (Omi & Winant 1994, p. 67).

This is a helpful tool of analysis for us in multiple ways. We look both at historical
and contemporary examples to help students grasp how knowledge is constructed and why
race as a concept came to be what it is through socially constructed institutions and
practices. We take the position that although there is only one race—the human race—
people have been historically and socially divided and conquered based on assigned
ethnic-racial constructs with tangible consequences. These consequences take many
fonns—racism, discrimination, segregation, hate crimes, self-hate, poverty, despair,
violence, and must be acknowledged and dealt with if we ever hope to remove barriers
and create a socially just world. How do we break it down for students so they understand
the constructs and the consequences?

Either/or Thinking around Essentfilist vs. lllusiongry Racial Realigy

“So, if it’s socially constructed, what is the big deal? Why can’t we deconstruct it
and get on with the business of being human beings?” This was a frequent articulation of
a particular frustrated MRULE student. Whenever he had the floor in the dialogue
session, he would passionately speak to the fact that race was false, had no biological
basis, was a complete distortion set up to validate white supremacy, which none of us
buys, etc. I remember watching him during the first few meetings, wondering if he was
going to stick it out, because while we were teaching the social construction of race, we

Spent more time dealing with the tangible consequences of racism. Over the course of the

59

year, he grew to understand that these real consequences were embedded in complex
systems and could not be erased or easily dismantled, though it was our goal to identify
and act on those we could (Frankenberg 1993, Higginbotham 1995).

Omi and Winant created the concept of racial fomtation precisely to define the
space between the extreme positions of race as illusion and race as a fixed characteristic.
They argue that: “Racial fonnation is a process of historically situated projects in which
human bodies and social structures are represented and organized” and “linked to the
evolution of hegemony, the way in which society is organized and ruled” (1994, p.55-6).
The institutions of slavery, legal segregation in education, employment, and housing are
all examples of these projects that were based on the representation of human bodies,
(people of African or Asian descent--Native Americans had their own set of oppressive
structures tailored made for them). Social structures were created and maintained that
essentialized human bodies through phenotypical, cultural and national characteristics, and
ties. Those who created the structures determined the rules, who belonged and who didn’t
while‘ attaching and imposing Significant meaning to the experiences. The institution of
Slavery was primarily responsible for many of these and the aftermath is still present in
contemporary society. The one-drop rule13 was established by slave owners, many of who
were fathering children with slave women. They had great economic interest in building
up their property especially after it became illegal to import Slaves into the United States
in the 1830’s. Therefore any child born to a slave mother, would be a Slave based on
status and condition of the mother—1662 law of Virginia passed throughout the colonies

and the fictitious notion that blood was transmitted from the mother to the child (Kerber &

 

’3 Phipps was designated “black” in her birth certificate in accordance with a 1970 state law which declared
anyone with at least 1/32nd “Negro blood” to be black (Omi and Winant 1994, p. 53).

60

DeHart 1995, Hine & Thompson 1998, Zack 1998). One drop rules remains the policy as
Susan Phipps discovered in 1983 when she unsuccessfully sued the state of Louisiana to
be able to change her racial classification from Black to White. The mixed-race
battleground as to what constitutes a Black or White person is still very much with us even
though it “is estimated that between 75 percent and 90 percent of all African Americans
have some White ancestry” (Williamson 1980). People will self-identify or be forced to
identify depending on how they are treated in society. A Black male with one White
parent is still a Black male if he has the slightest phenotypical characteristics and can
potentially be subject to racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination in a variety of
contexts (Bain 2000).

It is these tangible consequences that make the discussion of eliminating racial
groups fruitless at this point in time. There is much work to be done to rectify inequalities
that will get lost without a clear map of the racial landscape. This is not the time to erase
the experience of people of color in favor of a fictitious colorblind philosophy that in most
cases is centered in the notions of White Supremacy.

Persigtence of Racial Stereotvpesjand their Impact on Social Relations

 

We are often reminded in the MRULE seminar that what seems to be “ancient” history to
today’s college students is still right in front of our faces. We teach the origins of the
classifications of humankind by introducing the concept of the Great Chain of Being, an
order to the universe with God at the pinnacle followed by human beings with divine
souls, then animals and plants. In the 1730’s natural philosopher Carolus Linneaus
became occupied with the classification of created things and was the first to publish the

categories of the four races of humankind: Americanus, Eurpaeus, Asiaticus, and Afer.

61

By the end of the 18th century Johann Frederick Blumenbach the father of anthropology
expanded upon Linneaus’ classifications by adding a fifth race—the Malay (Polynesians,
Melanesians ofthc Pacific and Australian aborigines.) As the story goes according to
scholars neither Linneaus nor Blumenbach were dedicated to a racial hierarchy when
putting forth their classifications (Jordan 1968, Gould 1994). However, this really isn’t the
important point because embedded in their classifications was a superiority/inferiority
ranking with the Caucasian at the center from which all other categories degenerated.
Although Linneaus did not rank racial groups he attached values to them according to
personal observations based primarily on physical characteristics. “The American ruled by
habit, the European by custom, the Asian by opinions, and the African by caprice” opened
the door for pseudo science to make further claims about the relationship between physical
characteristics and human capacity (Gould 1994). Whether Blumenbach valued the moral
and intellectual capacity of black Africans or not, skirts the issue that departing from
Linneaus’ geographical order introduced into the classification system an “implied worth
that has fostered so much grief ever since” (Gould 1994). AS Jordan points out the Great
Chain of Being and its idea of continuity through creation—with humans and animals
connected on the chain but the human soul operating as the distinguishing factor between
them, Simultaneously created possibilities for the conceptualization to go either way—Le.
that it was impossible to compare men to beasts or that it might be possible on the chain
for there to be different gradations of human beings. When Linneaus contemplated this
possibility he immediately distanced himself from it. Although most knew that Negroes
were human beings there were accounts of European travelers making comparisons to the

features they saw in Africans to those of beasts throughout the eighteenth century. Again,

seeds of doubt were planted that slave societies eventually grasped and cultivated once the
cruelty of Slavery disassociated Slaves with their humanity (Jordan 1968, Gosset 1969).

A chilling contemporary example of the dehumanization theme in an MRULE
forum came to light when students were discussing a recent article from the New York
Times series “How Race is Lived in America,” June 5, 2000. This particular article
entitled “Best of Friends, Worlds Apart” followed the lives of two Cuban immigrants in
Miami who had been lifetime friends, one black, one white. The different experiences they
encountered in the States primarily because of their racial backgrounds taxed their
friendship and brought to light racial conflict that had existed throughout their lives.
Describing the racial landscape in Cuba, the article reports that a group of college students
of all colors form a human chain around a dance troupe... a dancing rainbow reflecting
Cuba’s best and brightest. But all is not as it seems.

At first blush, Cuba might seem to be some kind of racial utopia.
Unlike the United States, where there is limited cultural fusion
between blacks and whites, Cuban culture—from its music to its
religion—is as African as it iS Spanish. But despite the genuinely
easy mixing, despite the government’s rhetoric, there is still a
profound and open cultural racism at play.

The same black students who were part of that dancing rainbow
say it is common to call someone “un negro,” or “black,” for
doing something inappropriate. “When a man insults a woman in

the street, I will shout at him, ‘You are not man, you are black!’”
said Meri C asadevalle Perez, a law student who is herself black.

(p. 17)
As the students discussed this several of them expressed their disbelief, fairly sure that this
did not go on in the United States at least none of them had ever heard it. Then one White
student who Spends a considerable amount of time in a particular all White community

looked at his fellow students as if they were on another planet. “I hear this all the time,” he

63

declared. “I can’t believe you haven’t.” This led to a more detailed discussion of their
different experiences. One of the Black, students unsure whether or not this was a
common thing or an aberration in certain all White areas, probed further by asking one of
her White friends who is not in the MRULE. “Do you hear this in conversation today—
people equating Black with wrong and leSS than human?” Without hesitation her friend
responded that yes she has heard it, in fact recently her boss scolded an employee saying
“You’re not acting like a human being, you’re acting like a Black.”

Further highlighting the grief that Gould referred to when reflecting on the impact
the social construction of racial categories and their durability, we had another incident
that same week in the MRULE group. Felicia, an MRULE participant, reported this story
to me. She and Dan, also an MRULE participant, were planning a trip to vacation in an
area of the state that is known to be all White. As they were developing their plans and
figuring out who would actually pitch up and go on the trip it looked like Felicia would be
the only person of color in the group. In fact it looked like they might be the only two
going at all.‘ Making light ofthis, Dan commented: “I canjust hear my family now. Dan
is hiking in the woods with a monkey.” Felicia froze, overwhelmed with shock and
confusion. AS she recounted to me “I expected nigger but monkey threw me for a loop.”

When Felicia expressed her discomfort to Dan about him feeling the need to tell
her how his family might think of their friendship he tried to convince her that it would be
great for them to go together and Show the family, friends, and community how stupid
their racism was. Felicia explained that she was just looking for a vacation and good time
and did not want to be a “sociological experiment” for those who have no contact with

Black people. In addition, She reminded Dan that before they had even started to make

64

plans she expressed her need for a certain amount of Shielding from racist attitudes as she
wasn’t on any campaign to challenge people. When Dan made what he thought was a
funny comment about the monkey she knew that he did not understand her request. She
also knew then that she would not be able to go on the trip. When she explained this to
Dan he did not understand her decision and their friendship suffered a fracture. In many
interracial relationships this would serve as a breaking point particularly because of the
undue burden placed on the Black person. “It’s just easier not to engage... I don’t want to
be the teacher of Whites . . .it’s not worth the trouble,” I’ve heard on numerous occasions.

However from an MRULE perspective Dan and F elicia’s story does not end here.
The hard work is yet to happen as we support them through the process of developing a
genuine relationship. This case study will be continued in Chapter Five where we focus
on the developmental stages of genuine relationships and the independent and
interdependent work both Felicia and Dan will have to do to cement a relationship where
mutuality, care, and true knowledge of the other’s experience reign.

“Coercion and Consent”

How do we explain the resilience of these harmful social constructs? How do they
survive from generation to generation—seemingly traveling through various stages of
overt and covert practices? Students need to understand something about this process or
they will too easily feel powerless as if change to the status quo was impossible. This is
where the discussion of Gramsci’s coercion and consent in determining “common sense”
is helpful (Omi and Winant, 1994, p.67). It raises many useful questions that engage us to

reflect on what we say and do, one of MRULE’S main objectives. What do we give our

65

consent to and why? What happens if we refuse to give our consent? How do we know
what we know?

One of the most explosive discussion topics questioning what we give our consent
to and why for this generation of college students is the common use of the words
“nigger” and “nigga” and other traditional pejorative labels aimed at women and
racial/ethnic groups. The debate centers around opposing positions. On one hand, there is
the belief that through hip hop music and culture Black people have reclaimed and
redefined the word “nigga” to mean “homey” (close friend). On the other hand, just as
strong is the belief that the original derogatory meaning has not been erased; all people use
it to refer to the ignorant and less desirable. White students find themselves confused
about when/where and how to use the word. Since it is so prevalent in the songs they
listen to and sing along with, they are in constant contact with a word that many have been
raised to abhor. They don’t know if they Should use it to Show their Black peers that they
can “be down with them” or not. When they are Singing the words to songs out loud, some
have expressed that they knew they could not sing those words in front of their Black
friends and yet most of their Black friends use it freely (MRULE Round Table Discussion,
January 2000). Black students who oppose using the word because of its history and
potentially harmful impact express that those who use it are denying what truly goes on in
Black-White relations as well as Black-Black relations. The fact that it can be an
endearing term to refer to a “homey” does not strip the word of its history so at any one
time or place there are multiple meanings at work generating confusion. Hip hop artist
Lauryn Hill and comedian Chris Rock have clearly made it known in popular culture that

it is still used to characterize the ignorant and lowly.

66

And even after all my logic and my theory,

I add a muthafuckker so you ignint niggas hear me.
(Lauryn Hill, from Zealots, 1996)

There’s like a civil war goin on with Black people and
there’s two sides: Black people and niggas. I love Black
people but I hate niggas. (Chris Rock from Chris Rock
HBO Special ”Bring in the Pain, ” 1996)

This discussion took place in several MRULE forums and inevitably led to a
discussion about the common use of the word “bitch” and “ho” (Short for whore) when
referring to women. When I explained to them my horror at the resurgent and widespread
use of these derogatory words that women of my generation fought so hard to eradicate I
got their attention. I asked them to consider what happens when you buy and listen to the
music that defines you as a sexual object? When you use these words to refer to each
other, when you allow others to label you as such, men or women, are you giving your
consent and allowing the market forces that commodify people for the sake of profit to
define you and shape your race and gender relations? Do you have to consent to this or
can you question? Can you unpack the practices to identify the coercion in the process?
What do you accept because you believe it is expected of you? What do you believe
because it has been handed down as knowledge from previous generations? What are you
willing to question? What kind of world do you want to give your children?

At first I felt that I was lecturing them and that only a few really made the
connection to the language and the social institutions that constructed identities and
shaped relationships based on those identities. But as we probed further using the Omi and

Winant text we began to see some breakthroughs. They understood that they had a certain

degree of ownership in the process. If they wanted a world of “niggas” and “bitches” they

67

could get that by consenting to be defined as such and then playing into those expectations
at every turn. Or they could accept it in degrees as some would explain, let it go on the
outside while internally knowing who and what you are. Some clearly felt that there are
much greater battles to fight and were not going to take on their peers or refuse to engage
in the common cultural practices that used the derogatory language. But there were those
who made conscious choices to refuse to use the language or let others use it in reference
to them at all times. They would not support the music with the offensive language but
would instead search out those artists who had a message they believed in. They could,
and we discussed this on several occasions, potentially break the cycle at least for
themselves and their circles of influence.

The question continually comes back to what we consent to in dealing with social
construction of race. The persistence of harmful stereotypes that can lead to racial
epithets, hate speech and crimes, consistent racial polarization based on notions of what
means to be White, Black, or Brown today, and the common practice on campus of social
self-segregation have become expected norms. There is no shortage of programs,
publicity and course work that seeks to capture students’ attention emphasizing the
importance of multiculturalism as they jest about the now infamous Rodney King quote:
“Please, can we all get along?” There is however, a gap that must be addressed if we
expect the work to go beyond a surface embrace that claims racial equality and social
justice, but lacks an in-depth consciousness of what that means or how it can be achieved
on both a macro-micro level. This gap is situated in the “unmarked, unnamed” world of
whiteness (Frankenberg 1993, p. 1 ). For MRULE students this means exploring the

terrain of the political and social institutions created in the belief of white supremacy and

68

those institutional practices that maintain it throughout contemporary society. It also
means examining one’s personal experience to understand one’s role in either maintaining

or changing the racial status quo.

The Social Construction of Whiteness and White Privilege

One ofthe most common misperceptions about the MRULE Project is that it is a
Special program for minority students. White students have told us that when they see
Multiracial, they don’t see themselves. We have several dedicated White students helping
us change these perceptions by actively participating in all aspects ofthe MRULE
program and modeling for other students. We are up against a system where white has
always been synonymous with “all right” all finished, no need to do any more. Many
White students enter with amtor that distances them from confronting racial issues. They
wonder why they would need to join a group whose organizing theme does not include
them. When they first encounter the concept of the social construction of race they may
recognize the exclusionary experiences of people of color as they are historically and
socially situated but often miss the system of white supremacy that created and maintains
these experiences.

Excavating the internal landscape of whiteness and its relationship to power and
privilege is lifelong race relations work. The recent explosion in scholarly literature has
contributed to a critical examination of whiteness and its “masquerading as universal. . .
rationalized, legitimized, and made ostensibly nomial and natural” (Frankenberg 1997, p.
3). Although it is not a comfortable place to be, many White American students attending
increasingly diverse universities are facing the realization that they, too, are racial beings

(Ortiz and Rhoads 2000). This is a multifaceted phenomenon with individuals on a fluid

69

continuum from acceptance to rejection. There is quite some distance to travel for those
unexposed to difference, who see White as nonnal and everything else a deviation. This
can range from extreme sensitivity expressed or held back for the fear of being labeled
racist at the drop of a hat. It can mean not knowing whether to refer to Black people as
Black or African American. It can take the form ofoutright denial that racism exists while
arguing that the tension is a creation of whiny Black and White liberals who are
determined to turn the tables on innocent Whites. Or it can be seated in anger and
frustration at what appears to be a loss of opportunities for Whites in favors of minorities.
Wellman (1993) discusses how the “taken for granted norm of whiteness” is under assault
(p. 246). The very definition of what it means to be an American is contested.

What it means to be White will be different depending on class, gender, and
sexuality and exposure to the multifaceted nuances of the experience. But there is
something that none of the other axes of experiences can erase: White Skin Privilege.

Peggy McIntosh’s (1988) invisible knapsack of unearned privilege published in
her article “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to see
Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies” has been a gold mine to race
relations literature and a mainstay in the MRULE program. Inspired by her thinking about
how hierarchical interlocking systems of oppression operate systemically and how
Specifically male privilege permeates daily life in disguise as the natural way of things,
McIntosh made the connection between the systems of male privilege and White privilege.
She tested it by making a list of those things She, as a White woman, can do or have

without regard to race. Here are three from a list of forty-Six:

70

Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my
Skin color not to work against the appearance that I am
financially reliable.

I could arrange to protect our young children most of the time
from peOple who might not like them.

I did not have to educate our children to be aware of systemic

racism for their own daily physical protection (McIntosh in

Andersen and Collins 1998, p. 97).
There is something in her knapsack for everyone, if you’re White. These daily privileges
that Whites don’t have to think about create a system of advantage that people of color
cannot fathom, Since they do not have the option to choose whether or not they want to
pay attention to their race on a particular day. She argues that in spite of the recognition
of racism disadvantaging people of color in contemporary society, there remains a lack of
consciousness about the system that perpetuates privilege advantaging White people in the
process. It is invisible because it is informed by the message that says, ‘These aren’t
privileges; they’re the natural way ofthe world.’

In my class and place, I did not see myself as racist because I was

taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by

members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring

racial dominance on my group from birth (p. 104)
McIntosh indicts another privileged system in the process—education.

One factor seems clear about all the interlocking oppressions.

They take both active forms that we can see and embedded forms

that members of the dominant group are taught not to see” (p.

104)

So how do we teach differently? Primarily, we insist that White students come to

understand white skin privilege in its own right. Professor Andrew Hacker conducts a

powerful exercise in his classes in which he uses a parable to explain to Whites that they

71

must consider a possibility that there has been a mistake in their identity. One day a
member of the organization that has come to rectify the situation visits them. Even though
they have been living as a White person up until this point, the mistake has to be corrected
and they will henceforth have to live their life out Black. Since it was not their fault, the
organization is prepared to pay for the inconvenience but they must determine the cost.
How much would you request, the visitor asks the students. In other words, what is the
value ofyour white skin? $50 million or $1 million every year for the next fifty years was
a common reply (Hacker 1992, p. 31-32).

For many students this could seem like an academic exercise with little connection
to real life experience. So to underscore the point we turn to Gregory William’s story Life
on the Color Line (1993). William’s graphically depicts his life as a White child until he
was ten years old when his mother left him and his younger brother Mike with their father
who had been passing as Italian throughout Gregory’s life. The divorce forced Gregory’s
father Tony (Buster) back to his hometown, the black side of Muncie, Indiana in 1954.
When their background was discovered both boys were thrust into life on the color line,
rejected by Whites and suspected by Blacks. What Williams learned on the color line was
that being Black meant you couldn’t do all the things that Whites did and no matter what
you did do it was less valued. You were expected to learn your place and accept the status
assigned to you. Williams knew he was the same person but he experienced his identity
created by others as soon as it was known that he had African American heritage. His
story chronicles the victories and defeats he endured while trying to make his own way
against strict racial lines. Williams reflects on how he would make his way, detesting the

racialized lines his father upheld with him and his younger brother Mike. . .Greg a white

72

boy, Mike a “nigger” (p.156). When told by his father and his friends: “Greg. . .you
belong with them smart white folks,” he responded “But I don’t want to be white.” They
would hear nothing of this and told him he had a choice so make it right and get out of
black Muncie. Although he wanted greater opportunities than Muncie could offer, he
understood that he didn’t have to accept whiteness and all its trappings to go after them.

I hadn’t wanted to be colored, but too much had happened to me
in Muncie to be a part of the white world that had rejected me so
completely. I believed that most of Dad’s problems stemmed
from his attempt to “pass for white” in Virginia. The charade
created incredible turmoil for him. “Passing” hadn’t worked.
Why did he want it for me? I also knew being black didn’t mean I
couldn’t be successful. Just the week before, Dad told me about
one of the most famous Negroes in America—Walter White.
White had been the executive director of the NAACP for ten
years until he died in 1955. He traveled throughout the country
Speaking against prejudice and discrimination. Negro
communities around the nation greeted him with open arms. Yet
he had blue eyes, blond hair, and most of all, white Skin. He was
only 5/32 Negro, but he was “black.” If Walter White could
choose to remain in the black community and make a difference,
so could I. No matter what Bobby, Dad, or anyone else said or
thought. I knew who I was and what I wanted to be (p.157).

On an ABC Nightline “America in Black and White” series, Ted Koppel
conducted a town meeting with groups of Blacks and Whites asking questions about
controversial issues in particular white skin privilege. Predictably the groups had very
different perspectives about what it meant to be Black and White in the late 1990’s. Mr.
Koppel brought Gregory Williams into the discussion and asked him to answer the
question “How much is white skin worth in 1996?” Williams replied that it is still worth
quite a bit as he recounted a very recent event in his own life. Upon receiving his deanship

of the Ohio State University Law School, he was congratulated by colleagues, one in

particular who commented that he must be proud of his achievement. . .the pinnacle of his

73

career. Later this same colleague discovered that Williams was Black and was reported to
have said, “So that’s why he got the position.” (ABC Nightline, “America in Black and
White,” May 21, 1996).

MRULE is charged with teaching White students to recognize the nature of these
enduring racialized patterns that sustain a racial hierarchy based on illusion, prejudice, and
ingrained social practices. It may come as a bit of a surprise since many students seek us
out to learn about different cultures. As was discussed earlier, a focus on diversity that
lacks a focus on equity and social justice trivializes the real lived experience. Looking at
white supremacy and privilege is often not comfortable but it is critically important to the
process. Educator, Enid Lee, captures it best as She responds to fellow teachers who hope
that multicultural/diversity training will help them learn more about other cultural groups.

You need to look at how the dominant culture and biases affect

your view of non-dominant groups in society. You don’t have to

fill your head with little details about what other cultural groups

eat and dance. You need to take a look at your culture, what your

idea of normal is, and realize it is quite limited...You have to

realize that what you recognize as universal is, quite often,

exclusionary (Miner, Andersen & Collins 1998, p. 538).
Being White in the United States at the turn of the century most certainly has its
advantages but not without creating some disorientation. Though “optional ethnicities” are
available to most Whites (Waters 1990), they are often immobilized to recognize meaning
in their neutralized cultural experiences. On a college campus in contrast to the cultural
experiences of American minorities and international students, White students may feel
left out of the loop and labeled as “oppressors of the nation.” As students commented in a

1991 University of California, Berkley survey: “Being White means that you’re less likely

to get financial aid. . .it means that there are all sorts of tutoring groups and Special

74

programs that you can’t get into, because you’re not a minority” (Pedraza & Rumbaut
1996, p. 475). We will certainly hear out this perspective in MRULE while simultaneously
paying considerable attention to the historical legacy of race and racism in the United
States. Empowering students with the knowledge of how whiteness and white supremacy
has been constructed and is Still in many forums unchallenged and dangerous helps them
to see the complexity ofit all (Daniels 1997). Our work would be seriously impaired if we
could not sort out myth from fact, and ensure all students understand how and why White
privilege, despite claims to the contrary, has remained very much in tact.

Attention to the construction of white “experience” is important,

both to transforming the meaning of whiteness and to

transfomring the relations of race in general. This is crucial in a

social context in which the racial order is normalized and

rationalized rather than upheld by coercion alone. Analyzing the

connections between daily lives and discursive orders may help

make visible the processes by which the stability of whiteness——

as location of privilege, as culturally normative Space, and as

standpoint is secured and reproduced. In this context,

reconceptualizing histories and refiguring racialized landscapes

are political acts in themselves (Frankenberg 1993, p. 242).
Since MRULE is a multi-racial learning community all students are engaged in the
process of understanding these social constructs, recognizing how they operate and
sharing experiences that help them to make connections in their lives and in the larger
society. Students Of color enter this dialogue on whiteness from many diverse places,
some have direct experience and make the connections immediately, others do not. Some
find relief and comfort in the fact that MRULE makes this discussion on whiteness and
privilege pivotal to the dialogue process. Even while stating this it is equally important to

clarify that within each community of students of color, there is no monolithic group and

no guarantee that they will be aware of systems of oppression. We saw and example of

75

this last year. During an exercise on privilege students were asked to take a step forward if
they enjoyed certain privileges off McIntosh’s list. The privilege was read aloud and if it
pertained to you, you took a step. There were several African American students in the
exercise including the student leader. Half way through the exercise all students were far
ahead of the leader. When the following was called out: “I see myself widely represented
in the media of the United States” and all students, except the leader moved forward, it
was clear it was not the experience but consciousness of that experience that mattered.
Their subsequent discussion sought to illuminate this by defining what wide spread
representation meant. (MRULE Round Table discussion, Spring 2000).
Racism

The most tangible consequence of the social construction of race is living with
racism (Essed 1991, Frankenberg 1993, Feagin & Sikes 1994, Higginbotham 1995).
Racism is perhaps the most loaded term in all of race relations discourse. The first task is
to define, redefine, and unpack the nebulous, diluted, and politically charged notions that
students bring to the table. In several forums that I have conducted with undergraduates
prior to an MRULE experience, I have noted that racism and prejudice are used
interchangeably. It is not just racial prejudice but any kind of prejudice as some of the
following comments illustrate:

I don 't want to be racist but I don 't know what to call Black people. Should I say Black or
African American?

I feel like if I say anything about people being different, that is racist.
I don ’t want to sound racist or anything but women and men are different and I don ’t

think it is right to act like they are all the same.

A lot people are treated in a racist way, not just because they are Black but because they
are poor or disabled or overweight.

76

I don ’t understand why minority students have all these exclusive activities and
organizations just for them. Isn 't that racist? (MRULE Round Table Discussions, 1998,
1999, 2000, Freshman Seminar, 1999)

It is critically important for students to have working definitions of racism that are Situated
in historical and social reality. Once again the centrality of race is salient as we see the
tendency to neutralize race into general prejudice. The micro-macro perspective discussed
in Chapter Two is needed here so that both aspects of racism, the structural and
interpersonal can be understood. Distinctions between the meaning of racism and
prejudice must be made clear. The blurring effect created by the interchangeability of
these meanings contributes to diluting race that inevitably leads to more problems as we
have discussed above.

The definition of racism used in the MRULE program is straightforward and
shared by many scholars. Audre Lorde says it succinctly: “Racism is the beliefin the
inherent superiority of one race over all others, and thereby the right to dominance”
(Zinn, Hondagneu-Sotelo, Messner 1997, p. 539). Building on this we incorporate the
work of Essed who looks at everyday acts of racism, those that are embedded in social
structures and individual practices (1991). Essed problematizes traditional distinctions
scholars make between institutional and individual racism and forges a conceptual
framework that gives weight to the “mutual interdependence of macro and micro
dimensions of racism” (p. 39).

Everyday racism does not exist as single events but as a complex
of cumulative practices. Specific instances acquire meaning one
in relation to the sum total of other experiences of everyday
racism. Another major feature of everyday racism is that it
involves racist practices that infiltrate everyday life and become

part of what is seen as “normal” by the dominant group.
Analogous to everyday life, everyday racism is heterogeneous in

77

its manifestations but at the same time unified by repetition of
similar practices. (p. 288)

These everyday practices are oppressive and repressive although Essed acknowledges
human agency in determining their impact, underscoring the critical importance of naming
these practices and recognizing individual and societal complicity in them. Putting a face
on oppression is particularly important for students since it can ring hollow in ever
changing, multidimensional contemporary race relations. Iris Marion Young (1990) does
this powerfully by characterizing the forces that define the structural components of
oppression: “Exploitation, Marginalization, Powerlessness, Cultural Imperialism, and
Violence.” Young argues that marginalization is “perhaps the most dangerous form of
oppression” and where increasingly racial oppression is situated. The emphasis here is not
that any form of oppression takes primacy over another but more that marginalization can
render large groups of people to “severe material deprivation and even extermination”
(p.53). This severity is found endemic in many communities of color throughout the
world where Simultaneous interactions with multiple fomrs of oppression are in constant
motion. Although each of Young’s descriptions of faces of oppression are by no means
exclusive to “racial others” they do disproportionately and powerfully affect people of
color. The critical element for students to understand is that racism—the belief in the
superiority of one race over and the right to dominate—operates as a system whether the
agents of the racist practices are individuals or institutions, whether they are conscious or
unintentional (Essed 1991, Collins 1998).

Once students are introduced to the systemic and ubiquitous nature of racism, we

can facilitate an understanding of racial prejudice, how it is embedded in the system, but

78

clearly how it does not represent the whole picture. Many scholars decry the focus on
prejudice as the source of racial inequality and may find themselves dichotomizing two
interrelated processes. Though many prejudice reduction theorists owe much to the
seminal work of Gordon Allport in The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Allport did not
condone an either/or treatment to the social problems created by racial stratification. His
useful definition of prejudice and his thorough analysis of the irrational human being
capable of acting on those prejudices is a priceless contribution to the field. “Ethnic
prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt
or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual
because he is a member of that group” (p. 9). Since Allport dedicated his life’s work to
understanding the roots of prejudice and set the stage for social psychologists to follow, it
is understandable how his focus might be narrowed at some points. However, it is
important to note that Allport, as many scholars are doing today, struggled against
dichotomizing the role of individuals and the social structures in which they are
embedded.

Some authors stress the interlocking dependence of both the

personal and social system. They say that one must attack an

attitude with due regard to both kinds of systems, which in

combination, hold the attitude embedded in a structural matrix. '4

Whether sociological, psychological, or both the structural point

of view has great merit. It explains why piecemeal efforts are not

more effective than they are. It tells us that our problem is

stitched into the fabric of social living.

Yet if we are not careful, the structural view may lead both to

false psychology and to false pessimism. It really is not sensible

to say that before we change personal attitudes we must change

total structure; for in part, at least, the structure is the product of
the attitudes of many single people. Change must begin

 

’4 TR. Vallance. “Methodology in propaganda research,” Psychological Bulletin. 1951, 48, 32—61.

79

somewhere. Indeed, according to the structural theory, it may
start anywhere, for every system is to some extent altered by the
change in any ofits parts (p. 506).

As has been discussed throughout, we strive for a multidimensional analysis of
the problem of racism and solutions toward racial equality. The durability of racial
stereotypes and their negative impact on real lived experiences is undeniable. Another
key and complex factor to consider is that although racism has a core definition, it is
experienced differently by different individuals and groups precisely because of its
changing face through historical periods. There is always a socially constructed racial
hierarchy that is not static (Bonnilla-Silva 1997).

Bobo and Kluegel (1996) argue convincingly that we are presently experiencing a
“Laissez Faire Racism” which serves a dual purpose of acknowledging positive social
change while anesthetizing sensibilities to enduring racial inequalities. They make a
strong connection between the ubiquitous racial attitudes rampant in the dominant culture
that claim the “end of racism” (D'Souza 1995), and upholding the myths of meritocracy
and an even level playing field.

Rather than relying on state enforced inequality as during the Jim
Crow era, however, modern racial inequality relies upon the
market and informal racial bias to recreate, and in some instances
sharply worsen, structured racial inequality. Hence, the phrase
"Laissez Faire Racism" (p2).

In the wake of the collapse of Jim Crow social arrangements and
ideology, the new ideology of Laissez F aire Racism began to take
shape. This new ideology concedes to African Americans basic
citizenship rights. However, it takes as legitimate extant patterns
of black-white socioeconomic inequality and residential
segregation, viewing these conditions, as it does, not as the
deliberate products of racial discrimination, but rather as

outcomes of a free market, a race-neutral state apparatus, and the
freely taken actions of African Americans themselves (p.21).

80

segregation, viewing these conditions, as it does, not as the
deliberate products of racial discrimination, but rather as
outcomes of a free market, a race-neutral state apparatus, and the
freely taken actions of African Americans themselves (p.21).

This era of “laissez-faire racism” lends itself to a belief in a race neutral world that
operates fundamentally the same for all. Ongoing racial inequalities have to be either over
stated, or caused by each down trodden group’s failure to capitalize on the abundant
opportunities. This has been confirmed by several racial attitudes surveys, many which
Bobo and Kleguel quote, that Show Whites and Blacks polarized as to the prevalence of
racism in contemporary society. In the New York Times most recent poll, (July 11, 2000)
surveying 2,165 adults; 1,107 who said they were White and 934 who said they were
Black, there were a range of responses that reported progress in some areas and stagnation
in others.

On many questions, particularly those related to whether blacks
are treated equitably and whether race plays too large a role in the
national discourse blacks and whites seemed to be living on
different planets. Blacks were roughly four times more likely
than whites to say they thought blacks were treated less fairly in
the workplace, in neighborhood shops, in shopping malls and in
restaurants, theaters, bars and other entertainment venues. (“Poll
finds optimistic but enduring racial division,” p. 2)

Building on Blumer’s (1958) theory of racism (prejudice as he called it) as a sense
of group position, Bobo and Kluegel suggest that to maintain some sense of order to a
racial hierarchy that seems to be losing ground, Whites have to maintain something
familiar. Here is where privilege strives to rule even as legal and political conditions

change.

Under the group position theory the crucial factors are, first, a
sense among members of the dominant racial group of

81

proprietary claim or entitlement to greater resources and status

and, second, a perception of threat posed by subordinate racial

group members to those entitlements. Together, the feelings of

entitlement and threat become dynamic social forces as members

of the dominant racial group strive to maintain a privileged status

relative to members of a subordinate racial group (p. 8).
Wellman (1993) extends this discussion further by questioning what it means to be an
American. In the group position theory, individuals as members of groups are defined in
contrast to others—thus “Other” in the literature.

Therefore racism in America is not only about maintaining

privilege or a sense of group position. It is also a defense ofa

particular notion of American-ness: a conception of America that

defines who it is not. For example, being middle-class American,

as many Black Americans have recently discovered, means not

being black. The inability of salespersons to “see” middle-class

Black consumers as legitimate customers means they see Black

which through their eyes is interpreted as being not middle class.

Thus in American culture, middle class means not black

(p. 245-6).
Historian Ronald Takaki opens his comprehensive study on multicultural America with a
story ofa taxi driver in Virginia driving him to a conference on multiculturalism, checking
him out and asking “How long have you been in this country?” “All my life” he explains,
something he does frequently as the bewildered taxi driver tried to imagine how someone
who looks so “foreign” could be American (1993, p. 1).

We have two anecdotal examples in MRULE that resonate with the above
situation. The first was during a discussion on what it means to be Black when choosing
clothing. It was stimulated by the controversy over the FUBU (For Us By Us) designer
line, who should wear it, whether Whites should violate the ‘For Us’ part of the deal by

trying to wear the clothes. Some White students felt deliberately excluded and did not like

that feeling. Black students then said, “we feel excluded all the time.” This opened the

82

door for one Black student to Share that she shopped frequently at a famous brand name
store which made many ofthc Black students wince as it had a reputation for being
unwelcoming to Black customers. After waiting for some time for service She was finally
able to make her purchase. The clerk neglected to remove the security tag and when she
exited the alamt went off. The same clerk approached her with a suspecting attitude and
then proceeded to remove the tag. When She asked him what the deal was Since he sold
her the merchandise he asked her coolly, “Why are you here?” (MRULE Round Table
Discussion, March 2000).

The second Situation happened to an MRULE student while in a required
humanities core course. The topic was immigration. The students were playing a game in
which they had to identify well-known immigrants. Students threw out the names of
Selena, the Slain tejano star and Jennifer LOpez, actress and Singer.

“Wait a minute,” the MRULE student said. “How can these women be immigrants? They
were born and raised in Texas (Selena) and New York (Lopez).”

“But they speak Spanish” the students retorted.

“Selena’s first language was English. She had to learn Spanish to sing the music.”

“But it is immigrant music that She sings.”

“No, she sings tejano which has its roots in Texas and the last time I checked Texas was in
the United States.”

No other student, not even the Teaching Assistant, an international graduate
student, could counteract the image of who could be a bona fide American. The majority
ruled. Selena and Lopez were immigrants and the message was conveyed to the class that

you could determine who was an American by applying the criteria of the look, language,

83

and cultural practices. A seemingly innocent approach to perpetuating the world of the

“other.” (MRULE, Student Leader Seminar, November 1999).

Racism and Power

When Omi and Winant Speak of “social projects which create or reproduce
structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race” they are positioning a
definition of racism which include individual acts in social structures.

In order to identify a social project as racist, one must in our view
demonstrate a link between essentialist representations of race
and social structures of domination. Such a link might be
revealed in efforts to promote dominant interests, framed in racial
terms, from democratizing racial initiatives. But it might also
consist of efforts simply to reverse the roles of racially dominant
and racially subordinate. There is nothing else inherently white
about racism (p.72).

The meaning of power is usually contested ground as students come in the door.
The battle for them centers on issues of racism. Some of these include whether Blacks can
be racist, the difference between prejudice with and without power, and individual vs.
institutional acts. We let them debate this, but we ask them to consider the following:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another and the right to dominate;
anyone is capable of having this belief and acting on it. How well and to what degree
these actions impact individuals and communities differ depending on many variables.
Those variables have to do with social location, access to resources and opportunities, and
the degree of institutional support behind the actions.

Racism encompasses the attitude of prejudice but it is more than prejudice as

domination is configured into the definition. ls domination something only White people

84

are capable of? Of course not! Why did Nelson Mandela reiterate his famous Rivonia

Trial statement of 1964 upon his release from prison in 1990?

I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are
true today as they were then: ‘I have fought against white
domination and l have fought against black domination. I have
cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all
persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It
is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs
be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die’ (Nelson
Mandela's Address to Rally in Cape Town on his Release from
Prison, 11 February 1990).

Certainly Mandela knew that there was not an inkling of Black domination during his
twenty-seven year imprisonment as the apartheid regime was in high gear, destroying
countless Black lives to ensure White domination. But he also understood very well the
dialectical aspect of oppression. The dialectical implies an interactive relationship
between oppression and freedom, dominance and resistance (Collins 2000, Harvey 1996,
Greene 1988). Neither of these states are static or pemranent. Unless the value of
democracy and freedom for all is owned by all to provide for all, the right to dominate and
thereby oppress characterizes the relationship between those with the most access to
power and those with the least. Mandela commented on this again after the first free
national elections took place in 1994. When his party, the African National Congress
(ANC) won with a significant majority of the vote: 62.6%, just shy of the two thirds
needed to draw a constitution without the input of the other parties, he was not
disappointed. He knew that a new constitution constructed through a multiplicity of
voices would represent all of South Africa, not just the ANC and would therefore protect

the ANC from the drive to dominate (Mandela 1994, p.539).

85

Looking at power through a relational lens is critical to race relations discourse. It
is another example of not settling for an either/or answer. Once again it is the both/and
analysis that helps make meaningful connections to the complexity of power dynamics.
To illustrate this to students we present the following example:

C an a Black person believe in Black superiority and act upon that to another individual or
a group? Let 's say a White employee has a Black manager who does not like White people
and wishes to undermine their success in the company. The Black manager can in subtle
or overt ways make that known to the White employee and consequently the employee
feels discrimination and labels it racism. Let 's reverse the situation: a Black employee
has a White manager who does not like Black people and wishes to undermine their
success and makes that known in subtle and overt ways— the Black employee consequentlv
feels discrimination and labels it racism. Is this the same situation for both employees?
When first presented with this example before students understand how power and
privilege work together to systematically disadvantage people of color, they would say
yes. When we unpack it, we are able to show that the same action— animus from
members of one racial group toward members of another racial group—can have a very
different impact depending on where the individual is socially located. In most cases, the
Black manager who doesn’t like White people cannot possibly undermine the success of
them all or he/She will have no organization. Even if the Black person believes in the
superiority of Black people he or she has a limited ability to impact White people’s lives
with that belief. In contrast, the White manager can more easily Single out Black
employees than the reverse. The White manager to a large degree has institutional support

for the belief in White superiority and can therefore do more damage. If the White

86

employee leaves the job and searches for another, he/she is still favored over his Black
counterpart as we have seen in the Multi-City Study—Detroit Divided (2000).15 The
White person may encounter this animus occasionally, the Black person routinely. These
conditions make the experience of the same Situation different. This does not change the
fact that the individual encountered discrimination or animus. Rather it situates it in a
larger social racialized context in which the power to dominate especially in the US.
workplace still remains primarily in the hands of Whites (US. Department of Labor,
Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative, 1993 p. 14). That institutions have more power to
affect greater numbers of people than individuals is at issue. At the same time it is
important to consider that the individual is not powerless. Resistance and compliance can
be expressions of power (Omi & Winant 1994). Human beings are complex realities
embedded in even more complex social relations with multiple power dynamics. Patricia
Hill Collins characterizes resistance as oppositional knowledges, which may be invisible
to individuals but collectively impactful.

When my mother taught me to read, took me to the public library

when I was five, and told me that if I learned to read, I could

experience a form of freedom, neither she nor I saw the

magnitude of that one action in my life and the lives that my

work has subsequently touched. As people push against, step

away from, and shift the terms of their participation in power

relations, the shape of power relations changes for everyone. Like

individual subj ectivity,resistance strategies and power are always

multiple and in constant states of change (p.275).

Collins (2000) makes another very important contribution to the conceptualization

of power and domination that has been used in the MRULE program to situate racial

 

'5 The Mult-City in Detroit found that Black males fare worse than Whites and Black females when
itcomes to securing employment (p. l 19).

87

identity, oppression, and resistance in the context of multiple intersecting identities,
oppressions, and forms of resistance. At the core of the “mutually constructing features of
social organization” is the intersection of race, class, gender, sexuality, and nationality in a
“matrix of domination.” This refers to a hierarchical arrangement of systems of
oppression and a particular organization of its domains of power, e. g., structural,
disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal (p. 299). Using Black women as an example
she explains:

Because oppression is constantly changing, different aspects of

an individual U.S. Black woman’s self-definitions intermingle

and become more salient: Her gender may be more prominent

when She becomes a mother, her race when She searches for

housing, her social class when she applies for credit, her sexual

orientation when she is walking with her lover, and her

citizenship status when she applies for a job (p. 274-5).
This poses several questions to students: When does my race matter? Gender? Sexual
orientation? When am I privileged because of who I am? When am I at a disadvantage?
(Kendall 1999)”. What are the power dynamics at play? How do I interact with them?
What can I shape and what shapes me? All students can ask and answer these questions.
As they share their similar and different answers and grasp the reasons behind these
answers, we begin to make Significant progress towards creating a genuine and diverse
learning community where change in racial thinking thrives.

AS the MRULE develops, we have made more systematic connections between

patriarchy, white supremacy, elitism, and homophobia in sustaining a system of unequal

access and uneven development. Teaching these systems from an intersectional analysis

has been helpful although students often resist conceptual frameworks that demand

 

'° Unpublished intersectional power grid

88

extensive reading or study in an unfamiliar jargon.l7 It is a continual process of breaking
it down for them. The focus remains on the relationship between individuals and
institutions and their access to resources that affect the quality of their lives. Once it is
understood that individuals experience inequalities at many levels and that inequalities are
perpetuated by institutions, the door is open for exploration into causes and consequences.
Ultimately, it is individuals who make up institutions and can, when the will is there,
harness the power to change them. To demonstrate this we turn to our multiracial United
States history—the mainstay of the MRULE curriculum. This is where we challenge the
notion that history is about “old dead guys” and outdated institutions that have nothing to

do with today’s world.

 

'7 It is important to note that the MRULE program attracts students from a variety ofdisciplines. This is
both one of its strengths and challenges, as some students do not have the background or interest to master
the sociological theories. We compromise by presenting the information in a variety of ways—from
reading of the texts to interactive exercises.

89

Chapter Four
How MRULE uses History: Historical Agency in the Formation of a
Multi-Racial Society

History teaches us that it is not the rebels, it is not the dissidents who endanger a society
but rather the accepting, the unthinking, the unquestioning, the docile, . . . the silent, and
the indiflerent. This lesson, as l have tried to convey to my students, not only in Berkeley
but in Moscow, Beijing, and Oxford, Mississippi, knows no state or national boundaries.
And it remains timeless.

Leon F. Litwack, “The Making of a Historian,”

(Cimbala & Himmelberg 1996, p. 31).

Whether the topic is affirmative action in college admissions, the Confederate flag,
or the Civil Rights Movement, today’s students for the most part enter the university with
a dismal understanding of United States history. We often play an interactive game in
MRULE where we place the name of a historical figure on the back of each student and
they have to ask yes/no questions of one another to detemrine whose name is on their
back. The last time this game was played with a group of first and second year students, I
walked around the group, listening to their questions and answers and interjecting when
they could not answer accurately. I was amazed at how often they would label their
person a “civil rights leader” as if this was the only way to characterize a historical figure.
These were the descriptors repeatedly placed on W.E.B Du Bois, Frederick Douglas, and
Sojourner Truth. The positive aspect was that they knew these leaders struggled for civil
and equal rights, the negative was that there was no understanding of a historical context,
everyone blended together.

In the debriefing session, we tried to probe them to share what they knew about

their historical person. We heard things like Frederick Douglas freed the slaves,

information about Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t taught in high school so they didn’t

90

know anything Specific about him, and Ceasar Chavez was not as commonly known
name as we had thought. One student could not guess who he was even after being given
hints like: he’s Mexican American and worked to improve conditions for migrant farm
workers using tactics learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. (MRULE, Round Table
Discussion, April 2000).

“I hated history in high school. It was the most boring subject. I can’t remember a
thing about it. I don’t see what use it has for us today.” I cannot accurately count the
number of times I have heard students tell me this. When they discover that history is at
the core of the MRULE program and they will have to get a command of it, some of them
Shut down. Most learn to tolerate what they have decided is the boring part of MRULE.
This is usually a temporary Situation until we can Show them that there are many ways to
learn and remember history. We are uncompromising about helping them to understand
why history is at the core of our program. We explain that although the weekly round
table discussions are the forum for them to Share their opinions, it cannot be limited to
that. We are an institution of higher learning and as important as opinions are, they are not
the pinnacle of knowledge. Learning our history will guide us to be able to have more
informed, enlightened opinions. Without a sense of our history, we cannot move our
discourse beyond opinions and will inevitably lose interest. Deprivation of knowledge of
history leads to the complacency and unthinking, unquestioning indifference that
Professor Litwack speaks of. Since our charge in the MRULE program is to bring
knowledge to bear on our thinking and our actions, we make the connection for students

that learning an inclusive multiracial history is the vehicle that makes this possible.

91

Shifting the Historical Lens—Reconfiguring the Historical Narrative

I began my doctoral studies in 1994 and have had the fortunate and sometimes
frustrating experience of trying to keep up with the prolific publishing going on in the
fields Of race/ethnic and women’s history. While in the middle of a course in Women’s
Studies, a fourth edition of one of my main texts, Women ’s America, was published. In
fact, the fifth edition (2000) is now available. AS each new edition came out, editors
Kerber and De Hart grew increasingly concerned with the degree of inclusivity and the
complexity of women’s different experiences. It became critically important to answer
the questions: Who were the women who made up America? How different or similar
were their experiences? How often did the narrative of white middle class women
dominate the discourse? What were the comparative stories of women and men who were
in the same time and place, and yet not, because in most cases, regardless of race or class
status, women were excluded from centers of power and rendered invisible? Kerber and
De Hart look to historian Gerda Lerner who was one of the first to explore these
questions and write history that sought to address them. Lerner characterizes four stages
of development in the writing of women’s history on a journey towards inclusivity. The
first is “compensatory history” - the historian looks for women and all their activities that
have been systematically excluded from the historical record. The second stage is
“contribution history” in which historians describe women’s contributions to major
themes and movements usually as helpers to the main actors—men. This approach left
many upcoming historians in the 1970’s and 80’s wanting. Though it was important to
discover women and their contributions, the context in which their stories were told and

meaning constructed remained male dominated.

92

Things we thought we “knew” about American history turn out to

be more complex than we had suspected. For example, most

textbooks suggest that the frontier meant opportunity for

Americans, “a gate of escape from the bondage of the past.” But

it was men who more readily found on the frontier compensation

for their hard work; many women found only drudgery. (In fact,

women were more likely to find economic Opportunity in cities

than on the frontier) (Kerber & De Hart 1995, p. 5).
The historical lens by which to examine the westward movement would need another
refocusing when we consider the Black experience. As they moved west, Black women
did not escape the hard work they were already so accustomed to or freedom from
racialism “but they did find a world that much closer to the democratic ideal than the Jim
Crow South they left behind” (Hine & Thompson 1998, p. 172). Lerner and the many
great women historians who followed her took up the challenge to “reexamine the social
relations of the sexes, to reconstruct many historical generalizations, and to reconfigure
the historical narrative.” This led to the fourth stage, which is understanding the social
construction of gender and the complexity of historical interpretation of this reality. (It is
not our purpose here to thoroughly discuss gender. Rather it is to draw a parallel with the
social construction of race as discussed in Chapter Two.) A lack of such understanding
limits the ability to conceptualize the complexities, nuances, and changes throughout
history—why these changes occur, the power relations and dynamics that influence the
changes and the historical agency of those in the throes of struggle to resist oppression
and maintain human dignity.

Black, Latino, Asian American, and Native American history have also traveled
through the same stages of absence, obscurity, recognition, and contribution and are key
in the “corrective” and “revisionist” sense, there still remains much work to do where we
can clearly see the interrelationships among all players in the making of a historical

moment. Responding to Oscar Handlin’s discovery that “immigrants were American

93

history” historian Ronald Takaki set out to capture the immigrant (from the East, West,
and South), the Native American and African American experience in the first
multicultural history of its kind: A Different Mirror. Inspired by the work of several

historians including Handlin, Takaki saw the limitations of separate studies.

These books and others like them fragment American society,

studying each group separately, in isolation from the other groups

and the whole. While scrutinizing our Specific pieces, we have to

step back in order to see the rich and complex portrait they

compose. What is needed is a fresh angle, a study of the

American past from a comparative perspective (p. 6- 7).
Takaki was concerned with both the differences and similarities of each group’s
experience, when they worked together, when they competed, the agency they had
individually and collectively to resist and transform exclusionary practices in the struggle
to be Americans. This is what is meant by reconfiguring the historical narrative.

This reconfiguration is not synonymous with balkanization of people based on
race, ethnicity, class, gender, nationality. as some critics have argued claiming that this
“new history” is chiseling away at our nation’s motto—“E pluribus unum’—‘Out of one
many’” (Takaki 1993). Rather it calls for an honest treatment of people’s diverse
experience and a recognition on the part of scholars and educators of liberal and
conservative traditions that the melting pot metaphor cannot tell the story of all of
America’s peoples. As historian Lawrence Levine reminds us: “It was over seventy-five
years ago Horace Kallen suggested that the United States could best be understood not as
the unified product of a melting pot but as a more complex “democratic commonwealth”
of peoples, a “democracy of nationalities,” a “multiplicity in a unity” (Levine 1993,

p.865). Even while the melting pot metaphor was being created, laws, institutions, and

social practices were being reinforced all over the country to exclude people of color

94

from enjoying full citizens rights with European Americans (Steinberg 1989, p. 48). How
do people melt when they are constantly reminded of their “outsider” status? What
would they melt into? Citing eighteenth century French immigrant Hector Crevecoeur
historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. calls it a “new race of man” but that could hardly be
achieved in a society where race, class, and gender stratification define access and
Opportunity (Schlesinger 1992, passim). He argues against a “multicultural” treatment of
history and calls for a “true, honest” hjstory, suggesting that the two are incompatible—
seerningly unaware of and/or unconcerned about how this dichotomous thinking erases
genuine lived experience. Even as he argues that Americans are one people and an
emphasis on their differences through a multicultural lens will drive them apart, he
acknowledges the bitter welcome that Native and Black people received throughout
history (p. 58). He makes brief mention of racism as the “great national tragedy” (p.19)
but does not make the connection that white supremacy and the institutions created to
uphold it ensured people of color that they would not melt into and share the status of
White people. He glosses over the very different experiences that White immigrants and
people of color experienced in the process of becoming Americans. Scholars of White
ethnics, particularly the Irish and Jews who had the greatest barriers to assimilation, have
demonstrated that white skin eventually gave them access to Opportunities from which
they had been historically excluded (Iganatiev 1997, Brodkin 1999). Schcslinger does
little in his essay to acknowledge this and spends a good deal of time attacking “feel good
history” that builds self-esteem, Afrocentrism in particular. Schlesinger’s arguments are
not convincing. Unless he acknowledges and validates the difference in the racialized

experience of all Americans, and notes that the legacy of racism is more than a tragedy to

95

lament but has living consequences that continually demand to be reckoned with, his call
for the “one in many” will fall upon deaf ears.

Reconfiguring the historical narrative shakes the apple cart, let there be no doubt.
One of the most repeated arguments supported by gatekeepers of the status quo is that
bringing the new heroes and heroines on the historical scene—people of color and
women of all backgrounds—will diminish or eradicate the parts of the old heroes and
distort history in favor of a “politically correct” version. This is not the case as many
historians are demonstrating by uncovering entire new worlds that have always been
there, even though absent from the historical narrative. As Lerner argues:

Advocates of the new, more inclusive history point out that there
is room in the American narrative for a broader range of heroes
and heroines than we have hitherto included and that Abraham
Lincoln’s stature would not be diminished by the inclusion in the
narrative of story of Frederick Douglass. In fact, discussion of
contending and contradictory narratives would more accurately
reflect the tensions that existed in the lives of ruling elites and
ordinary folk under a system in which both slavery and free
institutions coexisted (Lerner 1997, p. 203).

Historians are facing enormous challenges as new approaches to “creating a
history that is faithful to the realities of our ambiguous past, our contentious present, and
our rather uncertain future” are demanding to be heard (Harding 1994, p.4). Levine
builds a case for how and why a deeper, more nuanced and complex history must be told
by a multiple of voices.

To teach a history that excludes large areas of American culture
and ignores the experiences of significant segments of the
American people is to teach a history that fails to touch us, that
fails to explain America to us or to anyone else. We need, not a
new history, but a more profound and more complex
understanding of our old history. This need presses down upon us

relentlessly, and we will ultimately be judged by how well we
meet it, by how able we are to keep our understanding of the

96

American past open, dynamic, and responsive, free of the weight

of fixed symbols, rigid canons, and useless shadows (Levine p.

867).
Vincent Harding calls Takaki’s work, A Different Mirror a pioneering effort to do this
and contemplates the possibilities of a new master narrative that can be built upon the
strengths and weaknesses ofTakaki’s bold adventure. Everyone could not be included in
this work, nor could Takaki give equal weight to all historical periods. As Harding points
out Takaki could not really bring this multicultural narrative to a fitting close, though he
touches upon current issues faced by people of color in central cities and reservations.
Educational and economic barriers to opportunities have continually plagued all
historically disadvantaged groups in varying degrees. Takaki’s exploration in A Different
Mirror cannot come to an end in light of the fact that new immigrants are continually
arriving in the United States. They will live and tell new and different experiences—with
clear connections to the past and a strong hold on the “American Dream” for a better
future. Still they face barriers imposed by racism and classism and problems of
underemployment, inadequate education and health care as well as increasing tensions
among groups as was demonstrated in the 1992 Los Angeles riot which social critic
Richard Rodriguez labeled a “race riot that had no border, without nationality”(p.423).

This particular message seems to be the very thing that Schlesinger misses, the

imperative to study the American experience in search of the narrative that represents a
diverse array of individual and collective voices in various relationships among
themselves and to one another. It cannot be an either/or scenario, nor can the expectation
be placed upon historians and educators to erase experiences from the record so as to
discourage separatism. At its core, the narrative must be thoroughly inclusive and

uncompromisingly audacious about confronting all of America’s past.

97

Here again, his work (Takaki’s) is important for the proposal that

there can be no approach to a new master narrative of the

American experience without an attempt to deal forthrightly with

the persistently destructive power of white supremacy and the

exploitation of racial differences in the midst of all attempts to

create a national union more perfect than the one bequeathed to

us by the original founders (Harding p. 9).
As Harding poses these matters to himself, his fellow historians and citizens he concludes
by suggesting that this reconfiguration may not in the future be a master narrative, but
rather a:

...new “servant narrative,” a new “democratic narrative,” or the

more possibly neutral-a1 metanarrative (p. 10)—where we would

not be tempted to ignore or deny the ways in which we

Americans are reflections of each other, refusing to recognize the

ambiguous and frustrating channels by which we have entered

into each other's lives, sometimes bloodily, sometimes lovingly,

sometimes in liminal engagements that defy categories and create

new realities (p. 8).

Another aspect of reconfiguring the historical narrative is looking at the role of
agency. As has been noted throughout Chapter Two, human agency is a critical
component of the human experience and a key element of the historical narrative. Eric
Foner discovered this is as a young historian when studying “new social history” in
England in the early 1970’s and used this to his advantage to write a definitive work on
Reconstruction that others attempted to do and failed (Cimbala & Himmelberg 1996, p.
102). When he discovered boxes of correspondence capturing local social and political
life of former slaves, up-country farmers, planters, and Klan members all engaged in
activity to either change or maintain the status quo, he was convinced that Reconstruction
would have to be told so that it was understood that freedpeople were the central actors in

the drama. As he characterizes it:

Rather than Simply victims of manipulation or passive recipients
of the actions of others they were agents of change whose

98

demand for individual and community autonomy helped to
establish the agenda of Reconstruction politics (p. 103).

Building on the work of WEB Du Bois, John Hope Franklin and others, Foner shifted
the lens even further by focusing on the labor question—how former slaves struggled to
secure economic autonomy. This led to the development of the unique aspect of
Reconstruction, enfranchisernent of former male slaves within a few years of
emancipation. Foner believed that because Reconstruction failed to bring Black people
freedom and dignity the power inherent in the Fifteenth Amendment is Often overlooked
(Cimbala & Himmelberg 1996, p.104).

Historians of Black women’s history are quite aware of the significance of the
Fifteen Amendment as it captured the pivotal debate among opposing views during the
abolitionist movement between those who believed women should push forward for their
right to vote and those who believed that women should wait their turn and rally around
ensuring the rights of Black men (Hine & Thompson 1998). This same debate takes on
another major historical battle: that of middle and upper class White women fighting for
their rights with very little concern about Black women. The racism that Black women
continually endured from their White suffragist “sisters” gave them sufficient reasons to
make eradicating racism their primary focus. This tension has remained throughout the
20lh century, through the second wave of feminism, and still lingers in some
contemporary discourses (Brown 1995, Terborg-Penn 1995).

Post-Reconstruction history takes on even greater nuances at the hand of Glenda
Gilmore in Gender and Jim Crow (1996). Here Gilmore shows how Black women,
hopeful for a future in which they would enjoy full citizenship rights became politically
active in North Carolina. Once Black men met with disenfranchisement and the

exclusionary practices set in motion by Jim Crow, these Black women (and men but the

99

focus of the work is on the women) fought even harder with continual resistance
strategies that contributed to their survival. In fact it was the work of Black women in
temperance unions, social and civic service, and the suffragist movement, that kept
activism alive when the political doors began to close for Black men. Gilmore grew up in
North Carolina and was quite aware of the white Southern version of this critical
historical period. She was compelled to tell another story.

In the segregated South whites invented a past for posterity by

making up on a daily basis a multitude of justifications and

rationalizations for racial oppression. Growing up there as a

white girl in the 1950’s, I lived that fiction. The subsequent

separation of self from lies consumed much of my post-

adolescent, post civil rights movement life, as I painfully peeled

away a tissue of falsehoods and cut through many connections to

my upbringing in the segregated South. After that I believed no

truth and took no evidence at face value. Fiction in the archives?

What else? Basing Southern political history on white archival

sources has rendered African Americans as passive recipients of

whites’ actions. Black middle class men have appeared as

exceptions in the narrative, while Black women have disappeared

altogether (xvi).
Like Foner, Gilmore found an archival gold mine in the voices of the Black women and
men who were determined to build whole and dignified lives in their promised freedom,
no matter the obstacles white supremacy laid on their paths (Gilmore l996,p. xxi-ii).

The burgeoning field of scholarship in Black women’s history in the last two

decades has opened the door for understanding that reconfiguring the historical narrative
is vital in our quest for honest and true history. Historian Darlene Clark Hine, in her own
words, straddles between the two burgeoning fields of Black and women’s history. She
Characterizes it as paradigmatic shift—a “flowering and legitimization of black history”

and the “maturation and entrenchment of women’s history—not yet complete” (Cimbela

& Himmelberg 1996, p.52) and tells the moving story of how she began to study in Black

100

 

history. As a young historian she was approached by Shirley Herd, a schoolteacher in
Indiana and president of the local chapter of the National Council of Negro Women to
write a history of Black women in Indiana. When She replied that she did not know
anything about Black women’s history since she had taken no courses in her training
Herd said bluntly: “You are a Black woman? You are a historian? You mean to tell me
you can’t put those two things together and write us a history of Black women in
Indiana?” (Cimbela & Himmelberg 1996, p. 60). Hine took the challenge and when she
told one of her colleagues of her newly found interest in Black women’s history and her
intention to embark on a major research project, she was warnedthat she would be
making a big mistake in her career. “Black women didn’t do all that much and what they
did do didn’t matter all that much” (Hine lecture, Graduate Seminar, November 1997).
She has since received an apology from this colleague but the story illustrates an ever
abiding need for vision and belief in reconfiguring the historical narrative to include

those who have been rendered invisible.

African American Women ’s History and Inclusive Historiography
To study women ’s history, then, is to take part in a bold enterprise that can eventually

lead us to a new history, one that, by taking into account both sexes, should tell us more
about each other and, therefore, our collective selves. (Kerber and De Hart, p. 21)

It is not explicit what women Kerber and De Hart are referring to—it can be
assumed that they are speaking of all women and that indeed would inform us of our
collective selves as members of the human race. As noted above, accurate
particularization is needed to ensure integrity of the whole. The development of Black
Women’s history has made an invaluable contribution to an inclusive historiography. In

this section we will look at three works that serve as illustrious examples of reconfiguring

the narrative. Although we focus on Black women we could have used women from any

101

background to make the point. These are examples that inspire and guide. The key
concept to understand is that any one work of inclusive history cannot include everyone,
rather it introduces the conceptual framework that opens the door for all voices to be
raised.

Historian, Elsa Barkley Brown, likens the teaching of African American women’s
history to African American women’s quilting whose qualities include variation of
patterns moving in different directions, non-linear, and polyrhythmic. Building on work
of Bettina Aptheker’s “pivoting the center” and Jacqueline Dowd Hall’s “releasing
multiple voices rather than competing orthodoxies,” Brown addresses the concern that
repeatedly surfaces as we strive to help students transcend their ideas of what is
normative and “center in another’s experience.”

I do not mean that white or male students can learn to feel what it

is like to be a Black woman. Rather, I believe that all people can

learn to center in another experience, validate it, and judge it by

its own standards without need of comparison or need to adopt

that framework as their own. Thus one has no need to “decenter”

anyone in order to center someone else; one has to constantly,

appropriately, “pivot the center” (Brown, p. 922).
We will look at three examples chosen from three different styles of work—this helps to
give us a methodologically comprehensive approach. The first, Hine and Thompson’s A
Shining Thread of Hope: A History of Black Women in America, (1998) is a survey
history and is written for academic as well as a lay audiences. The second, Gilmore’s
Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina,
1896-1920, ( 1996) is a monographic work that centers on the experiences of African
American women and men (more focus on women) and the resistance strategies they

employed to overcome white supremacy. The third is Murray’s, Pauli Murray: The

Autobiography of a Black Activist, Feminist, Lawyer, Priest, Poet, (1989) that walks

102

through race relations in some of the most turbulent times of the 20’h century, through
personal experience. From these works we will build the case for historical agency. All
of the stories here focus on historical figures that would for the most part be invisible in
the narrative had it not been for these authors’ meticulous reconfiguration. They break the
silence and sharpen our vision so that we can better see the complex and multi—

dimensionality of our collective history (Levine 1993).

A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America
In this first comprehensive African American women’s history, authors Hine and

Thompson meticulously give us American history as lived by Black women. A useful
organizing theme that runs through the work is how Black women fought against “three
enemies—law, custom, and violence.”

Law made black women and their children slaves, robbed them

of their human rights, and bound them to often cruel and

exploitative owners. Custom constrained them within limitations

of gender and race and rendered their attempts to protect their

sexual integrity virtually useless. Violence permeated their lives.

These three enemies have worked together, and black women

have seldom been able to attack one without finding themselves

painfully ensnared by the others. (p. 166)
Following this work is to be alongside Black women’s struggle through slavery,
Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Great Migration, the Great Depression, two World Wars,
and the Civil Rights Movement. With the richness that all this entails it is difficult to
bring it to a close. There is some mention of women’s achievement through the closing
decades of the twentieth century, particularly highlighting the successful Black woman.
However, the beauty and strength of the work is how it brings two hundred years of US.

history to life through the lens of Black women, free and slave, rich and poor, educated

and illiterate, married and single, laborer, professional, artist, community organizer,

103

politician and almost always the educator. Black women were primarily responsible for
their family’s survival despite the meager resources most of them had. This narrative
looks into the lives of extraordinary and ordinary women and the educational practices
they creatively and painstakingly devised with support of their communities of extended
family and fictive kin. Sometimes they had White allies, in most cases they did not. That
they triumphed against extreme odds, from the underground schools they ran for slave
children to academies for free blacks to the schools they founded and integrated through
Jim Crow and desegregation to breaking into all white, male fields of medicine and law
as early as the mid 19’h century, is the untold story of traditional history (p. 160-3).
Doing further research into any one of the great women highlighted in A Shining
Thread of Hope would make an excellent project for MRULE undergraduates needing to
understand historical agency. We draw upon the inspiration of these women fighting the
law, custom, and violence that laid heavy constraints upon their freedom and dignity.
Perhaps most immediately applicable to our work today is the story of the women of the
Civil Right Movement: Ella Baker, Diane Nash, JoAnn Gibson Robinson, and Anna
Arnold Hedgeman. It was Hedgeman who requested that a Black woman be allowed to
present a major address at the 1963 March on Washington. After all, if we take a look at
the role women had been playing leading up to this historical era we would see Septima
Clark, director of the first integrated citizenship schools (Highlander) where some of the
greatest civil rights leaders were trained. Among them was Fannie Lou Hamer who co-
founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, challenging white political
domination of the Mississippi Democratic party. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was
successfully carried out due to the preparation of women on the ground (Jo Ann Gibson

Robinson, Rosa Parks, and others) who were as Parks’ stated “tired” of the unequal

104

treatment that continued to make their days longer and their lives harder. Daisy Bates
was behind the effort to usher the Little Rock Nine through the trauma of integrating
Arkansas Public Schools in 1957, and it was Ella Baker’s vision to empower young
people in participatory democracy strategies that inspired the Student Non Violent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC) into being in 1960 (Crawford, Rouse, Woods 1993).
Hedgeman’s request to include a woman as a keynote speaker was not based on a whim
or a kind of female solidarity for the sake of appearance. It was in honor of the women
who worked to make that 1963 historical event possible. When it was denied by the male
leadership, it brought home the point to Hedgeman that Black women were viewed as
“second-class citizens” (Hine & Thompson 1998, p. 281). That the women leaders of the
Civil Rights Era made tremendous contributions to the victories won is undeniable. That
they could have achieved more if they had been welcomed as partners to the men is also
true.

Hine and Thompson have made accessible to an undergraduate audience of all
backgrounds the lives of many Black women who resisted domination from White
oppressors and fought for equality with their men. We know that this journey, though
well traveled, is not yet ready to end, as there are many battles yet to fight. These women
are shining examples of how the battle for equality must be fought and won at all levels
of human interaction, a fundamental lesson taught and reinforced throughout the MRULE
project.

Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina,
1896-1920

We highlight this work in MRULE because it is a lucid and powerful example of
“pivoting the center.” Gilmore stands Post Reconstruction history in North Carolina

leading up the nineteenth amendment on its head. Determined to uncover what happened

105

during this period from the perspectives of African Americans fighting against the
machinery of white supremacy as it tried to rid them of all hopes of becoming full
citizens, she rewrites a compelling, impeccably documented narrative.

Gilmore begins the narrative by following the life and writings of her “main
character”——Sarah Dudley Pettey, educator, writer, and activist through the 1880’s and
90’s. Dudley Pettey, her husband Charles Pettey and other educated Blacks believed they
had a fair chance at full citizenship and worked diligently through education, the church,
and other social institutions to develop the capacities to be outstanding members of their
communities. Law, custom, and violence made sure that they would have great difficulty
succeeding. White supremacy was at its zenith, with its zealous supporters determined to
create a new and legal form of slavery that began with the disenfranchisement of Black
men, economic disempowerrnent, and the segregation of all public facilities. Supreme
Court Case Plessy vs. F erguson, the Separate but Equal doctrine of 1896 put legal teeth
into the web of actions and counter actions created to keep Blacks in their place. AS
middle class Black men and women demonstrated the highest “Christian” values:
education, stability in family life, modesty and a prudent Victorian life style, becoming
what they called “Best Men and Best Women”, they stirred up fear and resentment in
Whites who believed that they alone could occupy these places. Custom demanded that
Whites remain on top. Black mobility threatened the racial order that many of this
generation felt their Confederate fathers abandoned. The sons of these fathers were
determined to pick up the pieces of their father’s defeat and recreate a new social order
where Whites would unquestionably reign supreme. The Best Black men and women like

Charles and Sarah Pettey would have to be brought down to size.

106

Throughout the twenty-four year period of Gilmore’s study, African American
resistant strategies were plentiful. There was nothing more important to the emerging
Black middle class than enfranchisement. With the vote they could continue to move
forward and would be empowered to assist poor Blacks as well. Their determination,
hard work and persistent endurance to build their lives and communities even under the
Shadow of white supremacy did not falter. Violence was one sure strategy Whites used to
retard Black progress. Upon a few incidents of black on white rape they concocted the
myth of the Black male rapist set upon destroying the purity of White womanhood. They
created a rape scare that was hardly founded in fact. According to Gilmore:

For the previous two years, 1895 and 1896, the attorney general

had counted twenty-eight rape cases statewide. Neither he or his

successors specified the race of the rapists. They did, however,

list the race of those lynched and executed. In 1895 and 1896,

one black man was lynched for attempted rape, and none

executed. If we can assume that any black man accused of raping

a white woman would have been either lynched or executed, that

leaves twenty-seven cases that did not involve black on white

rape. Many of those twenty-seven convicted rapists must have

been white men who raped white women since black men’s rapes

of black women were less likely to be prosecuted and white

men’s rape of black women rarely resulted in convictions (p. 86).
These facts did not matter to those set upon shattering the hopes and dreams of full
citizenship for North Carolina’s African Americans. Creating the image of the Black
man as a rapist monster who was lurking around every corner to strike down White
womanhood was a strategy sure to capture attention and harness mass support for those
desperately trying to regain unfettered White rule. Black leaders were blamed for not
being able to control the Black rapists and even Black soldiers were labeled sex symbols

and harassed by White gangs (p. 81-2). Tensions built and led up to the 1898 racial

massacre in Wilmington when White Supremacist, Alfred Moore Wadell, led an army of

107

men into the city, burned the Black press and either shot or ran Black leaders out of town.
Many leaders like the Petteys concluded that they could “no longer live in North Carolina
and be a man” (p. 117).

Gilmore makes the case for “pivoting the center” as historians examine this
turbulent period in Southern history. To understand this period, the violence, resistance,
defeat and survival, and the complex web of relationships where Black and White men
and women of all classes played their parts, one must widen the lens.

Examining the race wars of the 1890’s exclusively through the
eyes of white supremacists does more than neglect the African
American experience, it distorts the campaign’s meaning by
ignoring its context. What white men did and thought is
important because they held the preponderance of power and
used it so brutally. White men knew, however, what historians
are discovering: that they did not act with impunity in a lily-white
male world; rather, they reacted strategically in racially and
sexually mixed location. Moreover, the victories they won were

not ordained or complete but began as precariously balanced
compromises that papered over deep fissures in Southern life

(p. 118).

Pauli Murray: The Autobiography of a Black Activist, Feminist, Lawyer, Priest, and Poet
Pauli Murray" was one of the most extraordinary Black women of the 20lh

century. Poet, lawyer, activist, feminist, and priest, she battled racial and gender

oppression and exclusion throughout her life and trail blazed through many obstacles in

her path. Of Murray and her autobiography, Eleanor Holmes Norton states:

 

'8 I discovered Pauli Murray in a round about way. I was doing research on the relationship between
Eleanor Roosevelt and Mary McCleod Bethune. I continually came upon the name Pauli Murray and the
letters she wrote to Mrs. Roosevelt about racial injustices. I was so intrigued by the audacity and tenacity of
Pauli Murray that I knew I would have to research her further. In fact. from the evidence that I have seen, I
believe that that the relationship between Murray and Roosevelt was much closer, more dynamic and
genuine than the one between Roosevelt and Bethune. They seemed to have transcended the “polite racial
etiquette” and got down to some very real and painful issues. This will be discussed further in Chapter

Five.

108

In effect, She recorded her life not at the end but as she went

along, keeping records and notes of events small and great. It is a

testament to her need to remember, her regard for history, and her

insistence to learn from her past. But Pauli never lived in the

past. She lived on the edge of history, seeming to pull it along

with her (xi).
This autobiography is a living testimony to the historical study of race relations leading
up to the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. Born in 1910, the same year of the first
publication of the newly founded National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People’s (NAACP) magazine The Crisis, she witnessed and/or experienced some of the
most pivotal moments in the pursuit of racial justice in the country. The themes of
custom, law, and violence played their part in her life and those around her as she weaves
her story. In MRULE, we use her work on several levels, one as an autobiography and
what it has to offer the student of history. We also use it to show how the personal and
political are interwoven and to demonstrate the intersectionality of race, class, and gender
in the quest for social justice.

Murray’s narrative is dense, though several chapters can be read as independent
essays. This works well with the chapters entitled “A Sharecroppers Life” and “A
Sharecroppers Death.” Here Murray tells the story of Odell Waller who in 1940 shot and
killed Oscar Davis, the Virginian white farmer he shared land with, after an altercation
over Davis confiscating Waller’s wheat crop. Through the Workers Defense League
(WDL), Murray became involved in helping to raise money for an appeal after Waller is
convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by an all white jury of non poll
tax payers—obviously not Waller’s peers. This takes Murray from New York to Virginia
where she had recently been jailed twice for the “crime” of standing up to segregation on

the bus just months before. (Murray and her friend MacBean did this together using non—

violent direct action techniques that she recently studied through Ghandi’s Satyagraha.)

109

Through the WDL in both cases Murray and others tried to bring constitutional rights to
bear on Jim Crow in public transportation and the plight of Southern Sharecroppers. At
the time they lost both battles. Murray and MacBean were fined for not sitting in the
“colored” row of the bus. Odell Waller was put to death for premeditated murder despite
the fact that the evidence leaned strongly on the Side of fear and self-defense as his
motives for the shooting. Actively involved in planting the seeds, it would be a number of
years before Murray would witness the fruition of justice being served to insure Black
people’s constitutional rights. She was there in 1954 when the Supreme Court decision to
dismantle legal segregation became law of the land and again in 1966 when the poll tax
was eradicated.

To read Pauli Murray’s autobiography is to follow the who, what, where, why,
and how of pivotal moments in 20”1 century race relations. Her encounters with Thurgood
Marshall are a good example. She first meets him in 1938 when he considered taking her
denial of admission to the University of North Carolina Law School as a test case to go
after “separate but equal.” There was renewed hope for the NAACP legal team around
suing universities based on the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in the Gaines case: “that the
state of Missouri was obligated to provide facilities for legal education substantially equal
to those which the state provided for White students or it must admit Gaines to the
University of Missouri law school” (p.114). As it turned out Marshall and the NAACP
decided that Murray’s case wasn’t strong enough because she was not a resident of North
Carolina and they did not want to risk losing on that technicality. Their paths cross again
when he came to Richmond, Virginia, to help prepare for the Waller case. Murray’s work
with the WDL reactivated her interest in law school and with Marshall’s letter of

recommendation she entered Howard University Law School in 1941. Although she

110

couldn't secure work with the NAACP upon entering the legal profession due to their
small staff, she struggled in private practice to continue with civil rights work. In 1951
she published the first comprehensive book on racial laws entitled State Laws on Race
and Color which painstakingly listed all racial laws and codes which had never before
been compiled in one document—746 pages. She was told that Marshall called the book
the “bible” during the final stages of the NAACP’S legal attack on “separate but equal.”
It soon became dated by all the legislative changes instituted after the Brown decision of
1954. “During its brief existence, however, it helped to further the developments that
made it obsolete” (p 289).
Murray characterizes her participation in a way that still resonates with the

contemporary struggles we face today.

The events of my final days as a student in Washington climaxed

Six years of intense personal involvement in the struggle against

segregation that had begun in 1938 with my application for

admission to the University of North Carolina. If there were

moments of deep despair in those years, there was also the

sustaining knowledge that the quest for human dignity is part of a

continuous movement through time and history linked to a higher

force (p. 232).
Any one of Murray’s accomplishments would be an inspiration to students interested in
the struggle for racial and gender justice. The fact that she has developed so many sides
of herself and her abilities make the study all that more comprehensive and interesting.
Her life captures the continual journey, complete with pitfalls and victories at every
juncture. She personifies historical agency, showing us that each defeat can be
transformed into a victory when the vision is clear and principles of justice are
uncompromised.

Our purpose in using these exemplary works from Black women’s history is to

help students grasp the reality that a society stratified by race, class, and gender demands

lll

that we refocus the historical narrative or we will not get the full story. Ifwe don’t get the
full story, we can’t possibly understand the conditions that define our present and will
remain deprived of those examples that can assist us to overcome Similar barriers we face
today. If we are disconnected to our past, we cannot make sense of the present and remain
indifferent toward the future. Hence, we are left with a distorted, one-dimensional history.
It was this image of history that inspired historian, James Loewen, to examine how history
is taught in secondary schools—the place where many of our young people learn to loathe

history.

Clarifying the Distortions, Examining the Silences

Every second Monday in October the university atmosphere buzzes with the
perennial debate over celebrating Columbus Day. The university is Open, all employees
work but because it is a national holiday it sends a symbolic message of value. Native
American students and others often use the occasion to make statements about the truth
of Columbus’exploits in North America and why he doesn’t deserve a holiday. This
usually leads to rumblings about the upcoming Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in January
by those opposing what they see as displacing one set of heroes for another. Glaringly
absent from those who oppose exposing the real Christopher Columbus is a sense of
history. Heroes are meant to be worshipped for their great heroic deeds, not analyzed for
every little misdeed. There is often the overused phrase “if you don’t like it, go back to
where you came from” or “where would you be if Columbus didn’t discover America?”
When a Native American student begins to answer this question the opposition is
temporarily quieted. Made uncomfortable for the moment this student may or may not

listen to where Native Americans would be without Columbus. What they do know is

112

that this explanation does not represent the majority of fellow students. And even if it is
legitimate that Native peoples cannot celebrate Columbus, they wonder why most
Americans have to lose him as their hero, especially in light of the fact that “another race
can celebrate their hero and classes are cancelled to do so”. Often the reply to the horrific
stories of Native American annihilation at the hands of Columbus and his men is that “we
can’t dwell on the past—we have to get over it and move on” (Michigan State University
State News, Letters to the Editor: October 15, 1997, October 12, 1998, October, 14 1999).

Historian, James Loewen, has made a tremendous contribution toward helping us
understand why incoming college students have such a shallow, distorted, and/or absent
sense of history. In Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History
Textbook Got Wrong, (1995) he analyzes twelve of the most commonly used high school
history texts and explores several key themes that speak directly to the work we are doing
in MRULE. These include: (1) how history as herofication misrepresents the truth, (2')
why the history of ideas is missing from the narrative, and (3) why a feel-good “Disney”
version of history driven by American progress and optimism rules text books and what
limitations this kind of history puts on teachers, students, and the general way we
perceive ourselves in the United States of America.

Loewen likens the process of heroization to calcification, a degenerative process
that makes people into heroes through myths, omissions and outright lies (p. 19). He
demonstrates this formidably with Christopher Columbus by citing a commonly found
description of Columbus in the text books and then repeating this description by
italicizing the words that there is solid reason to believe are true. This comes down to the
fact that he was born, his name, his occupation, his voyage and the name of his three

ships, his landing date in the West Indies of 1492. and the fact that he died. Everything

113

else in the 800-Word description, usually with maps and photos is fabricated because
much of Columbus’ life remains a mystery. We do have evidence through Columbus’
diaries as well as the recorded and preserved documents of his contemporary, the first
great historian of the Americas, Bartolome de las Casas. The cruelty with which
Columbus conducted his violent expedition upon the Arawak peoples is something that
mysteriously doesn’t make its way into the history books although it is well documented.
In Columbus’s son Ferdinand’s own words:

[The Indians] all promised to pay tribute to Catholic Sovereigns

every three months, as follows: In the Cibao where the gold

mines were, every person of 14 years of age or upward was to

pay a large hawks’ bell of gold dust; all others were each to pay

25 pounds of cotton. Whenever an Indian delivered his tribute, he

was to receive a brass or copper token which he must wear about

his neck as proof he had made his payment. Any Indian found

without such a token was to be punished (p.62).
Loewen explains further:

With a fresh token, an Indian was safe for three months, much of

which time would be devoted to collecting more gold.

Columbus’s son neglected to mention how the Spanish punished

those whose tokens had expired: they cutoff their hands.

All of these gruesome facts are available in primary source

material... Most textbooks make no use of the primary sources. A

few incorporate brief extracts that have been carefully selected or

edited to reveal nothing unseemly about the Great Navigator (p.

62-3).

These historical examples are presented to MRULE students so that we can more
accurately represent the multiracial encounters of Europeans and Native Peoples. Of
course we refute the idea of a “discovery” of America since a land where people have
been living for thousands of years cannot be discovered. As Loewen points out while

explaining why Columbus is not celebrated in Mexico as a hero even though there are

more Spanish people in Mexico. “Mexico is also much more Indian than the United

114

States, and Mexicans perceive Columbus as white and European. Cherishing Columbus is
characteristic of White history, not American history” (p.70).

Loewen’s chapter on Columbus is full of horrific details of the man and his
exploits but Loewen doesn’t advocate a one-dimensional dernonization. Columbus’s
expedition to the Americas, though certainly not the first resulted in the. one with the most
impact because of Europe’s economic interests and the military capacity at that time to
forward those interests throughout the world. Columbus is an extremely important figure
to the student of race relations, not for the reasons usually associated with him and
certainly not the cause for celebration. Loewen asserts:

Christopher Columbus introduced two phenomenon that
revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world:
the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous peoples,
leading to their extermination, and the transatlantic slave trade,
which created a racial underclass (p.60).

This leads to the second and third themes that speak directly to our work in
MRULE: the absence of racism and anti-racism in the teaching of history, and the drive to
present America always moving in a positive direction, guaranteeing progress for all.
Though Loewen found that the history textbooks he studied now admit that the Civil War
was fought over Slavery we consistently come upon students who do not have a clear
understanding of this. Even as textbooks have improved upon the handling of slavery
since the Civil Rights Movement a noticeable silence of its legacies remain: “the social
and economic inferiority it conferred upon blacks and the cultural racism it instilled in
whites” (p. 143). And perhaps just as harmful as fabricating or omitting details around

the institution of slavery is the tendency for textbooks to minimize White complicity in it.

“They present slavery virtually as uncaused, a tragedy, rather than a wrong perpetuated by

115

some people onto others” (p.145). As for the “nadir of race relations”l”, the period
between 1890 and 1920 when African Americans were again put back into second class
citizenship, ten of the twelve textbooks ignore it. Loewen suggests that perhaps this may
be due to the increase of White racism during this period. He critiques the omission and
the content-free vagueness that at least one of the texts uses: “The authors make no
connection between the failure of the United States to guarantee black civil rights in 1877
and the need for a civil rights movement a century later. Nothing ever causes anything.
Things just happen” (p.161).

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges we face in anti-racism education is the lack
of understanding on the part of the White majority of the historical roots of racism and
their contemporary manifestations and hopelessness on everyone’s part as to what can be
done about it. From Loewen’s findings it is no wonder, since not one textbook connects
history to racism. One text implied “that it is natural to exclude people whose skin color is
different.” He continues:

White students may conclude that all societies are racist, perhaps
by nature, so racism is all right. Black students may conclude that
all whites are racist, perhaps by nature, so to be anti-white is all
right. In omitting racism or treating it so poorly, history textbooks
Shirk a critical responsibility. Not all whites are or have been
racist. Levels of racism have changed over time. If textbooks
would explain this, they would give students some perspective on
what caused racism in the past, what perpetuates it today, and
how it might be reduced in the future (p 145).
AS university professors we certainly don’t expect high school history textbooks to

do all the work, although Loewen notes that five-sixths of all Americans never take

a course in American history beyond high school (p.16) . In the MRULE program we

 

'9 Rayford Logan coined this term

116

attract at least half of our student body from disciplines where they study history. The
other half groans at the mention of it. Even at the university there is a still a chance that
students may miss much of what we have been discussing throughout this chapter. Unless
they take a special course in African, Asian, Latino, Native American, or women’s studies
they may not be exposed to “a different mirror” 3 reconfigured narrative in which they
will learn about the multidimensional experiences of diverse Americans. They may know
very little of the encounters that brought people together, particularly class interests that at
times transcended racial and ethnic barriers. They will be accustomed to a section of Black
or Latino history that happens at a certain time of year but unable to see the
interconnectedness of all people in US. history in the struggle to make this country the
great democracy it is so often hailed to be. This is one of the major casualties of the feel
good Disney version of history pushed by textbooks. History is void of the struggle of
ideas. As Loewen characterizes it history is a “done deal”(p.35).

Another very important area of study that we can be certain students will know
nothing about is what historian Richard Thomas has called the “other tradition” in race
relations (Thomas 1996). Based on the work of Lerner, Aptheker, Ovington, and others,
Thomas asserts that the tradition of interracial cooperation and its legacies are just as
worthy of study as is the history of racism and its legacies, albeit that the latter has been
the source of countless studies while the former remains a footnote in comparison.
Precisely to address this dearth in the literature, historian Herbert Aptheker wrote his last
major work: Anti-Racism in US. History: The First Two Hundred Years (1992). Inspired
by a youngster who was Shocked to hear that John Brown was White after Aptheker gave

a lecture on Brown, he was dctemrined to attack the idea of the universality of racism and

117

make evident stories of the many Whites who acted upon their belief in the equality of all
humankind. In some ways, Aptheker documents “everyday acts” of anti-racism in the
17m, 18m, and mid-19th centuries by profiling those Whites who opposed slavery as well as
the racist ideology of Black inferiority that upheld it. He qualifies his focus on Whites
throughout the work because this remains an untold story. African American belief in
equality and their activism to achieve it has consistently been more prevalent in the
literature, although as we have discussed throughout the chapter the continual refocusing
ofthe lens is required so that all players on the scene are brought to light.

Citing works that have examined Black-White relations in the colonial period,
Aptheker emphasizes the point that free Blacks and Whites had extensive interactions and
built lives together (Sobel 1987, Breen & Innes 1980). Interracial marriages were not
uncommon throughout the period before there were laws created to prevent them. It is
interesting to note this data in light of contemporary discussions20 of interracial
relationships as Aptheker cites several examples of White women/Black men and Black
women/White men, choosing to live openly with one another (p.29). In fact he even
includes a footnote on Richard Johnson, a member of Congress and vice president under
Van Buren, who lived openly with a Black women and had two daughters with her
(p.201 ).

The rising opposition of pro-Slavery forces to the anti-slavery movement made

interracial relationships increasingly more difficult and dangerous, culminating in the

 

2” Many of our discussions today point to the imbalance of partner selection with White women—Black
men (WW/BM) being substantially more prevalent than Black women—White men (BW/WM). US.
Census Bureau tracking from 1960 to 1998 shows a definite trend of WW/BM increasing over BW/WM
from a 25/26 in 1960 to 3 210/120 in 1998. Numbers are in thousands
(www.census.gov/population/socemo/ms-la/tabms-3.txt).

118

violent oppression in the post - Reconstruction years. Aptheker acknowledges this but
insists that the whole story cannot be told unless attention is given to those who fought
with their lives, minds, pens, talents, and resources for a country free from racism.

In the most personal and private components of human existence,

evidence exists to deny the universality of racism in the United

States. That such evidence does exist in this area, despite

recurrent legislation making miscegenation criminal and despite

persistent racist propaganda that permeated every social avenue
and institution, points to the artificiality of racism and makes

, ‘6

absurd notions of racism 3 instinctual” quality (p.35).
Viewed through another lens, historical figures outlined in Aptheker’s and Thomas’ later
works, speak to the notion of historical agency. This is the relevance for the MRULE
student. The examples illustrate that human beings act upon social structures to change
them. They may be everyday acts demonstrated in interpersonal relationships or they may
be the writing of critical theory, the establishment of organizations such as the NAACP,
the publication of newspapers and journals dedicated to theory and practice of liberation.
There can be no underestimating of the power of any of these figures or their actions on
the slow progress we have made towards achieving a multiracial just democracy.
Aptheker cites how French revolutionary Gregoire, through a series of letters to President
Thomas Jefferson, ridiculed the notion of Negro inferiority and challenged Jefferson to
think differently. This may be one of the causes of Jefferson’s ambivalence and
willingness to admit as he does in the Notes of Virginia that slavery is “harmful with
odious peculiarities” and he “trembled” for his country when he considered what a just

God will do to those who uphold it (p. 49-51). We know that in Spite ofhiS “waffling”

119

j
4-

Jefferson did not resolve “the American dilemma” ’ embedded in the Declaration of
Independence that he co-authored. How could “all men be created equal, endowed with
certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as long as some men
and women were held as property of others? How could the United States live with itself
when such piercing contradictions between words and deeds were in plain view for all to
see?

As has been noted throughout this work the Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience
at Michigan State University was founded because of the belief that we can inspire agency
in young people to recognize, challenge, and transform racism. At the beginning of the
215’ century with the “problems of the color line” (as Du Bois had characterized the 20’h
century) still looming, we are challenged to make the most of the country’s racial idealism
and the technological, economic, and geo-political forces that are shrinking our world.
Although they may not have developed the tools and lacked the benefit of hind Sight, the
idealists of the past had a vision of a racially united nation as the following words of
Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison invoke: “If he has ‘made of one blood all nations of
men on the face of the earth’, then they are of one species, and stand on perfect equality. .
.By the blissful operation of this divine institution, the earth is evidently to become one
neighborhood or family” (Liberator, May 7, 1831 cited in Aptheker, p. 32). Those of us
who watched the televised coverage of the turn of the century, (or as some say

millennium) on New Years Day, 2000 can attest to this remarkable Sense of planetary

connectedness.

 

2' The term coined by Swedish economist Gunner Myrdal whose massive Study by the same name was
based on the moral contradiction between the values of the “American Creed,” (thinking, talking, acting
under the influence of high national and Christian precepts) and the values of individuals dominated by
personal and local interests, (economic. social, and sexual dominance and exploitation (Southern, p. 55).

120

Since the onset of the MRULE program we have been concerned about inspiring
students with a spirit of activism. Students need to know that, just as they can be
descendants of slave owners and slaves, they can be descendants of freedom fighters. We
use Thomas’ (1996) exploration of the legacy of those who fought for racial justice and
the role of interracial cooperation in the 20’h century. Similar to Aptheker, the strength of
this work lies in its angle, highlighting Whites who stood up for abolition, desegregation,
and civil rights by working in partnerships with Blacks. This can inspire both Black and
White students who know little about the interracial struggle for racial justice. It can also
help dismantle the myth that essentializes all Whites as oppressors. Thomas covers several
of these illustrious individuals but in our limited time in MRULE we have selected those
that most succinctly capture the courageous, uncompromising qualities needed in an
historical change agent.

Sarah and Angelina Grimké were the first two female anti-slavery agents and
uncompromisingly fought against Slavery and for racial equality. Born and raised in the
wealth and privilege of a South Carolina plantation, they left the South as they could not
stand to witness the atrocities of Slavery. They became Quakers to remove themselves
from the contradictions they experienced in the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches in
which they worshipped and served. From what they could see, Christian brotherhood was
extended only to other Protestants. Black people were of no consideration. While virtue
of the highest order was preached on one hand, cruelty and degradation toward the slaves
was quite acceptable (Lerner 1967). One of Sarah Grimké’s most memorable childhood
experiences is when She was caught teaching a Slave girl to read and was stemly lectured

by her father as to the seriousness of her transgression. To Sarah it made perfect sense——

why shouldn’t the girl be able to read the gospel firsthand? AS Lemer summarizes it was
Sarah’s lesson to learn the limitations placed upon both her and the slave child. As a girl
it was not befitting for her to be busy with books and it was blatantly illegal to be sharing
literacy with a slave. Although she had to obey her father at that point, the Spirit of
defiance she possessed was fueled by the pangs of injustice she felt. This would remain in
her throughout her life and something she would share with her younger Sister Angelina.
Angelina and Sarah Grimké did not only oppose slavery because it was morally

wrong as many Christians, including Quakers were apt to do. They opposed it because
they believed in the full equality of their Black brothers and sisters, which many of their
Christian brethren did not necessarily believe. They fit well in William Lloyd Garrison’s
Anti-Slavery Society because they knew first hand that Black people were human
beings—their equals. They worked Side by side with Black abolitionists, developed
relationships, and wrote courageous commentaries on the horrors of slavery based on lived
experience. As women they were not always well received or respected in leadership
positions and found themselves in the center of the controversy that would split the
abolitionist movement between those who thought women’s rights should be
simultaneously fought and those who wanted to remain focused on ending slavery.
According to Lerner:

Refusing to be merely instruments of the policies of others, they

became Shapers of events and leaders of a new cause. The

controversy they created has, to this day, obscured the

remarkable accomplishments of their mission. To some, Angelina

and Sarah Grimké would become the women who split the

abolitionist movement. To others, they would be the abolitionists

who added the cause of women’s rights to the cause of abolition,
to mutual benefit (p.164).

The Grimké Sisters knew that educating White women as to the horrors of slavery would
be a necessary step in ensuring its demise despite the fact that women were not making or
enacting laws. Speaking to White women’s experience and their obligation to use the
relative privilege they are afforded Angelina declared:

Women ought to feel a peculiar sympathy in the colored man’s

wrong, for, like him, she has been accused of mental inferiority,

and denied the privileges of a liberal education.

The denial of our right to act; and if we have no right to act, then

may we well be termed ‘the white slaves of the North’ for like

our brethren in bonds, we must seal our lips in Silence and

despair (Lerner, p. 162).
Mary White Ovington was not yet born when Angelina Grimké wrote these words in
183 722 and was fourteen years old when Grimké died in 1879. Ovington was a living
testimony to the call to activism that the Grimké sisters labored so tirelessly to inspire
among White women.

"What would the Great Emancipator (Lincoln) find if he returned on his
100th birthday, February 12, 1909?" New York Evening Post editor Oswald Villard
asked in a public appeal and then proceeded to answer: "Disenfranchisement reinstated in
the South. The Supreme Court of the land putting its stamp of approval on the
discriminatory separation of the races. Lawless attacks on the Negro, in the North and in
the South” (Wedin 1998, p. 107). Bringing this reality to the attention ofa "large and
powerful body of citizens" of New York City were first steps in rallying those interested

in finding ways they could address persistent racial injustice and unrest. Mary White

Ovington, a social worker long dedicated to the ideals of interracial activism, was central

123

to the networking that brought a small group together in 1909 to examine the social
realities facing African Americans. The conditions she encountered through research on
the economic and housing conditions of Black people led her to reach out to the leading
Black social scientist ofthe day: W.E.B. Du Bois. What was to become a long and
eventually embattled friendship began in 1903 when she wrote to him about her research
and asked him for assistance in starting a Black settlement project in Manhattan. She was
sure that to improve conditions for Black people there needed to be strong interracial
effort. Although her plans for a settlement house did not materialize she continued her
work in the racially mixed tenements and moved into the Tuskegee Tenement in 1908,
the only White in the all Black building (Ovington 1995). It was a tumultuous time for
race relations with increasing demands for racial justice and heightened violence to
maintain the status quo as was seen in the 1910 Atlanta riot. It was also the time when
the Du Bois/Washington debates and tension over strategies for Black advancement were
prevalent. The timing was right, Ovington thought, to bring the small group of
intellectual, political, legal, and business leaders to found an organization that would
fight racial injustices on an increasingly more systematic level. Thus the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People was born (Wedin 1998, Ovington
1995).

In 1919 after a tumultuous ten-year growth period, Ovington became Chairman of
the Board of the NAACP. Membership reported 56,345 from 220 branches across the

country. The Crisis, the NAACP’S monthly magazine edited by Du Bois went out to

 

22 An Appeal to the Women of the Nominallt' Free States: Issued by the Anti-Slavery Convention of
American of American Women & Held by .4djournmentfrom the 9'" to the [2” ofit/av, 1837 ( 15’ ed.: New
York: W.S. Dorr, 1837).

124

100,000 readers (Wedin, p.176). She had learned some substantial lessons about how to
keep the organization going with so many competing interests on the part of the powerful
individuals, particularly Du Bois. As much as she respected him, there were times she
held her ground in opposition to an idea or plan She did not think was in the best interest
of the NAACP. She also stood up to Oscar Villard who complained about “inefficiency”
but did not contribute to assisting since he was not in control. Ovington told fellow board
member Joel Spingam: “I confess that there is one thing since I have been in social
service work that has always greatly irritated me--the criticism of work by those who are
not actively engaged in it, nor closely in touch with it” (Wedin, p. 161).

By the 1920’s, the NAACP had evolved from a mostly White volunteer
organization to a mostly Black middle class salaried run organization. Ovington worked
closely with the first Black executive field secretary, James Weldon Johnson, one of her
most valued colleagues throughout her long tenure in the NAACP. During her twelve
year chairmanship, Ovington witnessed increased violence perpetrated on African
Americans and brought the gruesome details to the public eye through her many
published works specifically; Half a Man: The Status of the Negro in New York, (191 l)
and The Walls Come Tumbling Down, (1947). She pleaded with her Black colleagues as
they moved into positions of leadership within the organization to not exclude Whites as
they would be needed to ensure permanent change. “Why not educate Whites” She argued
especially given their “abysmal ignorance.” “Don’t blame people too much for being
indifferent to your ills when you don’t ask them to drop their indifference and join you”

(Wedin, p. 266).

125

Like the Grimké sisters before her, Ovington understood the connection between
the struggle for Black rights and Women’s rights. In fact, following Ovington’s activism
is a lesson in understanding the intersection of race, class, and gender. She believed
Suffragists needed to include working women in their cause, and the male dominated
Socialist party needed to support women’s rights. According to Wedin, She fought on
multiple levels for the inclusion of Black women in the NAACP (p. 182). Even after the
falling out with Du Bois, who accused her of hoarding power and secretary Walter White
of mismanagement and dishonesty, the organization stood behind her. Charges against
either could not be substantiated and Du Bois was asked to withdraw them but he did not.
Shortly after this at the February 8, 1932 meeting the Board resolved:

Mary White Ovington is one of the two or three people in whose

brains and hearts of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People was originally conceived and

out of whose conference and cooperation it was born nearly a

quarter century ago. She has served as a member and an officer

from the beginning and as its chief executive in the capacity of

Chairman of the Board of Directors from 1919 to the end of

1931.

Throughout this period she has given unselfishly and unsparingly

of her thought, her active services, and her means, to the success

of the Association’s work,--and through all this time and years

before She interested herself in the welfare of the American

Negro. She will abide in our histories and in our recollections as

the “Mother of the New Emancipation” (p. 258).
It is the kind of scholar-activism referred to in Chapter one, embodied in Mary White
Ovington that continually inspires our social justice work in the MRULE program today.
Ovington fought indifference and resistance to change. She had to transcend the impact of

powerful individual personalities and egos ever present in the process of social reform.

She had to find her place as both servant and scholar in a cause that She thoroughly

126

believed in but still had the privilege to back off from if she so desired. That She stayed
focused and committed throughout her life Speaks to the reality that those of us working in
the field of race relations know and wish to impart to others. Results take time, the road is
often long and thomy, but once traveled, it is difficult to get off, it begins to define the
way one looks at the whole ofone’s life, not for a fleeting moment but for a lifetime.
Studying the life of historical figures like John Brown, the Grimkés, William
Lloyd Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens, and Mary Ovington builds the case for more
refocusing the lens to look further into the role of anti-racism in the making of US.
history. Aptheker and Thomas have made valuable contributions to this work but there is
much more to do. Thomas takes us up to the middle of the 20th century highlighting the
critical work of the Black and White lawyers working for the NAACP. These lawyers
include White men such as Jack Greenberg, Moorey Storefield, Arthur Spingam, and
Nathan Margold and an impressive cast of African American lawyers: Thurgood
Marshall, Charles Houston, and William Hasties. Together they laid the foundation for
civil rights legal history (p. 188). Thomas ends this work with a profile of Esther Brown,
a Jewish housewife, who became conscious of the unequal conditions Black children and
families endured in their schools and neighborhoods. Brown took it upon herself to
appeal for change, including raising money for a lawsuit against the school system,
helping with the boycott of the run-down Black school, and the setting up a private
school with certified teachers. Not surprisingly she faced intense White opposition and
criticism. For them a White person who challenged the prevailing racial Status quo
warranted harsh reprisal. However, Brown did not back down. She continued her fight

through a cross burning, her husband’s loss of his job, and a miscarriage (pp. 190-1).

127

Brown serves as an another example of an ordinary person moved to act to change the
structures that perpetrate injustices on some while others remain “indifferent and silent.”
Aptheker and Thomas have brought these stories to light to provide a balance, and honor
the complexity in the historical narrative that we call US. history. As historian Howard
Zinn sees it:

What we chose to emphasize in this complex history will

determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our

capacity to do something. If we remember those times and

places—and there are so many—where people behaved

magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the

possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different

direction (1994, p. 208).

MRULE students who stay with the program learn that Zinn’s description speaks
directly to us. We set a goal to learn about our capacity and to “behave magnificently.”
We Often go against the tide by demonstrating in meaningful ways that we can change
our thoughts and subsequently our actions. We can at the end of the day make a
difference, first in our own lives and subsequently in those in our circles of influence.
Studying history has taught us that our work in MRULE does not come out of an empty
notion of “political correctness” or a surface rendition of We are the World, but a long

legacy of heroes and heroines who put working for social justice at the center of their

lives, and by so doing changed the course of history.

Example from the Field

History 480—The Training Ground—Learning Why History Matters in Theory and
Practice

Even while we were laying the foundation of the MRULE program we knew that
the Structure of a volunteer, extra-curricular experience would not give us time to cover
the material in sufficient depth. Transformation of racial attitudes and behaviors requires

128

a knowledge base, an understanding of the history of racism and anti-racism, and the role
of social reform. To address this we created a companion course that was also a history
senior seminar on special topics, designed to equip MRULE students and others with the
prerequisite historical knowledge to become student leaders. We ran the first course in
the Fall of 1996 and the Spring of 1997. Thereafter, we ran the course every Spring. We
went from an average enrollment of fifteen the first year to a consistent enrollment of
twenty-five, we try to cap it there. We designed the course with both the history major
and MRULE student leader in mind. Several MRULE student leaders plunged in even
though they did not have an extensive history background. Over the years, the course
came to be called “the signature course” of the MRULE program. This “signature course”
represented an important and necessary stage in the evolution of the program. It
connected the students to a knowledge base involving a pedagogy of social action (Freire
1977, Greene 1998). The course objectives are reflected in the following course
description and structure.

Course Description

As the present generation struggles over multiculturalism, biracialism, identity
politics, affirmative action, and perennial racial/ethnic/ gender myths and stereotypes,
many have lost sight of a need for a unifying vision that incorporates social justice and
unity in diversity. This course will examine the historical roots of the present crises in
our evolving multiracial society through the experiences of those who have been
traditionally marginalized. Through historical events, and analyses as well as
autobiographies and individual voices of marginalized peoples, we will look at how these
diverse experiences have shaped contemporary US. society, and discuss their
implications for the future. Students will be encouraged to develop an understanding of
these historical processes and to think of themselves as Shapers of history, leading to a
future where social justice and unity in diversity prevail.

Course StI;I_Ictu re

The course was run like a graduate seminar. The majority of the students attending
were history majors in their senior year. There was approximately four to eight MRULE
student leaders per year. Students were responsible for reading the assigned material—
averaging about 80 pages per week. They were asked to take detailed notes of the major
points of the reading and hand them in weekly. Their grade was based 50% on their
participation and 50% on the midterm and final.

In-class participation consisted of discussions that were faculty guided and
student centered. We would provide guidelines for points of discussion in the material
and ask them to work in small groups to design questions for their peers that would
engender a qualitative exchange of ideas. For example, in breaking down Takaki’s A
Different Mirror, we would give each group a chapter and ask them to devise a
discussion question to pose to another group that would lead to an informative, in-depth
discussion. To rally enthusiasm for the assignment, we challenged them to try to outdo
one another with thought provoking questions. We required that all members of the group
contribute to the discussion, and that they monitor themselves to ensure this happens. We

129

would find them in other empty classrooms and in hallways, huddled in their groups,
grappling with the material, excited about challenging themselves and their classmates.
We would listen to their discussions, give input if needed and then float to the next group.
When they came back to the large group, we probed further when necessary but often
they had done enough ground work to challenge each other sufficiently.

Students grew to accept that they would be active learners in the class or they’d be
wasting their time. There were some lectures but they were interwoven with class
discussion. There is standard role play exercise we do every year using figures from
Takaki’s, A Larger Memory, (1998). They are assigned one character from the book,
asked to read about them and put him/her in the context of what they learned in A
Different Mirror. They are expected to come to class prepared to engage in a group
discussion as their character. This exercise reinforces Takaki’s main theme of the work:
that a “diversity of voices has contributed to creating a community of a larger memory” as
each engaged in the “process of becoming American” (p. 28).

_S_tgdent Testimonials: Feedback on thre Process

The course had become popular with students—many tell their friends to take it.
We are pleased that many of them have had such positive experiences, despite the fact that
they Often complain about the rigorous academic demands. Since we are so often told that
the class deeply affected the way they think about our multiracial history, and how they
will teach it as history teachers some of their comments are included here. They are taken
from the MSU Department of History Course Evaluation Forms, 1998 and 1999.

I am someone who likes to learn the truth and this class shed a lot of light on true history.

Of the ten history courses I have completed, this course is one of the top three in content
and applicability to life. In terms of interracial cooperation and the potential for
interracial unity, this course is invaluable. The class discussions were well organized
and challenging. I do not remember ever looking at my watch, the time went by so fast.

I think the way this class is structured really expands one 's mind and perception in our
society.

This course was certainly one of the most intellectually challenging course I’ve taken at
the University, let alone within the history department. The subject matter is a refreshing
perspective on history that should be included in a university-required general education

course—it would prove useful to every student.

Overall this was quite clearly one of the best courses I’ve had at MS U. Good profs,
books, and analyses.

The format was good, as it made students be sure to be prepared for class or look stupid.

130

Core of the course was radically differentfrom most history courses. After going through
it I say it should be a REQUIREMEN T for all history majors. American history, not just
Eurocentric history but that of marginalized peoples is an important lesson for all
Americans.

Through personal conversations with students throughout the years I have been told on
several occasions that this course helped them to know how to teach US. history in an
inclusive, invigorating way. They leave the course convinced that history does not have
to be dull and boring, but can reflect the living connections between our past, present, and
future. It is satisfying when they thank us for bringing the concept of historical agency to
their attention as they enthusiastically find their role in the change process. Furthermore,
the course has fulfilled our objective of producing a historical knowledge base, “signature
course,” for both MRULE student leaders and history majors interested in how historical
knowledge can affect social change.

131

Chapter Five
Unity in Diversity and the Role of Difference

Re-envisioning and exercising power to bring about social change requires a
sense of purpose and vision that encourages us to look beyond what already
exists. We must learn to imagine what is possible. . .Taking a long view,
seeing the connectedness among all sorts of people, and involving people
across race, class, and gender— and beyond— will be necessary to bringing
lasting change. C [early this will not happen tomorrow. But If people do not
try to make a difference, “it. just doesrr 't happen " at all.
Anderson & Collins 1998, p. 514-5

Choosing language to name a project dedicated to promoting positive race
relations was and still remains a challenge. Unity, diversity, and difference are contested
terms packed with a variety of meanings depending on social and historical contexts. To
keep our vision in clear view, it is imperative to show how these terms reflect several
pivotal principles in the MRULE as discussed in previous chapters: Social justice, the
centrality of race, the persistence of racism, and the intersectionality of mutually
constructive social locations (Collins 1998). This chapter focuses on work unity and
diversity as complimentary aspects of the process of promoting equity and'social justice.
The role of difference can effectively serve this process when understood and applied in
its complexity.

What to do about difference? This has captured the attention of feminist scholars
across disciplines from those who wish to bring difference to the center (Lorde, 1984,
Fox-Genovese, 1994, Lerner 1997,) to those who problematize the reality of endless
differences (Maynard, 1994, Gordon, 1999) to those who see decentering difference as
necessary to disabling essentialist thinking in anti-racist, anti-sexist discourse (Dugger
1995). Wherever scholars fall on this particular “difference continuum,” one common

thread can be found in most analyses—the role of hierarchical power relations situating

individuals and groups differently depending on the shifting structures of race, class, and

132

gender (Zinn and Dill, 1997). To understand the multidimensionality of difference in
contemporary race relations, it is necessary to understand the range of thinking across the
continuum. This chapter will explore this range in some detail. First though, it is
necessary to set the discussion on difference in the “both/and” conceptual framework of
unity in diversity, building on the works of scholars and activists who have seen the need

for such a framework.

Unity in Diversity—tire Conceptual F rarnework

Before creating the MRULE program, I had worked consistently over time with
interdependent definitions of unity and diversity. All of my work in the field of race
relations had been based on a conceptual framework that posits unity in diversity for the
purpose of creating equity and social justice. In this paradigm diversity becomes a
unifying force.

The term unity usually conjures up an image of sameness. Dictionary definitions
of unity list several aspects of the meaning around the process of creating oneness,
wholeness, or totality. In a tenth edition of Merriam-Webster Collegiate (1993) there are
six definitions, each with internal explanations, none that contain any derivatives of the
word same although oneness and singleness are used. Oneness has been a term I have
used in race relations dialogues and course work to explain the anthropological reality of
the “oneness of the human race.” I have met with a good deal of confusion and resistance
when using the terminology “one human race” or “oneness of the human family.” This
occurred primarily because for many people oneness meant sameness; sameness meant
being the norm; and the norm for what the human family looked like in the United States

was associated with the expectation of being White. This did not define the meaning of

133

oneness that animated the work in MRULE. Understanding required a continual break
down of the terminology.

The first point to consider in conceptualizing unity is to differentiate it from
sameness. Building on definitions 2 a and 3 a from the tenth edition we have: “a
condition of harmony: accord” and “the quality or state of being made one: unification.”
These definitions suggest that difference and process are key components of unity.
Harmony suggests the congruent arrangement of different parts in both music and
literature. Unification or “being made one” suggests that there is a process in which
different elements come together to become one—otherwise there would be no need for
“being made one,” that state would already exist. The process of becoming implies
motion. change, and growth of diverse elements.

The second point in conceptualizing unity is understanding that the state of being
made one is an organic process. Organic means “relating or derived from living
organisms” and organisms are “complex structures of interdependent and subordinate
elements whose relations properties are largely determined by their function in the
whole” (Merriam-Websters 10'" edition, 1993). Again, we have individual and diverse
parts engaging in an interdependent process to become whole.

The third point requires that we look for examples of unity in diversity in the
natural world and test our notions. Consider the limbs and organs of the human body.
Each part of the body has a distinct function that is necessary for the functioning of the
whole. If any part of the body is injured or sick, the whole is affected. The whole—mind
and spirit—coordinate the different functions of each part hence the unity of functioning

is strengthened by the diversity.

134

Another illustration is a garden. The most beautiful gardens are the ones that
contain diverse flowers and foliage. Each plant may be. redolent individually but is more
noticeable for all its properties as part of the whole garden in contrast to the other plants.
A garden of one kind of flower or one color, no matter how healthy, cannot provide the
depth and breadth of beauty than that of a garden filled with a wide variety of plants. The
beauty of the garden and each plant’s contribution to it is not static but changes through
the seasons depending on conditions of water, sunlight, and temperature. It is the
diversity that strengthens the unity. This example reflects what takes place in the natural
world when there are no hierarchical structures that place any one part above another and
as such does not represent the human condition in the social world. It is meant to Show
what is possible when we conceptualize unity in diversity as interdependent aspects. It
illustrates that unity—oneness/wholeness does not depend upon sameness and that
diversity does not require divisiveness, but rather unity and diversity depend upon one
another to posit a sustainable state of becoming whole.

The process of becoming implies creative action. As anthropologist Ashley
Montagu, has so powerfully stated: “The meaning of a word is the action it produces”
(1997, p. 517-8). In human societies, that action, also known as human agency is vital to
social organization. As discussed in Chapter Two, human beings are not merely acted
upon by outside forces but producers of knowledge, structures, and activities that shape
their social worlds (Freire 1977, 1998, Collins 1998, Griffiths 1998, Murphy, 1998).
Nowhere is agency more critical than in creating human unity in diversity to promote
equity and social justice since it cannot be attained without a shared vision of community

and participation of all in the process (Chang 1999).

What kind of action gives meaning to the word unity in the social world? How
does it remain a living concept that is continually shaped and reshaped to honor the
process of diverse elements becoming one? Critically important, what does that oneness
look like? We have several descriptors based on visions and commentaries that address
these questions: Interdependence, interconnectedness, understanding commonalities and
differences in individual and collective histories, mutual cooperation and reciprocity,
solidarity, world embracing loyalties and allegiances, and “other-preservation” taking
precedence over “self-preservation” so as to infuse vitality into the whole (Martin Luther
King Jr. in Washington 1986, p. 625). As King States:

From time immemorial men have lived by the principle that
“self-preservation is the first law of life.” But this is a false
assumption. 1 would say that other-preservation is the first law of
life. It is the first law Of life precisely because we cannot preserve
self without being concerned about preserving other selves. Self-
concern without other-concern is like a tributary that has no
outward flow to the ocean. Stagnant, still and stale, it lacks both
life and freshness (Washington, p. 625).

When Martin Luther King Jr. wrote Where Do We Go From Here Chaos or
Community? (1967) he was grappling with this issue of unity in diversity although he did
not name it so. For example, in Chapter Six “The World House” be outlined the present
state of humanity’s global reality prophetically alluding to a technological age that will
continually bring us closer together in a “large world house” characterized by
interdependence.

All men are interdependent. Every nation is an heir of a vast
treasury of ideas and labor to which both the living and dead of
all nations have contributed. Whether we realize it or not, each of
us lives eternally “in the red.” We are everlasting debtors to
known and unknown men and women. When we arise in the
morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge

which is provided for us by a Pacific islander. We reach for soap
that is created for us by a European. Then at the table we drink

136

coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by a
Chinese or cocoa by a west African. Before we leave for our jobs
we are already beholden to more than half the world.

In a real sense, all life is interrelated. The agony of the poor

impoverishes the rich; the betterment of the poor enriches the

rich. We are inevitably our brother’s keeper because we are our

brother’s brother. Whatever affects one directly affects all

indirectly (Washington 1986, p. 626).
Throughout this chapter, King discusses the critical need for the elimination of poverty,
charging that it is not a lack of resources but lack of “human will” that keeps world
poverty alive (p. 624). He calls for nations to come together and realize the futility of war
as a means to solving problems. “It is not enough to say, “We must not wage war.” It is
necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the
eradication of war but on the affirmation of peace” (p. 628). He reinforces his long-
standing belief in non-violent direct action to continue the global fight for freedom and
civil rights by the world’s oppressed peoples. Outlining the limitations of both capitalism
and communism he calls for a “genuine revolution of values” that honor both individual
and collective rights and freedoms.

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that

our loyalties must be become ecumenical rather than sectional.

Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind

as a whole in order to preserve the best in individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern

beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for

an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This often

misunderstood and misinterpreted concept has now become an

absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I Speak of love,

I am speaking of that force which all the great religions have seen

as the supreme unifying principle of life (Washington 1986, p.
632)

137

Over the last thirty-three years since King wrote these words, tribal, racial, economic, and
national conflicts continue to plague the well being and security of humankind. Limited
loyalties remain deeply entrenched on several battlefields around the world. The horror
of the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides in the last decade of the twentieth century
reminded us that there is no cap on human beings’ abilities to inflict atrocities upon one
another. Wielding power for the moment offers fleeting glimpses of hope, followed by
ever widening depths of despair in the aftermath of death and destruction. A vision of
love as a unifying principle for all humanity cannot be dismissed or jettisoned to the
realms of fantasy. It is vision that beckons us to rise up and demand of ourselves what is
in our capacity: to rise in solidarity to uphold human dignity, equity and social justice.
All human beings long for and deserve peace and prosperity.

For the past two decades sociologist, William Julius Wilson, has been grappling
with a race relations vision of unity in diversity to address the ever increasing problems
of the urban poor. His work throughout the 1980’s focused on the economic and societal
conditions that gave rise to increased poverty, joblessness, crime, family dissolution, and
welfare dependency in central cities. Calling upon policy makers to pay attention to
societal economic and social reform as well as racial considerations to uplift the
conditions of the predominantly Black underclass, he states:

I see little prospect for substantially alleviating inequality among
poor minorities if such a workfare program is not part of a more
comprehensive program of economic and social reform that
recognizes the dynamic interplay between societal organization
and the behavior and life chances of individuals and groups—a
program, in other words, that is designed to both enhance human
capital traits of poor minorities and open up the opportunity

structure in the broader society and economy to facilitate social
mobility (Wilson 1987 p. 163).

138

Continuing with his extensive research on inner city poverty, Wilson found increasing
joblessness and the decline of real wages producing more entrenched ghetto communities
ruled by limited opportunities and social isolation from the larger society. By the time he
wrote When Work Disappears in 1996 Wilson concluded that an even stronger call for
interracial unity was order.

A vision of interracial unity that acknowledges distinctively

racial problems but nonetheless emphasizes common solutions to

common problems is more important now than ever. . . This

vision encourages Americans to see that the application of

programs to combat these problems would benefit everyone, not

just the truly disadvantaged; to recognize that the division

between the suburbs and the central city is partly a racial one and

that it is vitally important to emphasize city-suburban

cooperation, not separation; and, finally to endorse the idea that

all groups, including those in the throes of ghetto joblessness,

should be able to achieve full membership in society because the

problems of economic and social marginality spring from

inequities in society at large and not from group deficiencies

(Wilson, 1996 xxi-ii).

The years of scholarship concerned with policies and practices that make a
difference in the lives of people on the ground—be they positive or negative—led Wilson
to determine that nothing short of multiracial political coalitions, dedicated to the common
plights of ordinary citizens adversely affected by globalization, stagnating wages, and job
insecurity could address the magnitude and complexities of social inequality. Though he
maintains racial inequality is still fueled to some degree by racist ideology, there are
global economic forces at work that affect all groups who are struggling economically.
Those concerned with the increasing poverty and despair in inner cities must be cognizant
of these forces and think strategically about ways to address them. Wilson argues that an
emphasis on what people share in common would go much further towards effective

social change than continual focus on traditional racial/ethnic boundaries. Too often

cultural diversity rhetoric makes general statements about “different values” amongst

139

groups overlooking the fact that there are cultural values and practices common to all
Americans which immigrant and refugee families hasten to adopt in the acculturative
process so that they can increase their access to opportunities and life chances (Rumbart
1996). Citing studies that have looked at what people value, what problems they find most
pressing, and what policy preferences for congressional action they would like to see in
place to address those problems he states:

National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey since

1982 reveals only marginal racial differences in core values

pertaining to work, education, family, religion, law enforcement,

and civic duty. Except for affirmative action and abortion, there

are no notable differences across racial and ethnic groups on

reported strong preferences for congressional action—with

overwhelming support for balancing the budget and changing the

welfare system, less enthusiasm for cutting personal income taxes

and reforming Medicare, and even less for business tax breaks.

Finally, there is considerable convergence in views across racial

and ethnic groups with regard to policy preferences for solving

particular problems, including education, crime, gang violence,

and drugs" (Wilson 1999, p. 78-80).

This “values” discussion takes on different meanings when it comes to the culture
of young people. In their world, there are several places where cultural practices fuse—hip
hop music, MTV, and a host of servings from popular culture through popular music,
movies, television, food and fashion (Chideya 1999). There is also all the issue of fluid
identities where young people choose their identity based on how they feel and express
themselves through a range of factors: dialect, dress, music, and “attitude.” (Anner 1998
in Anderson and Collins, p. 562). It would do scholars and practitioners well to consider
this data as they shape their thinking around the impact that commonalities and differences

have upon creating and recreating culture and the common spaces where diverse people

meet.

140

Wilson builds his case for multiracial coalitions by citing scholarship that Shows
that the process of collaboration promotes mutual interaction and cooperation. Participants
learn from the experience how to promote differentiated and common concerns and
interests.

As the Harvard sociologist Marshall Ganz has pointed out,
“acknowledging differences is essential to collaborating around
common interest. . . It is important not to pretend that we are all
the same.” He notes that racial and ethnic groups have important
differences, “but these become resources rather than liabilities if
we come up with ways to [build] on our commonalities” (Wilson
1999 p. 82).

This discussion, as in all race relations discussions, must be set in the context of
the social construction of race as many of these “important differences” are the results of
the experiences and conditions of living in a racially/ethically stratified society and are not
essential to individual or groups. On the contrary the value of work, education, family,
safe and healthy communities are essential to the well being of all citizens. This is another
way to think about unity in diversity.

In the national climate of the earliest years of the 21” century, Wilson may at times
feel he is a lone voice in the wilderness. He has made extensive contributions to the study
of race and poverty in urban settings. He can explain the causes and consequences of
current conditions from the “disappearance of work” to deteriorating schools to hyper
segregation in housing. Unlike many scholars who master the study Of the problem ad
infinitum, he is looking for solutions. His call for strong multiracial coalitions is one that

is shared by many who have been working for social justice throughout the post civil

rights period. We will look at a few of those examples here.

 

2" This is based on data from Hochschild and Rogers to be published in forthcoming book: NewDirections:
African Americans in a Diversi/ying Nation, ed. James Jackson.

141

Multiracial Coalitions

In the heat of debate over the lack of solidarity among women through the second
wave of the women’s movement, scholar, activist and professional singer Bernice Johnson
Reagon called upon women to share Space together in a movement that must make room
for all.

We’ve pretty much come to the end of the time when you can

have a space that is “yours only”—just for the people you want to

be there. Even when we have our “women-only” festivals, there

is no such thing. To a large extent it’s because we have just

finished with that kind of isolating. There is no hiding place.

There is nowhere you can go and only be with people who are

like you. It’s over. Give it up (based on a presentation at the West

Coast Women’s Music Festival, 1981, reprinted in Anderson and

Collins 1998, p. 518).
Reagon confronts racism, homophobia, and the “essential woman” paradigm that posits all
women Share commonalities because they are women. She doesn’t leave it at this juncture
but rather calls upon coalition building as the tool for greater solidarity and social change.
It’s all got to be there—the commonalities, the differences and their ever- changing
aspects. The commitment to coalitions has to be one for the long haul and must be
understood that it is not necessarily a place of comfort, but one of hard work and
relationships that may not otherwise have been sought out (pp. 520-523).

John Anner reports on and evaluates grass-roots labor and community organizing
in communities of color. Organizers use several common strategies to build successful
multicultural alliances. Knowing that coalitions just don’t happen but are the result of
hard and deliberate work is a repeated theme. On going education and training in anti-

racism, developing leadership capacities and challenging notions of limited community to

be replaced by a broader sense of community while engaging in activism together are key

142

components ofthese strategies (Anner in Anderson and Collins 1998, p. 554). An
excellent example of this came from New York-based Pan-Asian Community Organizer
Saleem Osman when he had to educate his constituency about a city ordinance that would
allow taxi drivers to refuse to pick up individuals because of their appearance. “That was
a law aimed directly at African Americans. So we said ‘no, we won’t support it because
it’s racist.’ But first we put together a video to educate drivers. The best way to
overcome prejudices between [communities of color] is to work together in solidarity with
each other to build tmity” (Anner in Andersen & Collins 1998, p. 557).

Similar motivation brought the Chinatown-Harlem Initiative together in the late
1980’s. Historian and founding director ofthe Chinatown History Project in 1980, John
Kuo Wei Tchen, designed the initiative on an experimental basis to bring the African-
American and Chinese American communities together to foster greater understanding
and mutual cooperation. Through dialogues, networking, and pilot projects centered
around the education of each communities history and current issues the Chinatown-
Harlem Initiative sought to expand understanding of what it means to be an American and
provide the “unifying notion of cultural citizenship in a multicultural democracy” (Kuo
Wei Tchen in Brecher and Costello 1990, p. 189-190).

The definition of ‘cultural’ is broad, and can include multiple and
sometimes opposing determinations of nationality, ethnicity,
gender, race and class memberships. It draws upon difference as
well as commonality and helps us to understand the heterogeneity
of constructed identities.

Diversity, therefore, should not be understood Simply among
groups and individuals, but also within individual and group
experience. Once this is recognized, deeper connective insights
such as the migration experience, the breakdown and reformation
of families, the subjugation of cultural “otherness,” or the forging
of new Shared identities in movements advocating greater social

justice, can be understood to undergird apparently “different”
experiences (p. 189).

143

Kuo Wei Tchen posits a critically important component to the unity in diversity
paradigm, i.e. the intersection of various aspects of experience that render essentializing
any one aspect of the experience, i.e. race or gender meaningless.

The first urban multiracial coalition in the United States has endured for thirty-
three years and is still going strong. New Detroit Inc. (NDI) was founded in the aftermath
of the 1967 Detroit riots, the most violent in US. history, by businessman J.L Hudson
and thirty-nine interested citizens—nine who were African American. NDI set out
immediately to work on conducting a study on police/community relations. Through the
years they have survived through tense race relations fueled by increasingly despairing
conditions for poor minorities. Their focus on race and community relations, citizenship
and technical educational programming, police relations, desegregation initiatives and
economic development has been consistent through the years with a more recent minority
focus on youth programming (New Detroit Inc. Annual Reports, 1967 —1999).

N DI was instrumental in taking on the difficult situation of bridging relations
between the inner city and suburbs by instituting a series of exchanges designed to foster
communication and understanding. The summer camp for primary school children from
both city and suburb and the youth leadership training focusing on reducing violence
were two successful programs throughout the 1990’s. As in most urban areas around the
country demographic changes forced organizations to expand their notions of race
relations by including people from Asian, Middle-Eastern, Native, and Latino
backgrounds as the traditional Black/White binary shifted. N DI has risen to this challenge
by instituting cultural collaborative programs from dialogues, to artistic celebrations.

Concerts of Color was established in 1998 and is an annual musical event that reflects

144

and draws in several cultures, emphasizing that the power to change race relations lies
within the collaboration among them (New Detroit Newsletters, 1991, 1992, 1998).

As we have been discussing throughout this work, a race relations vision with
unity in diversity as its watchword demands that we refrain from either/or thinking and
embrace a position that values individuals and groups in a collective whole. It is now
time to look at who these individuals are and how they occupy multiple locations due to
the intersection of race, class, gender, and nation. How is it possible to reconcile multiple
layers of difference in continual modes of change, the capacity to be both the same and
different referred to as “the changing same” by Stuart Hall (Lubiano 1997, p. 294)? How
does any semblance of unity in diversity remain in tact? Traditional and contemporary
uses of difference must be examined. The meaning of difference is poorly served by
descriptors such as: (1) Less than and/or other and (2) Non-existent, illusionary as in the

popularized term: colorblindness.

The Role of Dijferen ce

Less ThgnLOther

Historian Gerda Lerner argues that the system of patriarchy—institutionalized
male dominance over women and children—came about through the process of turning
difference into dominance. In her study of the origins of slavery in the archaic state she
found that the group to be enslaved had to be marked “other.” This at first was attached
to those from different tribes and later developed into a “mental construct” that meant
“other than human.” The social relations between men and women were characterized by
the Oppression of women. Women belonged to men, either fathers, brothers, or husbands
and were bought and sold through marriage contracts—their sexuality and reproductive

labor was acquired to serve entire kinship groups. If for any reason a woman was

145

deprived of her attachment to male kin, her value would decrease; she could be sold,
traded or killed. “At the very beginning of state formation and the establishment of
hierarchies and classes, men must have observed this greater vulnerability in women and
learned from it that differences can be used to separate and divide one group of humans
from another” (Lerner 1986, p. 77). Before the invention of Slavery, the inferior status of
women was an accepted state, explainable by “natural” physical differences and
weaknesses. Lerner posits that this set the stage for men to dominate women of their own
groups and later men and women of foreign groups. Common conquering practices
involved men killing men and acquiring women and children as the spoils of war. “There
is overwhelming historical evidence for the preponderance of the practice of killing or
mutilating male prisoners and for the large scale enslavement and rape of female
prisoners” (Lerner 1986, p. 81). Women were the first group of people to be enslaved
and their subordination to men, slave or not, “provided the model out of which slavery
developed as a social institution” (p. 99). Lerner makes a solid case for understanding
how the seeds of categorizing difference as “less than” were planted and nurtured in the
psyche of the patriarchal state. There had to be a basis for choosing who and how to
dominate. There was a systematic method applied to creating hierarchies that excluded
and oppressed the marked “other.”

It is upon this assumption of the inferiority of presumed

“deviant” groups that hierarchy is instituted and maintained.

Hierarchy is institutionalized in the state and its laws, in military,

economic, educational, and religious institutions, in ideology and

the hegemonic cultural product created by the dominant elite. The

system which has historically appeared in different forms, such as

ancient Slavery, feudalism, capitalism, industrialism, depends, for

its continuance on its ability to split the dominated majority into

various groups and to mystify the process by which this is done.

The function of various forms of oppression, which are usually

treated as separate and distinct, but which in fact are aspects of
the same system is to accomplish this division by Offering

146

different groups of the oppressed various advantages over other
groups and thus pit them one against the other (Lerner 1997, pp.
137-8).

Creating and dehumanizing the “other” and pitting them against each other
became signature practice in US. history from the earliest contact among the English
settlers with the Native peoples and Africans. Scholars point to several recurring themes
most common in establishing the meaning of difference between the English and those
they encountered and sought to control in the New World: Christian vs. heathen, civilized
vs. savage, industrious vs. lazy (Jordan 1968, Takaki 1993). As the slave trade became a
lucrative business institutionalizing slavery into the American way of life, despite
Christian sentiments that opposed it, the marked difference of skin color between white
and black became increasingly important. Historian Winthrop Jordan discusses several
factors contributed to setting Blacks apart.

Virtually every quality in the Negro invited pejorative feelings.
What may have been his two most striking characteristics, his
heathenism and his appearance, were probably pre-requisite to
his complete debasement. Even if the colonists were most
unfavorably struck by the Negro’s color, though, blackness itself
did not urge the complete debasement of slavery. Other
qualities—the utter strangeness of his language, gestures, eating
habits, and so on—certainly must have contributed to the
colonists’ sense that he was very different, perhaps disturbingly
so. In Africa these qualities had for Englishmen added up to
savagery; they were major components in that sense of difference
which provided the mental margin absolutely requisite for

placing the European on the deck of the slave Ship and the Negro
in the hold (Jordan 1968, p. 97).

One of the best historical examples of how assigned “racial” differences are
exploited to mean “less than” and “other” is seen in the experience of Irish Americans.
Since the English invaded Ireland as early as l 166, the Irish were looked down upon as

“loose, barbarous, and most wicked,” and living “like beasts,” criminal, an underclass

147

inclined to steal from the English (Takaki 1993, p. 27). Throughout the centuries the
English brutalized the Irish and conducted violent massacres to reduce them into
submission. With extremely high death tolls, the English had more access to vacant lands.
The hatred between the groups continued and was replayed throughout the period of Irish
mass emigration to the New World—18151920. The labels that characterized the Irish
as different, savage, brutish, lazy, drunk, worthless, and fit only for the dirtiest jobs
Structured their American experience. They fought back with a weapon unavailable to
them in the homeland. In the New World they found themselves competing for placement
as the lowest of the low with Blacks. They were continually compared, sometimes called
Irish triggers (Takaki 1993. p. 150). Determined that they would not be at the bottom of
this rung, the Irish developed hatred for Blacks and worked to set themselves apart.

Targets of nativist hatred toward them as outsiders, or foreigners,

they sought to become insiders, or Americans, by claiming their

membership as whites. A powerful way to transform their own

identity from “Irish” to “American” was to attack blacks. Thus,

blacks as the “other” served to facilitate the assimilation of Irish

foreigners (Takaki 1993, p. 151).
Even though Irish immigrants faced more competition from new immigrants than they
did from free Blacks, they were determined to “elbow out” Blacks from every sector they
could. Because they were white and could be granted citizenship, the Irish dug in their
heels and in the spirit of resistance that they demonstrated against their English
oppressors in Ireland formed power bases in cities where they were concentrated. By
1890 this “Green power” soon opened doors in several employment sectors previously
closed to them. Eiltrance into high skilled wage work and the subsequent networking of
jobs to family and friends led them to the victory they sought in the North industrial

cities: Irish over Black. Fully embracing whiteness and thus learning to erase difference

was their ticket out of their racial assignment of white “nigger.” They could only do this

148

in juxtaposition to Blacks who at the time of severe disenfranchisement, violence, and
degradation had the “least ability to strike back” (Roediger 1999, p. 147-150).

These historical examples of “turning difference into dominance” do not engender an
attraction for difference and can certainly explain why most immigrants from European
ancestry worked so hard to assimilate into whiteness. The erasure of difference was the
most expedient way to rise up out of impoverished, restrictive physical and social
locations. As has been discussed in Chapter Four this option was not open to Asians,
Africans, Latinos or Native peoples. Their fight against the oppressive systems that
sought to exclude and otherize them at every turn has made the embodiment of difference
integral to our multiracial history. It is for this reason that the rhetoric of color blindness
rings hollow, an ahistorical selective ideology that perpetuates the popular myth of the

“now more than ever” even level playing field.

Color Bligdness

The rhetoric of color blindness has permeated race relations literature, dialogues,
and as legal scholar Patricia Williams observes, the racial thinking among Whites.
Because legal barriers to housing, jobs, and schooling have been removed, any disparities
between grOups are perceived to be the result of their own efforts or lack thereof
(Williams 1995, Crenshaw 1997). More often than I’d like to recount, I’ve heard the
phrase, “I don’t see color” to explain an ideology of racial equality. And although it is
used more frequently by White students, it is not uncommon for students of color to use it
as they describe their friendships with people from a wide range of backgrounds and
struggle to find a language that fosters understanding (MRULE Round Table Discussions

l998-2000). In addition to pointing out that unless one has impaired vision, it is a lie to

149

say “I don’t see color.” we have to be the bearer of the bad news that not seeing color
does not help us move towards racial equality, it in fact serves to perpetuate a racial
status quo that conveniently seeks to neutralize race while the structures created by racial
assignments continue to thrive (Collins 2000).

The history of colorblind rhetoric is found in the debates around the meaning of
the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to all natural born Americans and equal
protection under the law. For some Whites emancipation from slavery meant civil and
political rights for African Americans but for most this did not translate into social
equality (Seigel 1998). Social equality was greatly feared because close association was
equated with the “amalgamation”” of the races, threatening the purity and superiority of
the white race. As Supreme Court Justice Harlan of the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson
decision states in his dissent:

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this
country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education,
in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for
all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to
the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the
Constitution, in the eyes of the law, there is in this country no
superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste
here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all
citizens are equal before the law (Plessy vs. Ferguson, 163 US.
537 (1896), quoted by Seigel in Post and Rogin 1998, p. 50).

This false dichotomy between legal and social equality was the pillar of the 1896

Separate but Equal doctrine which the Supreme Court eventually turned around in the

 

2’ Reva B. Seigel Cites Republican congressman during the early days of Reconstruction. “The great source
of strife in this matter seems to be the fear of social equality and a personal mixing up and comrningling of
the races; but. . .it is folly to assume. . .that because a citizen is your equal before the law and at the ballot-
box he is therefore your equal and must needs be your associate in the social circle.” Congressional Globe.
40lh Cong., 3d Sess., app. 241 (1869) (remarks of Rep. William J. Blackburn), quoted in Alfred Avins,
Social Equality and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Understanding,” Houston Law Review 4
(1967): 640, 644, n. 27.

150

I954 landmark Brown vs. Board of Education when lawyers proved that separate was not
and could not be equal. Legal scholar Seigel points out how throughout these years and
still even to some extent today the rhetoric of color-blind constitutionalism serves to
maintain a racial hierarchy rather than dismantle it. In this philosophy racial hierarchy is
created out of the superiority and inferiority of people who all have equal rights under the
law (Seigel in Post and Rogin 1998, pp. 51-3). Law professor and critical race theorist
Kimberlé Crenshaw agrees: “The same interpretative strategy deployed to legitimize
segregation is now being deployed to immunize the racial status quo against any
substantive redistribution” (Lubiano 1997, p. 282). The doctrine of color blindness is at
the heart of this matter as it continues to divide public and private spheres reducing racial
equality to market forces. According to Crenshaw and critical race theory there can be no
“free market of race that determines relationships between blacks and whites. There is no
free competition between blacks and whites in part because the law actually structures
those relationships across a wide range of societal competitions over certain social
resources.” In effect she argues just as race matters, law matters. (Lubiano 1997, p. 287).
Color-blindness is probably one of the more confusing concepts in race relations
discourse as many people have been conditioned to believe it is the ultimate goal of racial
equality. It is not an easy discussion when it is pointed out that color-blind ideology is
more a contributor to the racial status quo rather than a progressive avenue for change.
Sociologist Ruth Frankenberg posits that the language around color-blindness—“a mode
of thinking about race organized around and effort to not “see,” or at any rate not to
acknowledge, race differences—continues to be the “polite” language of race”
(Frankenberg 1993, p. 142). Through a series of in-depth interviews with White women

on racial matters she notes that several developed “color-evasive” and “power-evasive”

151

language and thinking as they spoke about race. This meant that they often sought to
down play differences associated with race as well as any hierarchical structures put in
place as a result of racial stratification. “We are all the same under the skin” or “we all
bleed red” captures this mode of thinking. For these women, there was a comfort in the
denial of the significance of difference. Frankenberg points out this may happen for a
variety of reasons. An effort to distance oneself from essentialist racism—the belief in
the inherent superiority and inferiority of racial groups—is one sure motivation for
denying differences. Another very prevalent one is the emphasis on individualism that
places all people in a unique package of the individual self—totally independent of social
forces. This world-view breaks down quickly when it is unpacked. If in fact social
forces play no role in shaping that individual self because it has been primarily done in
the home and family—that home and family would have to be insulated in a bubble
untouched by the social world to have remained unaffected by social forces. This is an
absurd notion.

As we have discussed in earlier chapters this belief in the individual self,
conquering all obstacles with determination and hard work detached from social
structures remains a strong ideological position of many US. citizens. We see it played
out today in the debate over affirmative action in university admissions as White students
try to make sense out of the conundrum that they may not be able to attend their first
choice school even with high grades and test scores. Because they believe so strongly

that it is all about “raceless”25 individuals competing for spaces in a university where the

 

2" I use this term to refer to the perception that race has no meaning or impact on individual efforts. “It’s a
free country—opportunity abounds for everyone, you just have to work hard and try your best and not wait
for a hand out” (Student comments, Michigan State University, MRULE presentations, Fall 2000). This is
classic color and power-evasive thinking.

152

modus operandi is meritocracy, there is great dissonance caused when their hard work
and determination does not result in admission to their first choice school. Rather than
see it as a social reality that competition for admissions is increasing and diversifying, it
is much easier to insist that there are no significant racial differences and therefore no
need to deliberately seek to increase enrollment of underrepresented minorities. Many
believe this is what the Civil Rights Movement taught and often use the famous line of
Martin Luther King, Jr. as he dreamed of “the time when a man will be judged by the
content of his character and not for the color of his skin”? In eagerness to achieve this
state, the significance of racial differences must be reduced. Herein lies the problem.
How do we set our sights on a vision of racial equality without erasing the differences
that uphold inequalities? How are Whites to rally around such a vision if they are
ideologically pulled in opposing directions—to see or not to see difference?
Frankenberg’s study highlights an important concept that addresses this difficulty.
The thirty women she interviewed had very different world-views about race and racism.
Thinking about difference was the impetus for much of their discourse. “For some, seeing
race differences at all made one a “racist,” while for others, not seeing the differences
race makes was a “racist” oversight (Frankenberg 1993, p. 138). As she unpacked the
latter, she found that “race cognizance—the importance of recognizing difference—but
with difference understood in historical, political, social, or cultural terms rather than
essentialist ones” was something several women shared. Though these women’s
understanding of the practice of race-cognizance may have differed they shared two
interrelated convictions: “first the ability to recognize the importance of difference in
people’s lives and second, that racism is a significant factor in slurping contemporary

US. society” (p. 157). For several women, race cognizance was in direct contrast to

153

color and power evasiveness as it clearly “acknowledges the existence of racial inequality
and white privilege and does not lean on ontological or essential difference in order to
justify inequality or explain it away” (p. 160). Frankenberg goes on to discuss various
ways in which the women came to know these two pivotal points and what they decided
to do about, both in individual and collective terms. I highlight it here because race
cognizance must be understood at the core of any endeavor to implement unity in
diversity. There can be no compromise with this however compelling the argument for
“we are all the same under the skin” seems to be. As long as we live in a racially
stratified world we are responsible for knowing—being cognizant of— how it became
stratified and the structures that maintain it. Similarly, we must know the historical and
contemporary efforts made to dismantle inequality so as to not lose sight of a vision

where racial equality and justice reign.

Integrating Theories of Difference—Intersectionality

Now that we have explored definitions of unity in diversity both separately and
interdependently it is time to move on to an examination of difference from an
intersectionality framework. This will further specify how race cognizance applied to
understanding and working with commonalities and differences strengthens a “both/and,”
unity in diversity approach. Perhaps more than any other structure of analysis in race
relations literature, intersectionality helps lift critical issues from dualistic thinking. It
empowers all to pay attention to their social location, how and when it changes or
remains static, how difference matters and what commonalities and differences can be
simultaneously harnessed for meaningful social change.

The term intersectionality was introduced to the literature by legal scholar

Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) as she challenged the notions of race and gender as essential

154

separate categories. She focused on women of color and presented several cases of
violence and abuse that were experienced qualitatively different because of race and
class. Systems of domination converge on these women. Examples include: poor women
of color who lack job skills, have child care responsibilities, and face employment and
housing discrimination. They have few options and little access to a support system when
seeking shelter from battering. An even deadlier plight is experienced by immigrant
women who remain in the hands of an abusive husband because of fear of deportation.
To some women death in the United States is preferable to the conditions they face in
their home countries (Walt 1990).

Centering power relations at the core of this analysis she critiqued superficial
discussions of difference and challenged White feminists who were concerned about
violence against women to see how race, class, and gender intersected and mutually
constructed experience differently. Crenshaw argues that the intersected experience calls
for a range of interventions and can be a life and death matter.

The struggle over which differences matter and which do not is
neither an abstract nor an insignificant debate among women.
Indeed, these conflicts are about more than difference as such;
they raise critical issues of power. The problem is not simply that
women who dominate the antiviolence movement are different
from women of color but that they frequently have power to
determine, either through material or rhetorical resources,
whether the intersectional differences of women of color will be
incorporated at all into the basic formulation of policy. Thus, the
struggle over incorporating these differences is not a petty or
superficial conflict about who gets to sit at the head of the table.
In the context of violence, it is sometimes a deadly serious matter
of who will survive -- and who will not (Crenshaw 1991 p. 1282).

The social construction of the racialized experience for Black and White women

began in slavery. Black women were constructed to be hyper sexual, sub-human

creatures. White women were constructed to be pious, pure, domestic and submissive——

155

the qualities that made up the 19m century definition of true womanhood (Welter 1966,
Lerner 1979). Historically Black women have been the victims of sexual violence as
everyday occurrences. In slavery they were forced to provide sexual services for
slaveholders on demand. Terrorized by both master and mistress, they were labeled as
the licentious “jezebel” that men couldn’t possibly resist (Collins 2000, Dugger 1995).
The deadly combination of white supremacy and patriarchy gave White men the
permission to construct Black women as un-rapable (Guy-Sheftall 1990). They imposed a
highly sexualized, animalistic image upon Black women which conveniently made them
ready and willing participants for all men. First, as sexual playthings for the master to
exercise power over his property as be pleased, and second as breeders to insure the
viability of the slave system well into the future (Jacobs 1987, White 1985, Davis 1971).
In contrast were White women who were imaged to be pure and angelic with a highly
controlled sexuality, and most importantly needing to be protected from the licentious
influence of Blacks. especially the men who were labeled hyper sexual rapists, coveting
them. This racist and sexist ideology justified tremendous violence committed to contain
Black men and women throughout slavery and legalized segregation, and to some extent
still in today’s world. As scholars argue, racial profiling, police brutality, public scrutiny
of what’s wrong in America with eyes fixed upon poor Black women, and excessive
criminalization of Black and Latino men and women continually reinforce a deeply
embedded racism in the American psyche that has strong historical roots (Davis 1997.
Collins 1998). Any serious discussion of gender and/or racial equality has to factor in
these critically important differences that have shaped and continue to shape day to day
experience for people of color. Whether it is violence or abuse, access to work and

education, or the struggle for legal and political rights, all women experience these

156

differently depending on their race, class, sexuality, and nation. There has been a good
deal of scholarship throughout the 1990’s that builds on intersectionality and makes
evident that it is a necessary conceptual framework for understanding the role of
difference in building a common struggle for equality. We will turn to some of those
works so that we can both broaden and specify the terms.
Relational Nature of Differences
Race, class, and gender differences have not been socially constructed in a

vacuum but rather in a social context in relation to one another. Several scholars have
critiqued the additive approach to understanding difference by emphasizing this
relationality. Historian Gerda Lerner argues that in order to maximize the
interrelatedness of men and women in the teaching of history one has to ask “what were
the women doing while the men were doing what we are teaching? and, going an
analytical step further, how did the women interpret what they were doing?” (Lerner
1997, p. 143). Feminist scholars have posed this question repeatedly as they have sought
to expand notions of women and men, race and ethnicity, economic status and sexuality.
Elsa Barkely Brown calls for a non-linear approach to the interweaving stories of all
women, critiquing those works that acknowledge differences and subsequently ignore
them. The only way to get the whole picture is to pay attention to the relational aspects of
difference—how the histories coexist simultaneously and in dialogue with one another
(Brown 1995, p.43).

The increased labor force participation of white middle-class

women has been accompanied, indeed made possible, by the

increased availability outside the home of services formerly

provided inside the home—cleaning, food, health, and personal

services. These jobs are disproportionately filled by women of

color—African American, Latina, Asian American. Middle class

Black women were hired to perform social service funtions in the
public sector at the same time that white middle class women

157

were moving from performing these functions, Often as volunteer

work, to better paid and higher status positions in the private

sector (Brown 1995, p. 43).
Evelyn Nakano Glenn’s exploration into the racial hierarchies of reproductive labor
clearly demonstrates how race, class, and gender are interlocking systems of oppression
in which White middle class women, disadvantaged by gender but clearly advantaged by
race and class exploited that advantage in relation to women of color. Rather than
challenge the inequitable distribution of reproductive labor placed on them, middle class
White women helped to “elaborate the domestic code” and pushed off the “dirty work” to
subordinate women. Palmer observes that in the first half of the twentieth century “most
white middle class women could hire another woman—a recent immigrant, a working
class woman, a woman of color, or all three to perform much of the hard labor of
household tasks” (Glenn, 1993 p. 409). White women’s relative movement was directly
related to the abundance of women of lower status who would perform the work they
were responsible for. Similarities among women of color, regardless of the racial/ethnic
group or region were built into the hierarchy.

In regions where there was a large concentration of people of

color, subordinate-race women formed a more or less permanent

servant stratum. Despite differences in the composition of the

populations and the mix of industries in the regions, there were

important Similarities in the situation of Mexicans in the

Southwest, African Americans in the South and Japanese people

in northern California and Hawaii. Each of these groups was

placed in a separate legal category from whites, excluded from

rights and protections accorded full citizens. This severely

limited their ability to organize, compete for jobs, and acquire

capital. The racial division of private reproductive work mirrored

this racial dualism in the legal, political and economic systems
(Glenn p. 409).

158

This racialized work made it impossible for White women and women of color to Share
any universal female experience. This was especially true around the role of motherhood
which was severely compromised for domestic workers who were expected to sacrifice
the needs of their children for those of their employer. It was commonly assumed by
White employers even as late as the 1960’s that women of color had extended family that
would care for their children, so it was reasonable to expect them to devote themselves
entirely to the demands of their desperately needed job. This created an environment for
exploitation and there is no indication that middle class White women did not take full
advantage of the Situation (Glenn 1994).

These historical patterns are why scholars theorizing difference insist that the
discussion be centered in power relations. Historian Linda Gordon cautions against the
trend to celebrate differences as if they exist in a “lineup of separate identities” (Gordon
1999, p. 46). Perhaps one of the most convincing critiques of multiculturalism are those
expressed through alignment with “benign pluralism” an endless array of diverse
experiences, labeled “cultural diversity” in a cultural relativistic “anything goes”
framework (Maynard 1994, p. .1 1, 18). Such an approach makes it difficult to see the
relationality of difference and clearly decenters power relations. It ignores how
“difference and dominance intersect and are historically and socially constituted” (Zinn
& Dill 1997, p. 28). This becomes problematic and self-defeating as pluralism suggests
co-existence and tolerance but not necessarily interaction and relationship. Perhaps this
is why in the popularized diversity discourse so much emphasis is placed upon different
cultural components—food, dance, dress rather than historical and contemporary
relationships that are built around the normative White and deviant “other” (Miner 1998,

Liu 1994). When considering relationships among people, whether exploitative, intimate

159

or both, theories of difference must take into account relationality or as Gordon describes
it “the roles of blacks in making whiteness and the roles of whites in making blackness”
(p. 45). Without a relationality perspective we are left with a distorted, limited view of
who we are and how we came to be. Using African American women as an example
Gordon explains:

African-American women don’t only inherit patterns of work,
family, childbearing and child rearing that are somewhat different
from those of white Americans. These patterns arose in the
context of relationship to whites, a context that includes
exploitation, domination, fear, and exclusion, but also, often,
intimacy. . . Difference often implies separation, but these
relationships frequently involved proximity. A single historical
“fact” that can be seen as an artifact of difference—say, that a
higher proportion of black women than Of white women were
professionals in the early twentieth century-was created by
relationships between black women and men, between black and
white women, between white women and men, between white
and black class structures. From this perspective it is a step
backward to think about the experiences of white women and
women of color, lesbians and straight women, Jews and Catholics
and Protestants, rich and middle class and poor, lawyers and
service workers, as merely different. These groups have
intersected in conflict and in occasional cooperation but always

in mutual influence (Gordon 1999, p. 46).

This mutual influence is the key component of the unity in diversity paradigm—the
both/and answer to the seemingly paradoxical question ‘how can we focus on difference
while espousing unity?’ Mutuality does not require sameness but does depend on the
understanding of everyday individual experience and the social relations that give
meaning to both the individual and collective experience. As we have discussed
throughout this section individuals do not only experience one aspect of their identity.
Race, class, gender, sexuality and nationhood intersect and are shaped through

continually changing social relations. They construct one another within a hierarchical

system that values White over Black, men over women, rich over poor, etc. The problem

160

is not differences per se but the greater/lesser value placed upon them. For unity in
diversity to function, we need to deconstruct the false value system that created and
maintains this hierarchy. We must also reconceputalize between the two extremes—one
which posits that there are endless differences and no meaningful commonalities—the
other which upholds a false universalism, constructing imagined similarities because of
any one common experience. Gerda Lerner calls for a “multi-layered approach.”

We must ask not only what is unique about a particular group,

but also what this group has in common with other, comparative

groups, keeping both the particular and the general in

perspective. The key to such an approach is to understand that

people do not define themselves by a single identity but by a

number of interacting identities and that the various aspects of

people’s identities which are being manipulated by the systems of

dominance are interconnected and mutually constitutive (Lerner

1997, p. 191-2).
The benefits to such a reconceptualization are wide spread for all. Several scholars have
addressed this as they try to breathe life into the meaning of inclusivity and community
building. (Jordan 1992, books 1998) There is no victory in leaving anyone out of the
loop.

In summary, an intersectional analysis provides the framework to see difference
as multifaceted, socially constructed, continually changing over time and in relationship
to other differences. Difference has historically been embedded in power relations, a
system of domination that created a “norm” (originally white male property owner) and
“deviant other” (everyone else) and assigned greater and lesser value to individuals and
groups depending on their relationship to the norm. This structured access to resources
and opportunities for all—in general, the “norm” and those closest had the most access,

those marked “other” were excluded through a wide variety of legal and social practices.

Intersectional analysis does not prioritize one form of oppression over another but rather

161

sees them in relation to one another in mutually constitutive ways. Hence someone could
be both privileged and oppressed simultaneously as “the intersection model unsettles the
notion that discrete and separable identities are based on the fixed divisions of race, class,
and gender” (Dugger 1995, p. 145). An intersectional approach does not minimize any
one aspect of an individual or collective experience. Rather it ensures that all aspects are
considered and that the salience of any one aspect over another is historically and socially

contextualized.

Example from the F ield—How it Works in MR ULE ?

The MRULE program at Michigan State University has been an excellent
laboratory to test out the conceptual frameworks discussed above. A university
environment with 43,000 + students, 77% who are White, 8% Black, 4% Asian-
American 2.5 % Latino, 0.6 % Native and 6.4% International is a ripe environment for
“benign pluralism” to thrive (Michigan State University Office of the Registrar, Fall,
1999). For many students, the college experience is the first time they have the
opportunity to interact with students from diverse racial, economic, or national
backgrounds. Diversity as an exotic “spice to liven up the dull dish that is mainstream
white culture” (hooks, 1992, p. 21) has become an accepted motif on the campus. In
conversations with students in classrooms I have observed that diversity is welcome as
long as the discourse around it does not raise unpleasant issues such as structural
inequality, white privilege, or affirmative action. It should be delivered in manageable
dosages and not be “shoved down our throats” (MRULE--ATL presentations, Fall 2000).

The MRULE’S guiding principles of unity in diversity driven by a vision for
social justice cannot meet the needs of those looking for programming centered around

diversity as the Spice of life. The demographics of the university, the predominant racial

162

thinking around controversial issues like affirmative action, and the continued segregated
social climate create a fair amount of confusion and hostility even before students hear
anything about the MRULE program. We are presented with a pivotal challenge in
MRULE. Since we have ‘multiracial’ and ‘unity’ in our name, we are expected to be a
diversity group benignly acknowledging differences while celebrating all that we have in
common. Our strong emphasis on race cognizance stirs up a good deal of consternation
in an environment where color and power evasiveness reign. We are not as popular as
we could be if our agenda was less concerned about racial matters and more satisfied
with celebrating diversity. The following example from the field demonstrates what a
sample of students (predominantly White) said to us when presented with challenges to

their racial thinking.

During Fall semester of 2000 MRULE student leaders and I were invited to
present our program to several sections of the introductory required writing course
entitled American Thought and Language. We presented to eleven sections out of the
over one hundred offered. Seven sections were the Evolution of American Thought, two
were the American Ethnic and Racial Experience and two were America in Public
Thought. Professors brought us in because of general interest in our subject matter as
well as to help them discuss difficult racial issues that came up in the course. We noted
some troubling factors that it made it difficult for us to attract genuine interest in our
work.

1. In every class, out of 20-25 students, with the exception of the two sections
specializing in the Ethic/Racial experience, there were no more than two or three
students of color. Some had less. This made it impossible to have a meaningful
discussion that spoke to issues faced by students of color because a few confident
White students tended to speak for everyone. We noticed consistently that when there
was one or two students of color, in all but two cases, they did not speak at all.
During the affirmative action part of the discussion consistent complaints were
expressed over their understanding that minorities are given unfair advantages. They
repeatedly said: “There is no need for such a program, race should be removed from
all applications, how can we go back to a system where race matters?” We asked
them to take a look around the room and notice who was in the classroom and who
was not, and to consider how these advantages were playing out at Michigan State
University with such percentages as 6% African American, 4% Asian and 2%Latino.

163

2. Engaging students in discussion with race as a focal point was difficult. There was
obvious discomfort over the centrality of race accompanied with disbelief that a
program such as ours could possibly make a difference and change anyone’s views.

3. There was no understanding of existing inequalities and a good deal of resistance
towards discussing power relations—diversity meant controversy over affirmative
action and other unfair practices targeted at minorities that leave Whites out of the
loop. This came up repeatedly with two examples: (1) The recent Black Power Rally
on campus brought concern—what if we tried to have a White Power rally they
asked? and (2) The very existence of the Black caucuses in the residence halls as
exclusionary and preferential. If Whites had caucuses it would be considered racist
they say repeatedly despite the explanation that the entire campus and the majority of
its organizations are designed for Whites.

4. Meritocracy was accepted as the predominant determinant for access to opportunity.
Individualism was the reigning philosophical framework. Although in one class, a
student was sure that it was the luck of the draw—game of chance. Mary Maynard
describes this as a characteristic of pluralism and captures what is the major
stumbling block in breaking through the resistance to other possibilities for
explaining the social world.

Under pluralism, differences in access to resources or life
chances etc. become largely explicable in terms of personal
culpability or luck. The possibility of offering more structured
socio-political explanations disappears, except in a localized
sense, because these, necessarily, must be rooted in
generalizations which cannot be made. There is, therefore, the
danger of being unable to offer any interpretations that reach
beyond the circumstances of the particular (Maynard 1994, p.
18).

A prevailing view in every class we visited was that students could only speak
about the world according to their high school or hometown. Of course this is to be
expected to some extent, since we were dealing with almost entirely with freshmen and
sophomores. However, it takes on an extreme form when students constantly hold on to
their local world, unwilling to broaden it even though they no longer live there and are
presently dealing with a new set of circumstances on campus. It is precisely for this

reason that we work so hard to offer all students an alternative learning community in

MRULE but is precisely because they want to hold on to their comfortable world view

164

that. they resist. As has been stated in Chapter One, the high degrees of residential
segregation that students experience before coming to Michigan State University shape
their world views and offer few opportunities to challenge the status quo.

Of all the presentations made there was one incident that stands out above them all
that deserves mention. I had presented the introduction to MRULE and proceeded to ask
for questions, encouraging controversial ones. Inevitably affirmative action came up. I
defined the terms and presented to them a philosophical position that MRULE has
adopted this year as we conduct affirmative action teach—ins. Inspired by the expert
report of historian Eric Foner” for the University of Michigan law suit, we adopted the
motto: You cannot have an intellectual discussion about affirmative action unless you
know the history. MRULE Student Leaders created a timeline from 1619 to the present
to Show periods of history that demonstrated who was getting rights and freedoms and
who was not. The timeline highlights the years when Black people were included in the
rights movement—eleven years during Reconstruction and the thirty plus years since the
Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Despite my presentation around
these themes, there were strong voices of resistance, coming from a few White men. One
insisted that merit was all that ever ruled this country and all that continues to determine
who should have access to what. Others questioned how we could justify one form of
discrimination—affirmative action— while other forms have become illegal. I had
answers for them all and I continued to explain using solid historical and sociological
data. But nothing I said was as powerful as when one of their classmates, a White male

burst out with a story that exposed the fallacies of the meritocracy argument.

 

26 'r . r .1 . . I, , I,
See http:/rwww.umrch.edur~urel/admrssronsr legal/expert/foner.html

165

I’ve been sitting here listening to this and I don ’t believe you
guys are serious. I know what she is talking about when she talks
about White privilege because I have it. I didn’t work that hard in
high school and I 'm not working that hard now and I’m here at
Michigan State nice and comfortable. And I know when I ’m
ready to leave here I’ll have plenty of opportunities to do what I
want to do. This summer I had the chance to work in the city, a
place with all Black workers and I got to see first hand what they
have to deal with—these were things I ’ve never thought of. I saw
the job discrimination, the treatment, getting stopped by police
for driving, etc. Whites deny this because they don’t have to
enter this world. Once you see it, you understand. You think there
isn ’t such a thing as racism still in existence? My uncle hooked
me up with a job as an electrician ’s assistant. I didn’t know what
I was doing and the Black guy (who had been there for years)
came and showed me so I wouldn ’t electrocute myself. When I
found out that I was getting paid more than him, it made me sick.
I ’m not from a super wealthy family and I see everyday the
privileges I have. We should stop lying about this.

Of course I wanted to package this young man and take him with me on all my
future presentations as his experience demonstrated how critical race cognizance was to
meaningful discussion. I noticed a distinct difference when he was speaking. A few of the
men, who questioned my agenda, seemed to give him the benefit of the doubt. All in all
the experience was productive, because there were some students who did pick up on the
material and began to process it. I left feeling both drained and exhilarated. Drained
because of the constant denial and arrogance that White privilege bestows and exhilarated
because there was someone who admitted having it and possibly using it the future to
expose how and why race still matters.

Although in total we did not leave the ATL presentations with too many new
recruits to the MRULE, we did demonstrate an important principle despite the degrees of
resistance. The process of creating unity in diversity is just that: a process that takes time
and attentiveness. Learning the history, understanding social forces, and being able to

engage in Open and frank dialogue in a diverse group where experiences are different

166

make it possible. Ifl had more time with this group, much more would have been shared
that would have engendered relationship building that would make it difficult for people to
walk away indifferent. For this reason, I have dedicated a considerable amount of time
into creating an MRULE environment that would allow for the development of genuine

relationships. To this chapter we now turn.

167

Chapter Six
Durable Bonds: Exploring the Dynamics of Genuine, Authentic
Interracial Relationships

Friendship. We know it when we feel it but we can spend years trying to put it into words.
Letty Cottin Pogrebin, 1987
Even though I had studied race and worked on a study of social class identification, it was
not until I met Elizabeth and Bonnie that I first began to see clearly the connections
between my work and my self
Lynn Weber, 1997
It was Ruth F rankenberg’s “profound connection” with a woman of color that
propelled her on her journey to discover White women’s role in the reproduction of racism
(1993, p. 4). This caught my eye because I have been interested in exploring the depths of
interracial, non-romantic27relationships throughout my career. I was struck with how
F rankenberg’s relationship opened doors of understanding that seemed closed to her and
her friends as they struggled with the new revelations of racism in the feminist movement.
I am convinced—and Frankenberg is a great example, since her work has contributed
immensely to the field of race relations—that genuine, authentic interpersonal
relationships across traditional racial lines have transformative power that if harnessed can
truly impact the racial status quo.
“Engaging oneself at the personal level is critical to this process of thinking
inclusively. Changing one’s mind is not just a matter of assessing facts and data, though
that is important; it also requires examining one’s feelings” (Andersen and Collins 1998,

p. 17). Sociologist Barbara Laslett dedicated a considerable amount of her life’s research

to the role of the relationship between the objectivity and emotion. She was convinced at

 

27 Non-romantic because I want to look at those qualities other than sexual that bring people together to
become genuine friends. not just acquaintances or colleagues.

168

the onset that the latter had little or no importance in sociological inquiry but discovered
something very different through several years of intense study and personal experience.
I came to see the sociological relevance of emotion, gender, and
sexuality to issues of human agency and social action.
Furthermore, I saw a need to move away from explanations that
favored structural forces or human agency and be more attentive
to their intersections (Laslett 1997 p. 64).

Human beings are social creatures. We engage in critical thinking, learn new
things, and explore a range of feelings in relationships with others. Most people accept
this without blinking an eye. There is much less thought given to who we interact with
and to what degree we benefit from going out of our socially structured world to someone
else who experiences the world quite differently. We cannot learn to think inclusively if

we only think in circles of people who look, act, and experience life like as we do. And

yet, the vast majority of the friendship literature does not concern itself with this.

Friendship Literature

For several years I have been interested in interracial relationships and their
impact on changing the racial status quo in day to day experiences. I have tried to keep
abreast of the literature in the field and have always experienced frustration when I put the
key words ‘interracial friendships/ relationships’ into the electronic journal databases.
Interracial friendship comes up with no matches, interracial relationships show well over a
hundred articles, with the vast majority describing sexual interracial relationships from
miscegenation to multiracial identity. At the time of this writing, interracial friendship
does not seem to be a research topic attracting interest. There are two immediate problems
caused by this void. First, it erases race as a lived experience that has an effect on

friendship formation and maintenance. Second, and even more detrimental, when race and

169

ethnicity are not considered, an interesting thing happens. All the research subjects just so
happen to be White.

Even as Frankenberg and other White feminists have worked to eradicate the color
evasion prevalent in their respective fields, there remains much ground to cover. Literature
in the sociology of friendship is primarily representative of the experience of White
women and men, of various socioeconomic backgrounds. These studies reinforce the
erroneous and counterproductive thesis that White people are the norm by which social
phenomenon is measured and understood (Allan 1979, Gouldner & Strong 1987, Blieszner
& Adams 1992, Duck 1994, Adams & Allan 1998). Several of these writers have studied
friendships throughout their careers and made slight changes in their analysis to give
mention to race in their later works, but do not discuss race with any depth and do not
consider interracial friendships as a category of analysis. They do, however, spend a good
deal of time on friendship across class, gender, and age. In fact there are two publication
series on relationships, neither which contain any work on interracial friendships. The
Sage Series on Close Relationships has sixteen works and the Guilford Series on Personal
Relationships has eight works. In both these series, gender has salience as does age,
marital status, sexual orientation, and family relationships. One work in the Guilford
series deals with intercultural communication based on ethnographic data collected in
Bogota, Columbia. The author mentions racial stratification in connection with the
development of an “elaborate code of class defined behavior” (the more Spanish lineage a .

person had, the higher class he or she was in, the more indigenous, the lower) but does not

170

deal with whether or not anyone crosses these hierarchical boundaries to develop
meaningful relationships (Fitch 1998, p. 19-20).28

Perhaps the greatest disappointment to me in reviewing the friendship literature
was found in a more recent edited work entitled Placing Friendship in Context, (Adams
& Allan 1998). I was sure that by 1998 no scholar could ignore the social context created
by racial stratification. Other than quoting Stack (1974) and Liebow (1967) who describe
friendship among poor Blacks in their classic studies: All our Kin and Tallev '5 Corner, the
only clear statement about race comes in the epilogue.

Most importantly, the impact of ethnicity on friendships and
other informal ties is noticeably absent in the essays included.
The existence of racism in all its forms is clearly of consequence
in framing informal solidarities, just as, more positively, ethnic
identity and commitment are also likely to influence the overall
construction of friendships. Outside childhood ties, sociologists
have in the main failed to analyze at all fully how ethnicity
affects informal solidarities, or indeed how informal relations of
friendship help sustain or counter wider divisions, be these
between Protestant and Catholic in northern Ireland, Afro-and
Euro-Americans, or Asian and white British (Adams & Allan
1998,p.185)

Although acknowledged at the end of their book, the omission of race as an
analytical category remains a tremendous opportunity missed. It is at the same time a call
for serious work to be done. This void in the research is particularly glaring when it comes
to studying friendship development among college students. In an earlier work Adams and
Blieszner use a network analysis to understand a variety of adult friendships—college

students as one of the many they look at. Network analysis expands the focus from the

friendship dyad to larger societal contexts. According to them:

 

28 This is not a critique of the quality of research per se. The reason these authors do not deal with the
interracial aspect is clearly because it is not included in their research question. My critique has more to do
with why it does not occur to researchers to bring race to the forefront as they do class. gender and age.

171

Networks have many structural dimensions. In this book we

discuss only the basic structural characteristics of friendship

networks. In addition to degree of hierarchy, homogeneity, and

solidarity, these include the number of participants (size), the

proportion of all possible friendships that exist among members

(density), and the patterns of connections among an individual’s

friends (configuration) (Blieszner & Adams 1992, p. 9).
This becomes problematic when looking at the ever-changing demographics of US.
college campuses over the past three decades. These authors claim that college students
may have more homogeneity on the dimensions of class, age, and race than their young
adult counterparts that do not go to college.

Knowing about the structure of the friendship networks of

college students is thus not the same as knowing about the

fiiendship of young adults in general. Compared to other young

adults college students probably have larger, more homogeneous,

denser, and more intimate friendship networks. Nonstudent

young adults may, in fact, have networks that resemble those of

mature adults more than they resemble those of their age peers

enrolled in college (Blieszner & Adams 1992, p. 43).
This analysis assumes that mature adults are engaged in more heterogeneous friendship
networks, which their own body of research does not support. It ignores the social
phenomenon of racial residential segregation that has remained entrenched in cities and
suburbs throughout the country, which significantly limits the possibility of developing
interracial friendships (Orfield 1997, Feagin & Sikes 1994). They do not discuss the well
publicized increased efforts on the part of public and private institutions of higher
education to open doors to those who have been historically and systematically excluded
by implementing affirmative action in admissions programs, thus creating more

heterogeneous campuses. And there is no mention of the persistence of racial/ethnic

animus among a range of sectors of US. society that tends to make forming friendships

172

 

with someone perceived to be the “other” less likely. I would argue that genuine
interracial relationships come hard in all sectors. However, the US. college campus, even
with its emphasis on same group organizations, be it the Greek system, racial/ethnic
support groups or the gay/lesbian alliance, provides a unique opportunity to encourage the
development of meaningful and genuine interracial relationships. Sociologist Troy Duster
has studied the increasing diversity on the University of California Berkley campus and
offered this insight.

We asked Berkeley's students and they told us. First they gave us
the Don'ts. Don't, they said, try to fix things by putting us through
three-hour sensitivity sessions designed to raise our
consciousness about gender or racial issues or homophobia.
Those are too contrived and short-lived to make much of a
difference. And don't force matters by asking different cultures to
party together. Black students told us Whites are too busy
drinking to want to dance up a storm. White students said
Chicanos and Blacks would rather be raucous than sociable. The
perfectly integrated, all-university "We Are The World" dance
party is a bad idea, all sides told us, mainly because we don't all
like the same music.

What then, did Berkeley's diversity seekers remember as their

most positive experiences when they reflected on their four year

here? Again and again, they would describe the time when an

instructor had the class break into groups and work on joint

projects. Engaged in a collective enterprise, they learned about

other student's ways of thinking and problem solving, and

sometimes they found friendships forming across the ethnic

divide (Duster 1991, p. 64).
Seen through the lens of scholar/activism as the MRULE program does, these
relationships must be based on race cognizance rather than evasion (See Chapter Five).
Despite the Berkeley students’ distaste of multiracial dance parties MRULE has made

some slow progress toward creating them. Engaging in community service, activism, and

taking trips together are also activities that have engendered the development of

173

meaningful relationships. The university racial climate (created by administration, faculty,
and students) would have to be supportive of a variety of efforts to increase the likelihood
of meaningful interracial interaction. However in most cases, this would mean a
significant conscious effort to navigate an increasing complex racial/ethnic landscape. It is
unfortunate that the process of going the extra mile to work through the structural and
personal environmental barriers created by racial stratification has not caught the attention
of those who study the social phenomenon of friendship.
A notable exception to this repeated omission came from feminist writer Letty

Cottin Pogrebin in her 1987 exploration of adult friendships: Among Friends: Who we
like, why we like them and what we do with them. Using observation, interviews, and
information from surveys, studies, polls, and diaries, Pogrebin describes friendship in its
many complexities. She dedicates two chapters to the social context of race and ethnicity
and the impact they have on friendships. The first chapter looks at friendships within a
racial/ethnic group and discusses friendship cultures from Black, Latino, Asian, and
Jewish perspectives. Though these perspectives are not representative of all people who
share a similar racial/ethnic background there is much in the accounts that rings true. I
have selected three perspectives that are helpful in understanding some of the friendship
needs that come out of lived racialized experiences. This is from an interview with a
Black psychologist.

Middle class Blacks have to be tri-cultural: We have to be

sensitive to the white world, the Black world, and the class issues

in both worlds. Take my schizophrenic reaction to being

confronted by a wino or some other antisocial, threatening

looking Black man in the street. I have three simultaneous

responses: One, I’m ashamed because I see him as white people

see him—as a living stereotype; two, I’m angry at white society,
which is in many ways responsible for his condition; and three,

174

I’m angry at the man because I think you should work hard and
do better even if the odds are against you. When I’m with a Black
friend, I can express any of those three responses and my friend
will understand that the one I show isn’t my only one. A white
person would misinterpret and oversimplify my reaction and
thereby distort it (p.168-9).

A Chicana academic:

Our friendships reflect the we/they feelings that most of us have
in the United States. Chicanos are a racial ethnic group, a people
of color who have been colonized. We need ethnic friendship for
cultural regeneration, for like-self affirmation of our roots,
sometimes even for survival. Our compadrazgo system provides
for godparents and co-parents, who have more social than
religious significance. They are friends who will take care of you
and your children in times of need when the rest of your family
can’t. I am a scholar and a modern woman, but in a crisis, what
matters to me is being Mexican and having compadres (p. 174).

A Chinese American bartender:

The big difference is how much blood and geography counts to
us. One of the first things we know is that we are part of a group
related to other groups. For the Chinese to feel comfortable, they
want to know where you stand and where they stand. The word
‘friend’ is much too simple for these relations. Our first
responsibility is to our family, then our extended family, then our
village relations, then occupational brotherhoods. Also, if two
people have the same last name there is automatic warmth and
obligations between you. I can ask a member of my clan for
anything; they know I will bend over backwards for them.
Because Americans consider themselves not as members of a
group but as individuals, they see only our obligations, not the
pleasure of belonging (p. 179).

The key to listening to these accounts is to gain a better understanding of the complexities
of friendship and to challenge the notion that White friendship patterns are the norm. The
formation of genuine interracial friendships will be impossible if it is not understood at the

onset that racialized experiences color the world differently depending on where one falls

175

on the racial hierarchy. Pogrebin summarizes this by introducing the concept of
“pluralistic friendship” which she defines as an “ideal that celebrates genuine differences
arising out of life experience and culture but rejects socially constructed differences
resulting from stereotypes or discrimination” (p. 187). This serves as a lead in to her
subsequent chapter on “crossing friendships” (p. 190). Here she discusses some of the
complications in interracial relationships, the push/pull factors between having a genuine
friend of another background, yet desiring connection with one’s own group and not
wanting to compromise a sense of loyalty. She explores the difficulty in reading cultural
signs when one person has one set of meanings attached to an action while the other
person has a different set? Citing the example of a new Spanish immigrant psychiatrist
and a Black female colleague:

When we first went out for meals together, my impulse was to

pay for both of us. It wasn’t that I thought she couldn’t afford to

pay; we were equally able to pick up the check. It was just that

the cultural habit of paying for a woman was ingrained in my

personality. But she misconstrued it. She felt I was trying to take

care of her and put her down as a Black, a professional, and a

woman. In order for our friendship to survive, she had to explain

how she experiences things that I do not have to think about

(p. 200). (emphasis mine)
This last statement is loaded with insight and must be continually unpacked in genuine
interracial relationships. Although she does not give it extensive attention, Pogrebin
mentions the existence of racism as a ban'ier to the development of friendships and uses
the chasm between Black and White feminists and their concerns as an example. “Some

doubt that true friendship is possible between the races until institutional racism is

destroyed” (p. 201 ).

176

In a similar vein social critic Benjamin DeMott (1995) has written a book severely
critiquing what he calls “friendship orthodoxy” in American race relations. He argues that
White Americans have found great comfort in the “we are all the same under the skin”
ideal, using it to perpetuate the myth that racial equality has been for the most part
achieved, driven by White America’s ability to conquer their historical racial animus
towards Blacks and thus “get along” (p. 53). DeMott indicts this ideology because it
ignores history and politics and reinforces the false notion that once legal barriers were
removed the playing field was equalized and hand in hand White and Black dismantled
racial and social stratification in the United States. Though his arguments concerning the
role of history and politics are critical to any serious destruction of institutional racism as
the quote above calls for, he often finds himself in an “either/or” paradigm. He does not
consider that it is quite possible to study history, sociology, literature, and public policy
while developing genuine interracial friendships and that the outcome of both of these
processes may be effective social change agents. Also omitted from his analysis is the
impact that genuine interracial relationships have had upon scholars, particularly Whites,
who have dedicated their scholarship to dismantling racial stratification. DeMott misses
the point because he dismisses the possibility that two processes can develop
simultaneously. He is correct to posit that developing interracial friendships alone cannot
be a “solution” to racial inequality. But in this analysis he fails to see that there is a
connection between individuals and the social institutions that they create and perpetuate.
The development of authentic interracial relationships based on race cognizance rather
than color and power evasion, albeit through several obstacles can have an effect on

dismantling institutional barriers. Again it not an either/or scenario but rather a both/and—

177

genuine relationships can be fomied and developed while combined efforts towards
transforming institutional racism are at work.

We have had seen some examples throughout history that are worth noting and
will be discussed in the latter part of this chapter. We will now turn to an explanation of

what is meant by genuine, authentic interracial friendships.

Genuine Relationships

A genuine, authentic friendship is one in which both parties have mutual attraction
to one another and get mutual satisfaction from the relationship. Both parties are able to
influence the other and no hierarchy of characteristics sets them apart in a superior/inferior
construct, whether conscious or unconscious. Both have permission to communicate
frankly and openly, taking care be to be kind and considerate, but not obligated to
maintain an always-pleasant veneer. Both are committed to ensuring the well being of one
another and consequently have a trusting bond that creates and maintains safety and
security. They can make mistakes with one another and be given the space to grow and
learn from those mistakes. They can make sacrifices for one another without jeopardizing
their own person, because they know their friend will be looking out for them and not
expect or desire unbalanced self-deprivation. Of critical importance, genuine, authentic
friendships can endure through a lifetime of trials and ordeals. Though each individual
may have grown and changed dramatically, they are connected to one another in mutual
love and respect that grows and develops with them.

Genuine, authentic relationships are developmental in nature. It is important to
understand the social contexts in which they thrive as well as those contexts that prevent

them from becoming truly authentic. Residential segregation and social isolation has

178

made the development of authentic interracial relationships a great challenge demanding
conscious and affirmative steps be taken if there is any hope of affecting the status quo.
Simultaneously, in the United States the increasing multiracial landscape coupled with
geographical and social mobility, displaces the notion of a monolithic community of any
one racial or ethnic group that behaves in predictable, uniform patterns. We must
therefore make adequate space for a wide range of diverse peoples and relationships that
have and continue to develop in the human experience. Some people are content to
tolerate a certain degree of interaction but avoid building genuine relationships. Others
are interested in transcending barriers but lack the skill, confidence, and courage to plow
through personal and group histories where mistrust and misunderstanding have
dominated relationships. Many are occupied with survival and self-preservation and
unmotivated to reach too far out of their comfort zones. And still others may perceive
themselves involvedlin a mutual friendship while the other party has quite a different
perception and subsequently the relationship remains superficial and disconnected. How

does a truly genuine relationship develop out of these variables?

GenuirLe Rethionship Continum

The friendship literature is consistent about the fact that friendships come in many
forms and develop through stages from casual acquaintance to companion/buddy/pal to
true friend (Allan 1979, Pogrebin 1987, Blieszner & Adams 1992). As has been stated
above, there is not enough research about the interracial aspect of friendship to derive
definitive explanations about how they may be similar and different from the homogenous
examples used in the studies. Through the years that I had been working in race relations I

found it necessary to design educational programming that looked at both structural and

179

interpersonal forces. This was especially helpful with the public and private sector clients
that I consulted with. They were looking for a way to understand some of the potential
pitfalls of their interpersonal employee relationship where race and ethnicity were
concerned. This led me to develop my own model.

The genuine relationship continuum” was developed from a series of experiences
based on the years of race relations and relationship building throughout my career: These
include: 1.) Knowledge gained from the study of race and interpersonal relationships
through history, literature, women’s studies and sociology and 2.) My own lived
experienced as an individual committed to having meaningful genuine relationships with
people from different backgrounds throughout my adult life.

I grew up in a working class suburb of Detroit through the 1960’s. As a Lebanese
American, I knew I was different from my White Protestant and Catholic friends because I
was darker than all of them and didn’t blend into the crowd as easily. My grandparents
could speak only broken English and called Americans White people to distinguish them
from the Lebanese. Nevertheless I was still accepted in my friend’s circles, enduring only
minor comments about my distinct features, (big nose, frizzy hair.) Hearing stories about
Jewish and Black people in Detroit, spoken in Arabic words when we weren’t supposed to
understand created a burning sensation within me even as a child. Something was not right
about what I was hearing.

The 1967 riots received some up front attention in my extended family as my

uncles gave up on their party store that was not destroyed but suffered enough damage to

 

3” This relationship developmental model was adapted from M. Scott Peck’s model of genuine community
which he describes in the following stages: pseudo community, chaos, and authentic community in The
Different Drum: Community Making and Peace: A Spiritual Journey Toward Self-Acceptance. True
Belonging and New Hope for the World, 1987.

180

be closed and my cousin’s wedding had a “home before dark” curfew imposed. Though
diffused, racial tension reached us in the suburbs. Most significant for me was the battle I
had with my mother who forbade me to baby-sit for a family in our community because
they adopted a bi-racial baby and she feared for my safety. In my helpless frustration and
tears I vowed to myself that somehow, someway I was going to make these wrongs right.
My all white neighborhood and school did not provide much chance for activism but upon
arriving at Michigan State University as an undergraduate I joined a multiracial religious
community and began taking race relations courses that supplied me with constant
opportunities to develop relationships. I jumped in with both feet. By the mid-1980’s I
was involved with the anti-Apartheid movement while producing educational theatre that
focused on issues of racial and social justice. This led to the opportunity to live in South
Africa on a Fulbright research scholarship for two academic years where I developed such
close friendships that we remain like family today. When I returned to the United States I
informally adopted a South African youth who had lost her mother and needed an
opportunity to focus on education away from the violence and turmoil she experienced in
Soweto. There has not been a time in my adult life where my intimate friendships and
extended family were not multiracial. My insights into the process of interracial
relationship building have thus come from over twenty years of living and learning.

The genuine relationship continuum is based on the following premises.

1. Interracial relationships involve a dimension that same race relationships do not, i.e.
the experience of race in a racially stratified society.

2. This experience of race differs depending on gender, class, nation, and sexuality. It is

not a monolithic experience for members of a racially assigned group although there
are common themes and patterns to the experience that most will share.

181

10.

All human relationships develop through stages, though these stages may vary
depending on social location, personal environment, and individual personality.

Human relationships can only grow when nurtured through consistent actions.
Healthy relationships can only thrive when they are mutually nurtured.

Mutually does not mean sameness. In a racially stratified, racially coded social world
the actions required of those who don’t experience racial animus may be different
from the actions of those who do.

Power dynamics affect the development of relationships and must be recognized and
understood.

Racial dynamics, including the social construction of race, the social construction of
whiteness and white skin privilege must be understood regardless of an individual’s
belief system or behaviors.

Commitment to work over time, through difficulties, including challenging racial
thinking and behavior is a necessary part of the process.

It is possible, if people so choose, to create and develop healthy relationships across a
range of traditional barriers if they commit to the process and engage openly and
frankly in dialogue and activities to increase their understanding of one another and
the forces that impact the social world.

 

 

9:25:28 Mo mEEBE 33:8

. tea—35:8 3:55? Baca
view. 9 BchcoUe 85556 830m @2553: Sign»: Saom . .

33:0: 53> wEESng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 7.25:: waitoncD
EEZE mo 38:9. wcmvcflfiowcb Sufism 3:552 . .
c:wo_:6 .
:3 33022 new cowucuE :2 E00 8: :8 9.335 c252 Us:
a . . . . F .c U . . . UEcoo Co oucmEo><
u . 333:0: 3:26:5—
o:co_:€ some can Jami 32033:: mmccoEom . .
wEE wcoca
558:? u . . .
. 2??» Mo 88: 3:05:00 Biomcm
3:03:22 :8 bzfiicoama wE.:Em Ebcoo wEmB mo Sum .

 

 

 

 

26:36
mm:_u\_:6:.£m_uom : o. cocueoccxx

385:: com:
ccocw: $933: 958: >553. 3:685 b59525 @8385

mulmO—Paimm U—HZm—IHD< QZDOy—U >¥<=m +m—IwZO—F<Am¢ OGmDmA—

 

 

5532:.ch m—EmZO—heimd
g charm

183

On the interracial relationship continuum pseudo relationships are those centered
in a functional politeness. In this stage people are primarily concerned with keeping a lid
on potential hot buttons or conflict. They often choose to interact as little as possible so as
to avoid situations in which they may be caught with their guard down. There is
Commentary on Relationship Continuum
On the interracial relationship continuum pseudo relationships are those centered

in a functional politeness. In this stage people are primarily concerned with keeping a lid
on potential hot buttons or conflict. They often choose to interact as little as possible so as
to avoid situations in which they be caught with their guard down. There is learned racial
etiquette in which it is understood what you do and do not say in public or in multiracial
settings. For Whites who have little genuine experience with people of color there is often
concern about saying the wrong thing and being perceived as racist. Peeple of color often
harbor an imposed indifference as noted in “I don’t let them bother me” or subdued anger
with a healthy dose of suspicion that they may be the target of someone’s animus. Or they
may expect Whites to generalize, trivialize, or stereotype their experiences and
consequently wear protective emotional armor. Historian Darlene Clark Hine discusses a
powerful example of this as seen through the experiences of Black women who created a
“culture of dissemblance” as a form resistance to insulate themselves from the constant
racism and sexism they were forced to endure.

Clearly Black women did not possess the power to eradicate

negative social and sexual images of their womanhood. Rather,

what I propose is that in the face of pervasive stereotypes and

negative estimations of the sexuality of Black women, it was

imperative that they collectively create alternative self-images

and shield from scrutiny these private, empowering definitions of

self. A secret, undisclosed persona allowed the individual Black
woman to function, to work effectively as a domestic in white

184

households, to bear and rear children, to endure the frustration —
born violence of frequently under-or unemployed mates, to
support churches, to found institutions, and to engage in social
service activities, all while living in a clearly hostile, white,
patriarchal, middle-class America (Hine in Ruiz & Du Bois 1994,
p.344).

Certainly a hostile racial environment whether overt or covert would lend itself to some
form of artificiality making it impossible for genuine relationships to develop. Sociologist
Joe F eagin conducted interviews with a range of middle class Blacks to get at the bottom
of what they are truly experiencing even though some of the doors of the White world
have been opened to them. The following commentary by a college student captures why
pseudo relationships are so prevalent. F eagin called this a common example:

Student’s Commentary: Here in my dorm there are four black

girls. My roommates and me look nothing alike. And the other

two are short, and I’m tall. They [white students] called me by

my roommates’ name the whole semester, and I didn’t

understand that. [Maybe] I understood it, but I didn’t want to deal

with that whole thing. That’s really upsetting. It’s like they put

their shutters on when they see a black person coming. And the

few black people that do get along with the other students, they

seem to sort of put on a facade. They pretend to be something

they’re not.

F eagin’s commentary: Whether the differential treatment is

subtle or unconscious discrimination does not matter; it is still

painful and enervating. One reaction is to confront it verbally.

Another is to be resigned to it and put on a mask that hides one’s

true feelings (Feagin & Sikes 1994, p.100-1).
The key to this phase is control and manipulation of true feelings. If there are power
dynamics involved they are manipulated carefully to maintain the status quo.

Some people chose to move out of the pseudo phase, others are forced by

circumstances. Whatever the reasons, it is not typically a smooth transition since

politeness and etiquette are called into question and some of the comfortable artificiality

185

exposed. I call this transitional phase ‘shaky ground’ because there is uncertainty about
direction. Feelings get hurt and there is a good chance that people will walk away from the
relationship once it becomes clear there will be discomfort and hard work. This is a
necessary stage of the friendship development because it is here that underlying mistrust
surfaces and can be named. Fear of saying the wrong thing is challenged and more
expression of real experience takes place. Confusion and uncertainty shape this shaky
ground phase and power dynamics are recognized and questioned. In Chapter Three, I
discussed an example arising in MRULE in which Dan and Felicia were caught in this
phase. Felicia, hurt that Dan may use her as an entertainment piece to see how his family
deals with him having a Black friend, was ready to walk away from the relationship
believing that Dan was not and probably could not be her true friend. Dan was unaware of
the impact of these behaviors and the power dynamics at play. Because he looked up to
Felicia and saw her as a most competent individual, he did not consider her vulnerability.
Dan thought, as many Whites do, that he was “down with” Felicia and she would join in
on the fun unfazed by the old-fashioned, outdated racism of family members. Tension
ensued between them and their interactions became less frequent. Eventually the work in
MRULE demands that any relationship discomfort receive some attention since there is so
much to do together. It is not easy to avoid one another or to simply tolerate someone’s
presence. Slowly, Dan and Felicia began moving out of the shaky ground phase by
engaging in talks about the seriousness of being a target of racism. Dan is becoming less
able to tolerate the racist comments and attitudes he experiences in his former friendship
circles. He challenges them to consider the racism in their language and attitudes as they

flippantly dismiss the need for meaningful race relations. This move towards authenticity

186

in Felicia’s and Dan’s relationship would not have occurred to them in the pseudo phase.
Dan would have lost the opportunity to understand the issues in any significant depth and
Felicia may have lost the opportunity for a true ally in the fight for racial justice.

Those committed to enduring relationships enter the genuine authentic
relationship phase when they mutually share responsibilities for the health of the
relationship. Though more stability comes with this phase, the key to authenticity is a
willingness to work through conflict and mistrust by understanding the sources that create
them and discussing them openly and frankly. This phase does not guarantee that trust is
a given but rather that it is a mutually agreed upon goal of the relationship. It is
understood that it must be built over time through open and frank discussion. Through
honest dialogue power dynamics can be continually reconfigured in a give and take
mode. This means that if even if one member of a friendship dyad, is intellectually,
psychologically, or temperamentally stronger, he or she does not dominate but rather
empowers the other. The genuine relationship settles for nothing short of mutuality,
responsibility and accountability. Most likely there will be strengths and weaknesses in
each person that vary depending on the situation. Interpersonal interracial relationships
are particularly vulnerable because White people who “don’t know” often put the burden
on their Black/Latino/Asian/Native friend(s) to enlighten them. This can be a litmus test
to measure the health and authenticity of the relationship. When White people take full
responsibility for their own learning of race cognizance whether in the presence or
absence of their friends of color they are well on their way to becoming genuine in the
relationship. When all are free to engage in their own learning process from their vantage
point without fear ofjudgement. ridicule, or labeling and when fear and mistrust give

way to support, consideration, and kindness a genuine connectedness evolves. It is this

187

connectedness that allows for personal, collegiate, and spiritual growth. It is here that

people laugh, cry, vent, debate, assure, challenge, and ultimately create durable bonds.

The Role of Dialogue

Scholars who conduct social change research have to be concerned about
methodologies. As discussed in Chapter Two, action research methodology questions
how people work through their common problems to effect change and learn from that. In
every case of action research be it community based or in educational forums, consulting
about the problem through dialogue is pivotal to the process. “People in dialogue become
more fully aware of underlying assumptions, emotions, and the various dimensions of a
situation or idea” (Smith, Willms, & Johnson 1997, p. 227). Dialogue is pivotal to
MRULE’S goal to serve the interconnectedness and sense of community we continually
strive to create. In the words of Paulo Freire:

Dialogue requires an intense faith in human beings; their power
to make and remake, to create and recreate. . .Founded on love,
humility and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship of
mutual trust. . .[that] cannot exist unless the words of both parties
coincide with their actions. Nor can dialogue exists without hope.
Hope is rooted in our human incompleteness, form which we
move out in constant search, a search which can carried out only
in communion with other people. . .Finally, true dialogue cannot
exist unless it involves critical thinking which sees reality as a
process, in transformation... [and] constantly involves itself in
the real struggle without fear of the risks involved (Freire 1970,
1990,p.80)

As Patricia Hill Collins sets forth an Afrocentric feminist epistemology, she looks
at dialogue, empathy, and accountability as pillars to the process. These are ways that

Black people have come to know and engage in social change. Understanding individual

uniqueness, the role of emotions in dialogue and the capacity for caring give meaning and

188

structure to community. Personal accountability attaches an action component that
empowers one to “walk the talk” (Collins 2000, p. 260-266).

Similarly, MRULE is built upon the process of engaging in open and frank
dialogue with respect and sensitivity. It demands a long-term commitment—minimal one
year, though the ideal is four years—so that participants will deepen their understanding
and abilities to engage in this form of dialogue, build relationships, and develop leadership
skills. We define these skills broadly, primarily as those useful in futurejobs: working on
diverse teams; solving seemingly intractable problems around personalities and
perspectives which often, though not always, involve race and gender relations; following
through on responsibilities; holding oneself and one another accountable; etc.

In the weekly roundtable discussions, students meet to discuss topics that center
around the issues of race. These discussions have a threefold purpose: (1) to listen to and
speak to critical racial issues in a safe forum; (2) to learn more about racial issues through
the materials and knowledge brought to bear on the discussions; and (3) to get to know
one another and begin forming friendships. The following ground rules are guidelines for
MRULE dialogues and overall participation.

1. Listen with the intent of understanding before being understood. (Covey 1989)

2. When you share an idea, you give it to the group. Whether you agree or

disagree with the idea, allow the group to respond to the idea, and do not
engage in personal glorification or attack toward the person who shared it.

3. Make sure what is shared in the group stays in the group. Refrain from

backbiting about individuals in the group, as this can be divisive and
demeaning.

189

4. Be conscious to not dominate the conversation. If you are someone who likes
to speak, make sure you do not excessively engaging in your own conversation
with one or two others. If you are someone who is less likely to speak, make
an effort to try to share something. We need you to help us with those who
tend to dominate.

5. Offer your ideas with kindness and sensitivity, but do not be afraid to disagree.
We believe we can find the spark of truth from the clash of different
perspectives.

6. Be patient with one another and the process. You may feel that you’re
covering familiar ground because we constantly have new membership,
especially from year to year, but remember that this is life long work and that
none of us knows it all. There is always something new to learn. Make it your
goal to find out what that is for you at each session.

7. Take your small group assignments seriously. Strive to engage everyone in the
group.

8. Communicate any concerns to the student leaders or Jeanne at any time. We
have to keep communication flowing for MRULE’s health.

9. Bring yourself to account at the end of each meeting and after an MRULE
activity to check how well you engaged and participated in the process.

10. Since MRULE is a process, remember that you are an active co-creator. It’s an
interdependent process. This means that you will get from MRULE what you
give to MRULE.

We know that MRULE is succeeding in the critical skill building that dialogue demands
once students have internalized the guidelines to the extent that they can apply them to
various situations, or at least know what should be applied when and where. It is vital to
MRULE as well as to each individual student that they develop these skills to assist them
in a range of academic experiences. I found it interesting to note research that points to a

relationship between race relations dialogue, community building, and academic

perfomiance. Retention is always a top priority for any academic program and although at

190

this point I have only anecdotal evidence of the impact MRULE has had on student’s
academic life, it is important to include the work of other scholars in this regard.

Perhaps one of the greatest barriers to the development of genuine, authentic
interracial relationships is deep-seated inherent sense of superiority and inferiority that
still plagues race relations today. Psychology professor Claude Steele and colleagues have
done extensive studies to measure the impact of stereotype threat on standardized test
perfomiance. They found a direct correlation—Black students performed better when
they were told they were going to solve problems on a test rather than have their ability
measured. White students performed worse when they were told right before the test that
Asians perfomi better in math than Whites. These findings led Steele to explore
interventions. Interestingly enough one intervention was a weekly dialogue session where
students shared their personal stories and thus began to build relationships.30

One tactic that worked surprisingly well was the weekly rap
sessions -- Black and White students talking to one another in an
informal dormitory setting, over pizza, about the personal side of
their new lives in college. Participation in these sessions reduced
students' feelings of stereotype threat and improved grades. Why?
Perhaps when members of one racial group hear members of
another racial group express the same concerns they have, the
concerns seem less racial. Students may also learn that racial and
gender stereotypes are either less at play than they might have
feared or don't reflect the worst-feared prejudicial intent. Talking
at a personal level across group lines can thus build trust in the
larger campus community. The racial segregation besetting most
college campuses can block this experience, allowing mistrust to
build where cross-group communication would discourage it.

Our research bears a practical message: even though the
stereotypes held by the larger society may be difficult to change,
it is possible to create niches in which negative stereotypes are
not felt to apply. In specific classrooms, within specific

 

3” I thought for a moment that MRULE may have a counterpart at the University of Michigan where Steele
ran this pilot program. As is turned out, Steele’s program only ran for one semester. Based on similar ideas
as MRULE, it lacks one critical component: durability.

191

programs, even in the climate of entire schools, it is possible to
weaken a group's sense of being threatened by negative
stereotypes, to allow its members a trust that would otherwise be
difficult to sustain. Thus when schools try to decide how
important black-white test-score gaps are in determining the fate
of black students on their campuses, they should keep something
in mind: for the greatest portion of black students -- those with
strong academic identities -- the degree of racial trust they feel in
their campus life, rather than a few ticks on a standardized test,
may be the key to their success (Steele 1999, Volume 284 No. 2).

Lessons from History—Interpersonal Situations between Black and White Women in
the Struggle for Racial Justice

Examples ofthe process of creating genuine interracial relationships can be seen in
several historical interpersonal situations between Black and White women. These
examples highlight those relationships that were authentic relationships and those that
were not. They are set in the historical context of white supremacy and invoke the earlier
discussion in this chapter about whether friendships can develop as long as institutional
racism exists. Each example illustrates a range ofdifferent relationships on the continuum.
The one common thread throughout all is that someone stood up confidently against the
social expectations of their time and uncompromisingly set a new standard. The insights
gained from the struggles that both Black and White women faced as they broke molds of
traditional expectations remain useful today for a multiracial constituency of women and
men. Some of the White women rose up to own their role in dismantling racial oppression
as they engaged in genuine relationships. Others sought social reform without social
equality and could be no means engage in mutually satisfying interracial relationships. In
both situations they leave us insightful lessons about what it takes and what is at stake in

the process of developing genuine interracial bonds.

I92

Acknowledging the place of Sarah and Angelina Grimke in the anti-slavery and
women’s rights movements has become mainstream. For at least the last five years
secondary education history texts books used in a competitive school system (East
Lansing) note their contributions. It is disappointing, though not surprising, that there is
no mention of Sarah Douglas, an African American founding member of the Female
Antislavery Society in Philadelphia and close friend of the Grimkes. This friendship
sheds much light on the question of who is making history and how. In her discussion of
this relationship, Gerda Lerner points out that close relationships between nineteenth
century Black and White women were rare. Sarah Douglass and the Grimke sisters
distinguish themselves in several ways. Unlike many of their abolitionist counterparts,
the Grimkes were as committed to the principle of equality among Black and White
people as they were to the abolition of slavery. At one point, the sisters protested the
“colored” bench at the Philadelphia Quaker meetings by sitting with Sarah Douglass and
her mother. As they grew more personal with one another, their commitment to social
equality was put to a test when Sarah Douglass cautiously accepted an invitation to stay
in the home of the newly married Angelina and Theodore Weld. After one day, she
returned home, thanking them for hospitality and “Christian conduct.” When the sisters
asked Sarah Douglass if she doubted that she was an “acceptable visitor” in their home a
frank discussion ensued that rose above the polite racial etiquette they had been
accustomed to. Subsequently their relationship grew closer and Sarah Douglass visited
the Weld home and stayed for several weeks (Lerner 1979, p. 99-100).

This degree of interracial intimacy was rare for nineteenth century Black and
White women. Much more common were Black and White women’s interactions around

antislavery, temperance. or educational uplift that were functional to the causes but

193

situated in a white supremacy modality. Examples can be found in the antislavery,
women's suffrage, anti-lynching, and the civil rights movements.

When Mrs. Margaret Douglass, a White Virginian woman was indicted, tried and
sent to prison for one month because she schooled slave children, the abolitionist press
featured her story prominently. Upon first glance. Mrs. Douglass appeared to be a
champion for the cause of antislavery, so much so that she was willing to go public with
her defiance against the oppressive slave laws. In her self-defense she indicted the
amalgamation of the race as the cause of “opposition of the education of the colored
race.” Mary Ann Shadd, African American editor of Canadian newspaper Provincial
Freeman, printed her court testimony in a December 16, 1854 column. Shadd exposesd
Mrs. Douglass’s appeals for the cessation of the master’s abusive sexual practices upon
their female slaves, as motivated by her belief in upholding the racial purity of Whites
rather than the humanity of Blacks. Mrs. Douglass believed that providing religious
instruction for the Negroes would empower them to fight off the “shamelessly. beastly
practice” and restore peacefulness in the Southern system. Shadd states:

Mrs. Douglass then—as do all pro-slavery people—is endeavoring to

fan the flames of prejudice. . .at the same time that she would rivet the

chains on the slave. Note the process by which they are to be riveted

and the remedy for the evils, which is in the hands of the southern

woman. That remedy is the instruction of the Negroes in their duty to

their masters. . . (Lerner 1979, p. 102-3)
Lerner points out that the burden of educating Whites in shared radical causes rested
heavily on Blacks. This made it difficult for trusting relationships to develop as African-

Americans were consistently on guard. They often did not know the degree to which

their White “sisters” were committed to their freedom and equality. As in the case above,

194

Mrs. Douglass was willing to go tojail, not to abolish the slave system but to ameliorate
it in such way that White privilege would prevail.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic battles between a struggling sense of sisterhood
and the maintenance of white supremacy was fought during Suffrage. Historian Nell
Painter explores how the Stanton/Anthony camp deliberately distanced themselves from
Frances Ellen Watkins Harper when she confronted their platform head on. Speaking at
the 1866 Women’s Rights Convention she challenged White suffragists to recognize how
Black women were treated on a daily basis.

You white women speak of rights. I speak of wrongs. I, as a
colored woman, have had in this country an education which has
made me feel as if I were in the situation of Ishmael, my hand
against every man, and every man’s hand against me. Let me go
tomorrow morning and take my seat in one of your street cars. .
.and the conductor will put up his hand and stop the car rather
than let me ride. (Painter 1996, p. 224)

Harper went on to explain the details of a grievous experience
Harriet Tubman had with a train conductor who brutally tried to
eject her from her place. “The woman, whose courage and
bravery won a recognition from our amiy and from every black
man in the land, is excluded from every thoroughfare of travel.”
Despite Harper’s strong appeal she was unable to secure White
women’s understanding and unless they acknowledged Black

women’s predicament, she would dismiss woman’s suffrage as a
whites only affair (Painter, p. 225).

This was a particularly tense moment in the battle for rights for women and
Blacks as the leading suffragists were opposed to the passing of the Fourteenth
Amendment with the word male in it. Nell Painter argues that Frances Harper’s outright
refusal to side with women over Blacks left an obvious void in the Stanton/Anthony
camp for a Black woman’s representative which they sought to fill with a less

confrontational person. They found this in Sojourner Truth who could disagree indirectly

195

and was uncompromising about her equality with Black men. (Truth was sure that what
Black men needed, Black women needed, most importantly their own income.)

Painter points out that during the 1860’s and later, there were occasional White
champions for Black women’s issues but more often than not, these came at the expense
of Black men. In the long run. these relationships were fragile as the battle over rights
and privilege began to define who was worthy and ready for the vote and who was not.
By refusing to separate her sex identity from her race identity, Frances Ellen Watkins
Harper exemplified the struggle for Black feminist women to come. White feminists
would remain distant to this struggle well into the Second Wave of the Women’s
Movement. This would and to some extent still does define many parameters of the
working and interpersonal relationships between Black and White women.

Although, we do not know much about her interpersonal relationships with Black
women, we know that there was one suffragist who rose above her colleagues over the
battle of who was worthy to vote. Jane Addams’ work with foreign born, immigrant
women convinced her that the only way they could maintain family stability was to have
some voice in their surroundings. She challenged the notion that suffrage was a
responsibility of the educated and reinvigorated the fundamental egalitarian principle that
abolitionists put forth in defense of Negro suffrage.

The statement is sometimes made that the franchise for women
would be valuable only so far as the educated women exercised
it. This statement totally disregards the fact that those matters in
which woman’s judgment is most needed are far too primitive
and basic to be largely influenced by what we call education
(Kraditor 1965, p. 142).
Addams’ uncompromising devotion to settlement work kept her in the front lines of

working families’ hard lives. She was unmoved by arguments put forth that pitted

working class foreign born (“ignorant and depraved” as Stanton characterized them in her

196

1894 letter to the Women ’s Journal) against upper and middle class women who
obviously had more developed abilities to exercise political rights. While this ideological
battle heated up Jane Addams continued to positively affect the daily lives of families
through her exemplary Hull House, seeing suffrage as a “tool for social regeneration.”
(Kraditor, p. 150)

Whether Elizabeth Cady Stanton could foresee that the educational prerequisite
argument was going to lead Northern suffragists into a difficult, compromising
relationship with Southern white suffragists is hard to know. As the Stanton/Anthony
camp was determined to remove the word male from the Fourteenth Amendment, their
Southern counterparts were determined to insert the word white into Suffragist
Legislation. From 1899 to 1918 the suffrage movement was wrought with white
supremacists. Black women were consistently marginalized and worked more effectively
in their separate organizations. Aileen Kraditor cites a chilling example of how this
played out. In 1913, Mrs. Ida B. Wells Barnett, president of a Negro women’s suffrage
club was asked by NAWSA leaders not to march with the suffragists at the Washington
parade on the day before President Wilson’s inauguration because certain unnamed
Southern women refused to march in a racially mixed contingency.

The request was made publicly during the rehearsal of the Illinois
contingent, and while Mrs. Barnett glanced about the room,
looking for support, the ladies debated the question of principle
versus expediency, most of them evidently feeling that they must
not prejudice Southerners against suffrage. Eventually Mrs.
Barnett was banished to the Negro women’s contingent. She
replied that she would march with Illinois or not at all. When the
parade began she was nowhere to be seen, but later she quietly
stepped out from the crowd of spectators and joined the Illinois
ranks. Two white Illinois women then took their places on either

side of her, and the rank composed of these three women finished
the parade without further incident. (Kraditor, p. 213)

I97

Of course, not all examples of white supremacist practices in the Women’s Movement
are this obvious. New scholarship may propel us to ask the questions: who were those
two White women who joined Mrs. Barnett and what happened to their relationship
subsequently? How did Black women continue to fight along side White women for
anything in these racially hostile climates? What did Black women endure at the hands
of their White counterparts and how can understanding this illuminate contemporary
issues between Black and White women? The Anti-Lynching Campaign provides
another poignant example.

In 1892 Ida B. Wells was exiled to the North for her agitating work on white
supremacist and barbaric practices particularly demonstrated through lynching. From
Chicago she activated an unrelenting anti-lynching campaign that cleverly attacked white
male superiority at it base. . .western civilized behavior and mores. Playing on Victorian
sentiments Wells argued that rather than protecting true womanhood, those engaged in
the barbaric practice of lynching were compromising their manhood. It was a successful
campaign that brought international attention to the horrific racial violence practiced in
the United States South. Many Northerners got on board and began to actively object to
lynching practices but the road to eradication would prove long and hard. Gail Bederman
points out that although Wells’ campaign did not stop lynching, “most Northern
periodicals stopped treating lynching as a colorful Southern folkway. It became a truism
that lynching hurt America in the eyes of the civilized world.” (Bederman, 1995, p. 423)

In her dissertation on Southern reformer Lugenia Burns Hope, historian
Jacqueline Rouse explores an institution that may have been a potential institution for
positive race relations—the Commission for Interracial Cooperation (CIC). In 1930, Jessie

Daniel Ames, director of women’s work in the CIC formed a new organization, the

198

Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching (ASWPL). After a
slight period of decline, lynching was again on the rise. The women attracted to ASWPL
felt it was time for a newly organized women’s group to demonstrate their horror at this
violent practice in their midst. It was time to challenge the common belief that lynching
was a necessary practice to uphold true womanhood, as the 19m century definition of
purity, piety, domesticity, and submission lingered on. Women were determined to show
that they no longer needed or wanted such chivalry to protect them. Since 1922 a group
of dedicated White Southern women had been meeting with Black women leaders from
the CIC Women’s Division and worked successfully on the development of Black
educational programs. When Ames became director she was determined to take on
lynching through educational programs. At this time there was much activism around the
Costigan-Warner bill that proposed federal trials for mob members when local authorities
did not act. Ames, like many Southerners opposed federal intervention on social issues.
Although her male CIC counterparts supported Costigan-Wamer, she encouraged
ASWPL members to remain neutral. Black women were excluded from ASWPL
membership but firmly expressed their opposition to the position of neutrality on this
important bill. Black women leaders took turns trying to educate White women on how
to work more comprehensively to bring about freedom for Blacks. But Ames and the
ASWPL would not budge. Lugenia Burns Hope, frustrated and disappointed working
tirelessly in the anti-lynching campaign wrote: “Honestly my heart is so sick and weak
over it that I don’t know whether I can say anything. I do think that the stand that the
Southern women took will hold back our interracial work and everything else in the

South.” (Rouse, 1989, p. 1 17)

I99

Once again we see how white supremacy interfered with efforts to promote racial
equality. That the members of the ASWPL could be so confident in their leaders as
better informed than the Black women leaders in the front lines speaks to the racialized
chasms embedded in the American psyche. Many interracial cooperative reform efforts
lacked a critical component that limited their effectiveness: genuine mutuality among all
parties. As Paula Giddings characterizes it: racial harmony rather than equality was the
goal of the CIC and ASWPL. (Giddings, 1984, p. 208) That Black women had to expend
so much energy convincing their White counterparts to support anti-lynching legislation
illustrates a recurring theme in Black and White women’s relationships. White women
would help black women improve conditions of Blacks so long as it served White
women’s interests. Giddings describes one of Jessie Ames’s purposes in her most
notable accomplishments, a better housing project in Dallas’s black community, as one
“to prevent encroachments into White neighborhoods” by middle class Blacks. Race
relations scholars must confront these situations head on just as Black women activists
consistently had to do. We are not served well to scratch surfaces and report what we
wished may have happened. A glaring example of this is found in Wilson and Russell’s
I996 poorly researched book entitled Divided Sisters: Bridging the Gap between Black
Women and White Women. Here the authors state:

Not all Southern White women were racist. Some worked
alongside Black women in various social reform groups, and
many joined in the campaign to fight against the lynchings of
Black men. In 1902, the White women’s societies of the
Southern Methodist Church openly criticized Southern racial
attitudes contributing to such lynchings, and a year later, a White
woman named Jessie Daniel Ames founded the fully integrated

Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching.
At its peak, the group had over forty thousand members (p.32).

200

In light of what we know of Ames and the exclusivity of the ASWPL, it is highly suspect
to use her as an example of non-racist Southern White women. But it is even more
disturbing to misrepresent the source. Wilson and Russell use Giddings as the source for
this passage. They misquote the year as 1902, (Giddings cites 1930), and throughout this
passage Giddings does not mention women’s societies openly criticizing Southern racial
attitudes. Most importantly Wilson and Russell describe ASWPL as fully integrated
when Black women were clearly excluded from membership. (Giddings 1984, Rouse
I989). Giddings’ discussion of Ames (as noted above) is consistent with Rouse’s work
on Lugenia Burns Hope. It is true that through ASWPL Ames galvanized support of over
35, 000 Southern White women that had an impressive dampening effect on the pro-
lynching climate. It is also true that her insistence on protecting women from political
engagements and upholding states rights had a dampening effect on the spirit of
cooperation with Black women and their comprehensive approaches to eradicating
lynching. Though it is important to mark those historical moments when racial barriers
were transcended for the advancement of social and racial justice, it is harmful to create
them when they are not there. As bell hooks points out one of the consistently troubling
issues preventing deeper bonds between Black and White women is the lack of
knowledge of the depths of the history of their social relations (hooks 1995, p. 220). In
their commendable effort to bring Black and White women together Wilson and Russell
have sold themselves and the integrity of the subject short by substituting the actual
history for a mythical one.

It is well known that Eleanor Roosevelt stood out among fellow New Dealers
when it came to believing in and acting on social reform regarding the welfare of Black

people throughout her tenure as First Lady (Lash 1971). Although Mrs. Roosevelt

201

seemed at times to be following a gradualist approach to Black advancement, she
consistently put herself in situations and relationships that challenged the efficacy of such
an approach. In her own words:
It seems trite to say to the Negro, you must have patience, when
he has had patience so long; you must not expect miracles
overnight, when he can look back to the years of slavery and
say—how many nights! he has waited for justice. Nevertheless,
that is what we must continue to say in the interests of our
government as a whole and of the Negro people; but that does not
mean that we must sit idle and do nothing. We must keep moving
forward steadily, removing restrictions which have no sense, and
fighting prejudice. If we are wise we shall do this where it is
easiest to do at first, and watch it spread gradually to places
where the old prejudices are slow to disappear (New Republic,
May 11, 1942, p. 630).

Biographer Joseph Lash characterizes Eleanor Roosevelt as a person concerned
about the welfare of all humanity, including Southern Whites who felt threatened by her
actions to bring the needs and wants of the Black community to President Roosevelt’s
attention. There were many times when Mrs. Roosevelt went the extra mile, pressing
racial equality issues regardless of the feared Southern political backlash harbored by
several of those in the President’s inner circle. Her relationships with “Black Cabinet”
member Mary McLeod Bethune and NAACP secretary Walter White were vital to her
own education and changes in racial thinking. White gave her Du Bois’ book Black
Reconstruction to provide another perspective than what she learned from one of her

favorite books Gone With the Wind. When she was chastised by a reader of her column

for using the words “darky” and “pickaninny” in her autobiographical articles, she

 

3' The term used to describe the group of Black people that President Roosevelt appointed to help
implement New Deal legislation. There were about a dozen ranging in position from advisor, assistant, to
director of Negro affairs in one of the many New Deal relief and recovery agencies (Ross in Franklin and
Meier 1982, p. 1023). Bethune served as director ofthc Negro Affairs division of the National Youth
Administration.

202

apologized for the offense. explaining they were her grandmother’s words and asked
what terms would be preferred (Lash. p. 522). She told her daughter that she knew when
she kissed Mary McLeod Bethune goodbye on the cheek after visiting her in the hospital
as naturally as she would anyone else, she had begun to conquer some of her own racial
prejudice (Lash, p. 523). Both Bethune and White stayed close to Mrs. Roosevelt through
the years steadily pushing the FDR Administration as much as possible to consider the
plight of Blacks—lynching, job discrimination, exclusionary practices in housing,
education, and within the armed forces were some of the most prevalent. Though FDR
kept a political distance from Black demands, Mrs. Roosevelt did not hold back
sustaining continual criticism from both white supremacist friends and foes of the
Administration. About this era and his relationship to Mrs. Roosevelt, Walter White later
wrote “when he was ready to give up on the white race, the thought of Mrs. Roosevelt
was one of the few things that kept him from hating all white people (Lash, p. 522—3).
Most Black leaders were not content with the pace of the FDR Administration to
meet their demands and some were openly critical even to Mrs. Roosevelt. Lash
introduces the new generation of Blacks who were not as interested in “what the New
Deal had done for the Negro but what the white race had done to the Negro” (p. 523). By
including a letter from one of the most articulate voices of the group: a Work Progress
Administration (WPA) teacher named Pauli Murray. In this letter to the President,
Murray explains how her grandfather fought for the Union Army to ensure the liberation
of Black people and that all her family was involved in the education of Blacks in North
Carolina. Yet when she applied to University of North Carolina she was denied
admission because of her race. She criticized the President who spoke the day before at

the university hailing it “as a center of liberal thought and calling on Americans,

203

especially young people. to support a liberal philosophy based on democracy.” Murray
ended her letter by asking the President: “Do you feel, as we do, that the ultimate test of
democracy in the United States will be the way in which it solves its Negro problem?” p.
(524). This letter affected Eleanor who replied that she understood, encouraging Pauli to
fight with conciliatory methods. She invited her to write regularly as well as to visit her at
her vacation home Hyde Park, New York. This was the beginning of what grew to be a
genuine relationship that endured throughout Pauli Murray’s adult life until Eleanor
Roosevelt’s death in 1962.

What makes the Roosevelt/Murray relationship unique and relevant to our
discussion here is the degree of honesty and mutuality that existed even with Mrs.
Roosevelt’s status. They came together as a result of Murray’s condemnation of the
hypocrisy she saw in the American government. They continued to debate tactics and the
pace of reform but grew to have a great respect for one another. In the aftermath of the
1943 Detroit riots which killed thirty five people, twenty-nine who were Black, Pauli
Murray was enraged by President Roosevelt’s lame public statement that “every true
American regrets” outbreaks of violence. She sent him the following poem.

Mr. Roosevelt Regrets

What ’d you get, black boy,

When they knocked you down the gutter,

And they kicked your teeth out. . .

What ’d you get when the police shot you in the back,

And they chained you to the beds. . .

What 'd the Top Man say. black boy?

Mr. Roosevelt regrets. . . (Lash, p. 675).

Mrs. Roosevelt responded to Pauli: “I am sorry but I understand” (Lash, p. 674). At
another point Mrs. Roosevelt chided Pauli for criticizing the President’s weak stance on

the Negro question and suggesting that Blacks had their eye on Wendell Wilkie, his

opponent in the 1944 presidential election. “For one who must really have a knowledge

204

of the workings of our government your letter seems to be one of the most thoughtless I
have ever read,” Eleanor wrote to Pauli (Murray 1989, p. 190). Over the
Administration’s tentative progress toward racial equality, they continued to spar—first
through letters followed by Mrs. Roosevelt’s continual invitations to Pauli in to speak
with her in person. Ofthat point in their relationship Murray states:

While such outspoken views gave me a reputation of being
hotheaded and Mrs. Roosevelt later referred to me as a
“firebrand,” they also earned her respect. As I grew to know her
better, it seemed to me that the measure of her greatness was her
capacity for growth with herself, and the generosity with which
she responded to criticisms this kind.

Several years later when Pauli Murray was researching racial segregation for her work
with the NAACP in preparation for Brown vs. Board of Education and Eleanor Roosevelt
was working with the United Nations and emerging as a world leader, their friendship
continued to grow.

During that period, in spite of her crowded schedule, Mrs.
Roosevelt found time to invite me to her New York apartment for
tea or dinner once or twice a year, or for an occasional weekend
at Val-Kill Cottage in Hyde Park, New York. She liked having
young friends around, and I think she admired and trusted my
habit of not letting her high position prevent me from speaking
out on a political issue when I disagreed with her. For me, these
visits were like pilgrimages for renewal of the spirit. I sensed an
unspoken spiritual bond between us, and I treasured them so
much I could not bear to keep them all to myself (Murray, 1989,
p.289)

Mrs. Roosevelt always permitted Pauli to bring someone with her to share in Pauli’s
words the “magic ofher presence” (p. 289).

Because of her heavy schedule “Mrs. R,” as close friends referred

to Mrs. Roosevelt, often squeezed in a purely social visit with me

while she pursued weighty matters of international importance
(p. 290).

205

The excitement these social calls generated was a blend of awe
and delight in about equal measure, and I enjoyed watching each
person who met Mrs. Roosevelt face to face discover, as I had
done, that the First Lady of the World was as comfortable to be
with as one’s own favorite aunt (p. 289).

Pauli Murray trailblazed the way for the next generation of young people who
would follow in the Civil Rights Era. Not surprisingly the experiences within the
movement vary dramatically along race, class, and gender lines. Relationships were
complicated and greatly influenced by the ideological turbulence among many competing
social forces and priorities. The Civil Rights Movement not only set the very important
stage for the Second Wave of Feminism to emerge, but challenged race relations in
unprecedented ways. Recycled versions of the some of perennial problems between
Black and White women raised their convoluted heads. Regional attitudes resurfaced
though indeed it was a different time. Historian Sara Evans begins her discussion of
Women’s liberation and the Civil Rights Movement with a chapter titled “Southern
White Women in a Southern Black Movement” and draws parallels between these
women and the Grimkes. “A new set of circumstances in the late fifties and early sixties
forced a few young Southern women into an opposition to Southern culture comparable
to that of the Grimke sisters and made them key figures in the articulation of a new
feminist impulse.” (Evans 1979, p. 28) Joined by their Northern white counterparts in the
Black Civil Rights Organizations, particularly SNCC, these women struggled to define
new relationships with Black women.

Evans gives first hand accounts of both Black and White women’s experience
during Freedom Summer and the Voting Registration Campaign. Motivated by a new

wave of Protestant liberalism, many white college students joined these movements

against vehement opposition from their families. Many were caught up in the hype of the

206

period and not totally sure of what they were getting into. Others knew from the start that
they were in something for the long haul and had to look within as Evans states: “These
young women stripped away the social supports of white society, calling upon reserves of
strength they didn’t know they possessed, developed a sense of self that enabled them to
recognize the enemy within as well--the image of the Southern “lady.” (Evans p.43)
Evans’ account raises several key issues that must be acknowledged in order to

understand the relationship dynamics among Civil Rights Movement workers. White
students who were involved because they had a sense of the urgency of the moment and
their role in it, were more prepared to deal with the internal conflict and tension that arose
than those who were caught up in the ideals of freedom and equality with little stomach
for the dirty work on the ground. There were serious sexual tension between Black and
White women as many White women caught up in the idealism, looking for a place to fit
in, found temporary spaces in the beds of Black men. Accounts of the motivating factors
for this behavior range from White women’s sexual “looseness” to attraction to the
“forbidden fruit” (sex between White women and Black men), to white guilt and fear of
rejecting Black males’ demands may be seen as racist. Black women on the other hand
had less time on their hands as they took demanding leadership roles more readily and
successfully. When White women began to complain about relegated sex roles in the
movement, typing and preparing food, one Black woman said she didn’t know what they
were talking about. In her view, Black and White women started at opposite ends of the
spectrum and tensions were increased because they were treated by men so differently.

I remember discussions with various women about our treatment

as one of the boys and its impact on us as women. We did the

same work as men--organizing around voter registration and

community issues in rural areas--usually with men. But when we

finally got back to town where we could relax and go out, the
men went out with other women. Our skills and abilities were

207

recognized and respected but that seemed to be a place other than
female. Some years later, I was told by a male SNCC worker
that some of the project women had made him feel superfluous. I
wish he had told me that at the time because the differences in the
way women were treated certainly did add to the tension between
black and white women. (Cynthia Washington, Evans, p. 239)

As has been discussed in Chapter Four MRULE uses history as a living, breathing
encounter with the past in order to make connections with the present and thereby inspire
agency in the present and future. These examples of Black and White women show us that
some pushed through the obstacles created by white supremacy to achieve genuine
relationships while others succumbed to the cruel limitations that the ideology imposed. In
either case, they illuminate the processes that still we must encounter as we strive to be
simultaneously race cognizant and transcendent of the socially constructed barriers we
have inherited.

Now that we discussed in some detail, the definitions and practices of genuine
interracial. relationships in both contemporary and historical terms it is time to look at
what impact they have had upon the MRULE students. Consistent with the theme of the
interdependency of theory and practice, the MRULE students have helped to shape the
meaning and relevancy of genuine, authentic interracial relationships by sharing their

aspirations, disappointments, and ultimately an understanding of the long process

involved.

Example from the field

Developing genuine relationships across traditional racial lines is the nucleus of

the MRULE program. It is where all the content and process we have previously

208

discussed comes to a head, the testing ground for students to bring knowledge together
with action.

The characteristics of genuine friendships that have been discussed throughout this
chapter warrant review here. Mutuality, open and honest communication, trust, patience,
and endurance over time and through trials and tribulations are difficult to test in college
students who are in transitory phases. Although the college experience can provide fertile
ground for studying the fomiation of friendships, durability is another matter. At this
stage of MRULE we are satisfied with the formation of the relationships and the degree to
which these relationships can be sustained throughout their MSU experience. We are also
looking at what these friendships empowered them to do, both individually and
collectively, that they may not have done without MRULE, e.g., the community-building
trips, the community service, and social activism. On our trips we are always a unique
sight whatever venue we enter. As one student commented:

While the (weekly) roundtable discussions bonded us with respect
and honesty, we only slightly felt an emotional bond to each
other, until...our trips.’ Wow.’ We crossed the lines, and clinging
to color wasn 't an option. We were the minority—a diverse group
of friends traveling together and learning about each other
through history. (MR ULE Student Evaluations, Spring 1 998)
A community member when we came to do a service project in a local neighborhood:
What group are you front? It is really nice to have such a diverse
group here in our community. We are a diverse neighborhood
and we work with the university quite a bit but we don 't often see
such a diverse group of students working together.
An MRULE Student Leader on how to balance the sharing of opinions with knowledge:
We facilitate discussions on race relations topics and always

welcome differences in opinion. We have always held firm to the
ideology that 'from the clash of different opinions comes the

209

spark of truth " and we highly value the individual opinions of
everyone participating in our discussions. This does not mean,
however, that we will blatantly ignore the history of race or the
sociological data that we have access to as young scholars in a
research university such as Michigan State. We welcome
opinions of all sorts, but we will not hesitate to share the truths
that we have studied about race in America. This means that we
will challenge all opinions to stay within the boundaries of the
racial reality in this society. In doing so, will be challenging
ourselves to learn as much about race as we possibly can to help
our entire community to grow in truth.

Definitions of genuine friendships from student interviews:

Genuine relationships are work to develop. There are benefits to
developing genuine relationships but it 's not something that can
come just front association. It takes time, honesty, it takes pain
sometimes and it takes real work. In the end, I just have no desire
for anything but genuine relationships. At this point nothing else
is satisfactory (Lisa. April, 2000).

Genuine relationships are trust. And for trust you have to be able
to open up and not only show the things you are good at but your
faults. When you 're real with MR ULE people, they open up to
you and respond and you have that trust. That is what creates
genuine relationships. But also genuine relationships have to be
in every aspect of your life and not just MR ULE (Heather, April
2000).

Genuine relationships are a true, definite connection (Paul,

April, 2000).

Pushing Through the Process

Lisa and Kate had known each other in MRULE for three years. This year they began to
work more closely together and their relationship took a new and different turn. There
had always been mutual respect but they put very little time and attention into their
relationship outside of MRULE functions. They both describe their relationship as nice,
though not genuine until this year. They agreed to be interviewed about pushing through
some very difficult issues that propelled their relationship into what they both call
genurne.

J.G. How do you know a relationship is genuine."

Kate: We can talk about absolutely everything. I haven ’tfound anything that I can 't talk
to Lisa about. She is involved in all the important aspects of my life.

Lisa: It is genuine when it goes beyond my comfort zone. . . when I feel like I ’m being
stretched.

Kate: When I was having some personal issues, I wanted her to understand but I got
scared. I knew I would either have to push through and make it real or withdraw.

Lisa: I didn ’t know how to work with what she was going through because it hit so close
to home. The issues centered around whether MRULE was going to be a nice college
experience or her life. As a White person she can make those choices, as a Black person I
don ’t feel I have those same choices. I couldn’t see myself putting my whole self into a
relationship that would end after college, especially with all we had been through this
year, but I didn ’t feel like I could push her. I was frustrated and my initial response was
okay let her go. However, I decided I cared too much to be satisfied with that.

J.G. to Kate: Did you know what she was going through?

Kate: I didn ’t know for sure. I felt the friendship was fragile and I knew I was letting my
own fears and insecurities take over. My inaction was pushing her away. I thought I
could push my real feelings underground because I didn’t want to lose the relationship so
I decided to try to put on a happy face, so as not to burden my friends, especially Lisa.

Lisa: That wasn ’t acceptable. She couldn’t hide it. I was frustrated with her but I knew
whatever was going on, it had to be addressed. I was worried that I would come on too
strong and that the last thing she needed was an intense interaction but I decided to take
the bull by the horns. I called her and said let’s talk. We had argued earlier about the
issues of Black people having access to the countryside in Northern Michigan. I tried to
tell her that no matter what when I go there, and I have on occasion, I am stared at with
a less than welcome feeling. I don ’t put myself in those situations because I can ’t enjoy
the beauty in the same way she can.

Kate: I want to do what I can to make it safe for you. I want you to be able to enjoy the
beauty in the same way I can.

Lisa: That’s what makes interracial relationships, especially Black and White, such a
challenge sometimes. You see how society is structured—some Whites are ignorant, some
are blatant racists and some know better. There is a responsibility that comes with that
knowledge.

Kate: If you care so much about one person, you can’t cut yourself off from the
experience of the group in which they came from. They are connected. I knew that and
didn ’t want our relationship to be about a whole lot of talk. So, when she called to talk I
cried my eyes out. It was hard to be vulnerable with the relationship because I was afraid
I would lose it and I was angry with myself for letting things get in the way but I just
pushed through.

Lisa: All of my regular patterns and behaviors said “retreat" and by now I would have.
There were many times I got hurt in the past because I trusted someone who didn ’t get it.

211

Almost like I was a conversation piece, not a human being. I knew Kate was for real but I
was scared that the forces would pull her in the other direction and she would go ofi and
live her White life somewhere and look back at MRULE as a “thing I did in college. " Do
I really want to set myself up for this? I prefer to take safe, predictable risks but in this
case I couldn ’I cut off I had to support her through the process.

J.G. How is your friendship affected by race?

Kate: I expect a lot from those who are in MRULE. I expect more out of myself. We came
to this program because of our passion, our common interests in social justice. Race
cannot be invisible because the consequences are always with us. It doesn 't mean though
I won’t still try to get Lisa to go up north with me as long as we are careful and I ensure
she is not put in a compromising situation. At the same time, I will have to understand if
she chooses not to go.

Lisa: Race can ’t be separated out. You can’t take it for granted and just try to deal with
each other as human beings because inevitably race comes up. Interracial relationships
are so vulnerable and rare but if dealt with can be strong and beneficial because they are
a testimonial to new possibilities.

Kate: I was confused and bogged down about how I would use all that I had learned in
MR ULE in my future. I knew I couldn ’t leave it behind but couldn ’t make sense of what
path I could take. Pushing through with Lisa helped me to see that I may not have all the
answers but that I could create my own path that would encompass my passion for what I
have come to know to be true in MRULE. I will still be committed to the process in the
future, no matter what it takes.

These accounts help to illustrate that the MRULE program, though small in scale,
is a living testimony to transformative education. The genuine relationships created here
come as a result of hard emotional work, intense intellectual challenges, and the process
of taking ownership and responsibilities for knowledge and action. I now turn to my

concluding chapter highlighting the voices of the students who have helped to shape

MRULE over the past five years.

212

Chapter Seven
Students Tell Their Stories—How Participation in the MRULE Program
Changed Racial Thinking and Enkindled A Spirit of Activism

Knowledge first of all has to be made meaningful to students before it can be made
critical. Henry A. Giroux, Pedagogy and the Politics of Difference

Where would I be if I had not found MR ULE ? I had no direction and I 'm sure I wouldn 't
have stayed at MS U If it hadn 't been for MR ULE.

Lisa
I couldn 't stay in my declared major any longer. . .it didn ”I hold my attention. I wanted to
do something that would make a difference where I could use what I was learning in
MR ULE.

Mark
I liked how in MR ULE they wanted us to be open and honest, I was looking for that in a
group. They weren 't trying to cover up anything and look pretty. And that 's what I liked
about it. It was real. Heather

Since the inception of the MRULE program in 1996, we have seen over three

hundred students come in and out of the program. Of these, over half have stayed with
the program at least one, two or three years with a total of five who remained for the
entire four years (MRULE evaluations, 1997, 98, 99, 00). Students joined and remained
for different reasons. Their experiences with the group varied depending on many factors.
Despite these differences, several strong common threads held them together in a
learning community that provided both intellectual challenges and social relationships

that were qualitatively different than those they had outside the group. This is especially

true of the Student Leader cadre.

213

The stories in this chapter reflect background information of each student,
particularly how they experienced race and class growing .up and how those experiences
did or did not change upon coming to Michigan State University and within the MRULE
program. There are 30 interviews—~29 were audio recorded throughout the month of
April, 2000 and one in December, 2000. Students signed consent fonns under the
agreement that the information shared could be used verbatim and interwoven with other
text but would not be associated with their names.

The demographic breakdown of the students interviewed is as follows:

13 Black, 7 women, 6 men
1 1 White, 7 women, 4 men
2 Asian American, both women
2 Latino, 1 woman, 1 man
2 International students, 1 African, 1 Middle Eastern
Students ranged in age from just finishing freshman year to graduating seniors. Their
social and economic statuses ranged from working class through middle to upper middle.
Seven students identified as working class throughout their lives, eleven identified as
middle class and five identified as upper middle class. Seven students reported that their
socioeconomic status changed as they growing up, usually when they were in elementary
school. They remember this by the move from one neighborhood to another. Students are
located in several different major fields of study: Education, Business, Social Science,
Natural Science, Engineering, Agriculture, Humanities/Pre-law, and International
Relations.

Student interviews were based on the following questions. At times, an answer to

one ofthese questions would lead into further probing and clarification, which is noted

in the transcription.

214

Questionnaire for MR ULE Student Profiles

These are audio taped interviews. Students were selected from the MRULE Student
Leader pool, former MRULE members no longer with the program, and first and second
year MRULE participants.

Id

9.

10.

ll.
12.

l3.
I4.
15.
l6.
I7.
18.

Describe the area where you grew up.
Describe the social class you grew up in. What did you know about your economic
status as a child, adolescent, young adult?
When was the first time you were made aware of race? In what context?
How did your family think about race? As a child what did you know about people
who were different from you? What did you know about people who were similar, i.e.
shared your racial background?
Describe an incident in your family history where people from backgrounds different
from you were described or discussed.
Describe an incident where you or members of your family interacted with people
from different backgrounds?
What did you know about being (whatever lmckgrozmd you identify with)??? What
did it mean?
What do you know about being (whatever you identify with) now? What does it mean
to you?
Upon entering the university, what were you most seeking out in terms of:

Social relationships Academic challenges Job/career prep???
Describe how MRULE addressed what you were looking for in any of the above
categories? Describe how MRULE fell short of meeting your expectations.
Upon joining MRULE, what stood out to you the most?
If you are no longer with MRULE, are there any aspects of it that you miss? Any
aspects that you don’t miss?
What surprised you the most about your experiences in MRULE?
What are three things you learned from participation in MRULE?
If you had to describe MRULE to an incoming student, how would you do it?
If you had to describe MRULE to a potential employer, how would you do it?
What does your family understand about your participation in MRULE?
How has your participation in MRULE helped you to understand the following
concepts?

Structural Inequality

The Social Construction of Race

The Social Construction of Whiteness
White Privilege

Race/Class/Gender Intersections
Multi-Racial Coalitions

Genuine Relationships

Leadership

Activism

215

19. What will you take away from your MSU experience now that you have participated
in 1/2/3/4 years of the MRULE program?

20. Describe yourself in 5 years? Where will you be working? Living? How will you be
applying what you have come to understand to be true about race relations in the US.
in your life? 10 years+?

This chapter is designed to give readers a sense ofthe Multi-Racial Unity Living
Experience through the voices of the students. To ensure that student voices are clear,
there is minimal analysis included. My purpose was to introduce a range of experiences
and tie themes together. Passages were selected from students so that each question
would be answered from different perspectives. As was expected and has been mentioned
throughout this work, racial background shaped racial thinking and day to day

experience. To demonstrate this, I explore the first time each student was made aware of

race.

First Time Made A ware of Race

For White students it was often something negative they heard about someone
else, for students of color it was often something negative directed at them. Black
students also had to contend with identity issues wrapped around race, while for White
students race was something that had little or no meaning, something that concerned
others.

Of course in most cases this first time experience was centered in family
dynamics. Parents of these college students are members of the 60’s and 70’s generation.
They may have consciously or unconsciously contributed to reinforcing a racial hierarchy
rather than affimiatively seeking to dismantle it. Kate, a White female from a rural area
had an emotionally stirring experience as she remembered the first time she was made

aware of race.

216

There is an area in the county where several African Americans
settled. All the county around it is White so it stands out. I
remember one time we were driving in that area and my Dad
said, “Better lock the doors. There’s a lot of jiggaboos and jungle
bunnies around here.” I can’t really say how old I was but right
away I asked, “what’s that?” My mom said, “don’t you tell her
and don’t talk about this.” I wanted to know more and my mom
finally said that’s what your dad likes to call Black people.
Having hardly ever seen a Black person only on the streets when
we drove through, I really didn’t understand it because we
weren’t in a jungle. None of it made any sense to me then. Even
now I can remember thinking that and it scares me that parents
have such an unconscious effect on children’s beliefs.

Rick, a White male with a middle class background remembers being six or seven
years old and watching a Different Strokes television episode. Although his mother tried
to explain it as something not good, Rick was left befuddled.

Arnold (the character played by Gary Coleman) was in the
hospital and he had to share a room with a White child and the
adults were having some problems with this so I asked my mom:
Why aren’t they allowed be friends? Mom said it was because
some White people don’t like Black people. She couldn’t explain
it any better than that.

Renee, an international student of Middle Eastern background, recalled television
being the first time she saw Black people.

Most films showed Blacks as gang members and thieves. That
was what we knew about Blacks because there were only a few
Black people in the country. I remember I was once in a store and
a Black person came in and a little child of about six started
screaming—she had never seen a Black person in her life.
Both international students interviewed experienced a form of American racism whether
in their own country or here upon arrival. Kai, a Black female and international student

remembers when her East Indian friend, a first generation American told her that she

could not bring her home.

217

When I moved here to America something really stuck out. I was
going to spend the weekend with my friend. When it came time
to go over, she was crying and just told me that I couldn’t come
like we had planned. She was very upset. When I asked her what
was wrong she admitted that she was embarrassed to tell me that
her parents wouldn’t let me spend the night over her place
because I was Black. We were in high school. I see her parents
now, they’re friendly, they laugh and talk to me but they don’t
know that she told me the truth about that.

Karen, a Black female of middle class background remembers when she, along

with her sister, were the only Black children at her White friend’s birthday party.

Even though we had played together before and I had been at her
house, I was more uncomfortable at her birthday party. I think it
was because there was more of her family there. They didn’t
seem as welcoming. I remember feeling different and people
were looking at my sister and me.

It is interesting to contrast Derek, a Black male of working class background and Cindy,
a White female from an upper class background, both who came from cities on the west
side of Michigan. As Derek recounts the first time he was made aware of race:

1 went to middle school on the northeast side of town but I didn’t
live on that side so I had to commute to the other side of town.
Sometimes I had to cut routes through this really ritzy, upper
class suburb. One day I was coming home and these guys were
rolling in their car and they yelled out the window, hey you want
a banana? I looked at them and they started laughing and they
just pulled off. That’s when it really first hit me that there’s a big
difference in race. Up to that point, I knew that there were
different races. I knew that people saw each other as different,
had different stereotypes, but to actually see racism first hand like
that had never happened to me before. That’s when I started to
open my eyes that there are some people who really don’t like
me. They had a chance to knock me down or put me in a situation
where they made me uncomfortable. So that was my first
expenence.

218

Cindy:
The first time I was made aware had to do with an area around
our town that was low class, a poverty area and primarily Black.
My parents would drive around areas that used to be nice where
they grew up but were no longer nice. This was the only time I
saw peeple from different racial backgrounds. I was told these
areas were dangerous and I think I always associated poverty and
danger with being Black.

This is a powerful example of the racialized experiences around segregated
neighborhoods and how Black people are put in dangerous and inferior positions no
matter what they are doing. Derek is ridiculed and threatened on the way home from
school while Cindy is driven around and shown how dangerous Black neighborhoods are.
At Michigan State University, away from these contrasting neighborhoods and in
MRULE, Derek and Cindy end up in the same dialogue circle sharing these stories and
suddenly Cindy questions what was really going on while taking those drives. There is a
different context—Derek’s experience that was never considered when she was learning
about the poverty and danger of the Black neighborhood.

Anna, a White female of upper class background from another state had first
experiences that sent her the message that Black people and drug dealing were
synonymous.

I must have been 7 or 8 when my sister was dating a Black guy
from the north side of town whose family was really well known
for drug dealing. My dad is an attorney so my dad knew
everything that was going on. He knew that this person's father
and uncle and everybody under the sun around them were dealing
drugs. So I remembered my parents and my sister getting into
huge fights and my sister would say it’s because he’s Black isn't
it and my parents would say it has nothing to do with the fact that
he‘s Black. But because in our town to say that someone is
involved in drugs it was like synonymous with them being Black.

That's what I knew about Black people. Puerto Ricans came later
and the same was said about them.

21.9

Mark, a White male of working class background remembers racial jokes from family

members when he was a teenager. But that was not the first time he was made aware of

race as he recalls in the following passage:

When I was about seven, there was another kid in the townhouse
that was giving me a hard time and he was half-black and half-
white. His dad was Black and his mom was White. I told my
mom and she said ‘The next time he gives you a hard time, just
call him a half-breed’. That was one of the first things I
remember about race.

Brandon and Joanne, both Black students of middle class backgrounds remember lessons

on the Black experience being their first time made aware of race.

Brandon:

Joanne:

My mother let us know that we were Black boys and that society
would treat us differently because of that. My mother would
point out that people were following us, that’s what they do, so
don’t steal because they’re already watching you. When my
mom tried to move into an apartment with two Black boys, they
wouldn’t let her move in because they said Black boys were
trouble.

In elementary school, during history, there was the one chapter
on slavery, in the middle of the book. We went over it and then
moved on and my parents made it a point to tell me ‘we’ve come
a long way.’ My parents told stories about our family. We talked
about what we had to go through, we’ve made it far, but we’re
not there yet when it comes to racial equality.

Several Black students shared experiences relating to identity and where they

stood on a Black/White continuum dealing with issues of darkness and lightness and

what it means to be Black. Lisa moved from a working class to middle class

neighborhood in second grade.

I was born aware of race, the neighborhood I grew up in was
completely Black as well as the interactions 1 had within a Black

220

private school and in an all Black church. I was surrounded by
Black people. But I always had consciousness of race. I was very
moved by the media, especially advertising. I would watch
television, especially the commercials. You were supposed to
look like the person in the ad and no matter what I couldn’t look
like the person in the ad.

There is a picture of me as a baby. When I was first born I was
very fair and was told I had blue eyes. The doctors thought I was
a White baby. I looked like a White baby. When I became aware
of this fact, I hung on to that picture and I wanted to look like that
little girl and didn’t understand why the change had to happen.

My first memories are at two. I thought my mother was White
because she was light compared to the all the Black people
around me. I argued with her and she would tell me ‘No, I am not
White.’ But I really thought that she was and I wanted to be like
her because she was one of the prettier women in the church and
the prettier women to me were the ones with fairer complexions.
It wasn’t that I thought I was unattractive because of my brown
skin because there were many children who were darker than me.
But if I had had my choice I would have been lighter.

Tina, a Black female of working class background was fair skinned and remembers her

first experience as being labeled white girl.

As a child I was really fair. I mean I'm fair now in color, but as a
child with the things I did to my hair maybe I could have passed.
I don't have a specific incident where I remember being made
aware of race. I knew that I was the lightest of all grandchildren.
Oh all the time, the family would tease me. It was not to hurt me.
I knew that, even though they would always call me little white
girl. I was made aware when I was young that I was light. They
were all much darker than me. They would always made
insinuations about my hair and skin color. But nothing that would
hurt me. I laughed too.

Andre, on the other hand did not come away laughing when he was called “white boy” by

his friends.

I was playing football in the first grade. I was the lightest of all
my friends in the group other than the bi-racial kid. We had a
confrontation in the game and they ganged up on me and called
me white boy. They said I didn’t have the right hair. I went home

221

crying and my mom told me who I was and that there were Black
and White people in our family.

Charlene’s first encounter was one that made her question who she was.

I was ten years old. My cousin asked me “why are you acting
white?” I didn’t know what that was but I tried to act Black,
whatever that meant. I started to talk slang even though I had
never been taught to. It took a lot of work for me to be accepted
as Black.

Racial Identity: What it Meant and Means

Students offered several insights on the question of what it meant to be Black,
White, Asian American, and Latino. This question was asked in two parts—What did you
know as a child and what do you know now? Meghan, a White female from a working
class background, who attended a fairly poor school and is aware that her education did
not adequately prepare her for the university, still noted a difference between herself and
her Black friends.

I knew that I was treated better in school because amongst my
Black friends in school they would complain about being accused
of things that I wasn’t. The drug dogs weren’t in any of the clubs
that I was in. My Black friends didn’t hang out in school
afterwards. . .whenever there was a racial fight, people assumed
the Black kids started it. My friends knew me and didn’t blame
me for the treatment. I felt bad, maybe in one sense guilty
because I knew them as people and when they were accused
things that I didn’t see them as doing, I didn’t know what to do.

Paul, a White male of middle class background shared an experience that came up with
several students. Being White really didn’t mean anything. It just was.

I don't have a strong connection anywhere. I'm this White

American whose roots don’t go very far, that's how I see it. I've

always identified myself as White. . . I know a friend that would
say, oh yeah, I'm German in a situation where it seemed

222

advantageous. I've never really done that. That doesn't mean
anything to me.

Other White students who had similar responses:

Anna:

Cindy:

Rick:

I don't remember thinking about it. I think I just thought that
White is normal. We did all the Swedish holidays and stufflike
that. We would do traditions in our family.

I don’t think I knew anything about being White. I’m sure that
somehow I felt like 1 was better, maybe. Being White doesn’t
mean a lot to me since I came to college. I don’t think of it as my
own culture. I just know that being White is really valued in this
society. I do know how much it’s valued. I don’t love being
White, but I understand how it’s valued.

I never acknowledged my race. I could see that all the people in
my neighborhood were White and that people were scared to go
into Detroit that was Black.

When asked what they knew about being White since coming to college and

being in MRULE, there was in all cases an increased awareness of White privilege as this

following story from Mark illustrates.

My stepmother was shopping in a store where they have detectors
on the door that beep when you are stealing something. She was
with her daughter and they had two carts full of things they
needed. My stepsister wasn’t done checking out yet, but the first
cart was done and bagged, so my stepmother took it and said ‘I’ll
meet you out in the car’ and when she went through the door, the
alarm sounded. She looked at the security guard and he said
‘Don’t worry about it, the alarm system is haywire and it goes off
all of the time for no reason, just go ahead and go.’ She was
halfway to the car and she heard the alarm system go off again so
she turned around and looked and it was a Black male pushing a
cart that had less stuff in it than hers. All of it was bagged (not
all of hers was) and the cop immediately ran over and said ‘I
need to see your receipt: I need to search your this and that’.
Although I wasn’t there when it happened, when she told me
about it, it reminded me of similar things I’ve noticed. I wasn't
aware of this before I came to college.

Rick:

Ethan:

Now I can see the privilege. I can see it on a daily basis. I can see
when there is a boycott going on at the grocery store because of
racial profiling and the White students get angry about it, it
somehow offends them. They have no clue what it is like to be
distrusted because of skin color. They can’t fathom it.

Since MRULE, I know a lot about being White. I’m in
amazement about what Whites have done to others. The whole
concept of White privilege I learned here at MRULE. I never
realized how we really are—how that plays out because I never
have to wony about how to get a car, or get questioned by the
police. The perception that Whites are better than others. . .I have
to honestly admit that people really do think that way.

Erin is a White female of upper middle class background. She made continual discoveries

in MRULE about White privilege.

Of course now I realize how unbelievably privileged I was. I
went in and out of everywhere—every social circle, in and out of
every economic opportunity, school choices, job choices, career
choices with never a thought. I never really thought that the
reason I could do this was because I was White. I knew I was
doing these things but never linked my opportunities, economic
status—never linked these to White privilege.

To me socially it means I have a very large role/opportunity,
fueled with resources that I could make work towards a much
larger purpose than myself. Because I am White I will be able to
get into situations and revamp those situations that will affect a
larger pool—that I could not do in the same way if I were not
White.

This question had very different meanings for students of color. Julee discusses what she

knew about being Filipino.

As a kid, I just knew that my background was Asian. I didn’t
really think too much about it. I had the Filipino looks, but the
American attitude. Now, it means to me that I have a heritage and
a culture that I can look back on and find a stable foundation. It’s
not so much the race, but it’s the history. I know that my
grandparents had to work very hard to go to university in the
Philippines. If I had been here in the 205, I may have been

224

hanged or not even allowed in. If my parents had come here
earlier, they would have been working in a factory. I have a
history behind me that can sustain me, it gives me my strength.

. . “ . . ”33 . .
Teresa, who identifies as bi-racral spoke about the struggle to include her entire
experience when she thinks about who she is and what that means.

I guess it didn’t start to mean anything to me until I hit high
school. I really didn’t try to identify because I never really filled
out any forms that asked what I thought of myself as. I never
really sat down and thought about it and my mom never
discussed it. But when I did start thinking about it, I wanted to
claim both parts of me. Most of the time when I’m asked, I say
that I am biracial. The Latino side is part of my background even
though I’m not as close to it. People see that I know Spanish, I
know it because I learned it in school not because it was spoken
at home. I’d like to continue studying it.

For Black students, the question of what it meant and means today to be Black
was embedded in social consequences. Whereas White students could choose whether or
not being White meant anything, Black students focused more on the consequences and
responsibilities attached to being Black. Andre’s experience with what it meant to be a
Black male changed as he grew.

When I got older I noticed there were consequences to being a
Black male that I never knew as a child. The way Whites react
when they see a big group of us. . .my mom always warned me
about hanging out at the mall. She said the merchants would
think I was going to be stealing. “Be aware that your skin color

has consequences” she told me.

Brandon got similar messages:

 

’3 This is a contested term, particularly as applied to the Anglo-Mexican combination. Once aware of the
spuriousness of racial categories. it is difficult to align with the temiinology (Spencer. 1999). Latinos as a
racial/ethnic group are not commonly understood among students. They see Latinos as a race of people
even though we explain the traditional racial categories assigned within the wide diversity of Latino
peoples. For the purposes of this chapter, I use the temiinology that the students haven chosen to identify
themselves regardless oftheir sociological accuracy. Any biological accuracy is of course an utter fallacy
just as monoracial categories are.

225

For a Black male it meant that you were going to have it different
than everybody else. You are going to have it harder. You’re
going to have try extra hard to prove yourself. People will try to
hold you down.

Joanne’s parents worked at counteracting negative information about Black people in the
media and made her aware of their historical progress.

My parents told me Black people are not bad, despite what you
read in the media and the impression you get in movies and
music. It wasn’t always like that, Black people are good people.
I should be proud, not ashamed. I’ll have to struggle in America,
the road is not going to be easy, but it can be done. I can’t
always go by the media to make my conclusions about myself,
my education, my class, etc.

Derek spoke about the difficulties he knew that were associated with being Black in
contrast to his desire to just live life.

One thing I knew was that we didn’t have the best of situations.
We didn’t have the best of homes. I knew that the schools we
went to were nothing like the schools in the suburbs because I
went to a school in the suburb once and the school had computers
in the classrooms. From the books to the hallways to the lockers
this school looked totally different. I knew that Whites lived in a
better environment. I knew that there was some tension among
races, however I didn’t really see too much tension at home. By
watching the news, TV, that made me aware of some of the
things that were going on. All I cared about was my surrounding
environment. I lived there, that’s all I knew. Black people were
the ones I interacted with on a daily basis. That was my life.

Family Racial Thinking

These early racial experiences took place in a family, school, or community
context. I asked the students to consider what they remember about how their family
thought about race and if any incident occurred that they could recall. This would give us
more insight into the process of shaping racial thinking. In this regard, some students had

negative memories, some positive, but they were not as clearly cut along racial lines as

226

had been their first experience with race. In other words, in White families and in

families of color there were incidents that validated some version ofa racial hierarchy,

just as there were families who denied that hierarchy and tried to teach their children

racial equality. More often than not, students of all racial backgrounds reported

stereotyping as a central component of how their families thought about race.

Erin:

Andre:

My parents and I discuss police and welfare or urban education
and inevitably race comes up. There are no racial slurs even
though I know there are stereotypes harbored—stingy and rich
Jews, Blacks in the inner city who have to pull up themselves up
from their bootstraps. My father will say when we discuss
welfare programs that the economy is so good that there is no
reason why everyone should not have a job. I’ve always heard
that. There is no reason that you can’t pull yourself up. He’ll say
‘your mother and I did not start our well, we had to work hard’——
My father had to work long hours since he was 14. When I try to
bring up that it is not that easy and some of the conditions that
have interfered with Black people pulling themselves up, their
response is ‘because they are not trying hard enough’. I prod and
try to get them to look at the bigger social picture but it doesn’t
happen.

My parents have always made me aware that I am Black in a
White society. They cautioned: ‘Be nice to Whites but you have
to look out for your own interests. They’ll turn their back on you
in a heartbeat.’ They noticed I was hanging out with a lot of
White friends because I didn’t care who my friends were. We like
that you have these White friends but just be aware that they can
turn their back on you. This was their attitude when l was
growing up and it still is today because of what they have been
through.

227

Shana, an Asian Indian recently naturalized remembers that it was okay to be friends with

Blacks but not to marry them.

It was clear that my family would not want me to marry a Black
person. There was this stereotype that all Blacks were uneducated
and not worthy of Asian women. When my mom married a Black
man from Trinidad my grandmother was very upset. There was
much fighting between them. I had my own prejudices that I
never really analyzed until I came here and got into MRULE. I
adore my stepfather and have been able to change my frame of
thinking about many of these issues. It is not easy—the
stereotypes live on.

Renee, an intemational student had a similar experience.

It centers around seeing the good side of our people and the bad
side of other people. My family would not want me to marry
outside of our nationality. There are stereotypes of those who
don’t speak our language, have our name, or our accents. There is
a clear message about those ‘others’ that they are not as good.

Juan, a Mexican American from Los Angeles received several different messages about

people while growing up but remembers his dad as someone who reached out across

racial lines.

What I heard from older Mexicans was that Black people were
bad and that most crimes in LA are done by Black people (at
least the ones we know). My parents are not racist, my dad talks
to everyone and makes friends. I get it from my dad, this ability
to talk to people. I knew White people were rich, they had
money, some were good people, some weren’t. I knew that older
people were nicer than young people. I was in a community
service club and sometimes we worked with other schools. There
were Asians there and other groups but Whites never reached out
to us.

J ulee’s family was thoroughly diverse in and of itself and prepared her for openness to a

range ofpeople and experiences. Both parents are Filipino but there is significant

intemiarriage on her mother’s side. On her father’s side the anti—Black sentiment we have
seen on several occasions is overtly noted.

My mother’s side of the family is really diverse. My uncle is
African American, my godfather is Indian American, my other
uncle is Caucasian. So there’s no real discussion over diversity.
My father’s side of the family is all Asian and they are more
closed-minded because they’ve all grown up in all-Asian areas.
They’ve been told to stay away from African Americans.

John, a Black male from a working class background has vivid memories of how his
parents suffered. They harbored stereotypes about White people that came as a result of
racial animus that began when they were children.

I don’t want to say that my parents were racist because to be
racist is to think that one race is superior over another. But they
harbored some stereotypes. That was based on their treatment and
they conveyed that to us very clearly. My father grew up in the
South. His parents were Sharecroppers in Mississippi. My mother
grew up here in Michigan where schools were segregated. And
when they were finally desegregated White kids were meeting
them at the bus and telling them to go home. They conveyed this
to us. They weren’t appreciative of the treatment. As a child I
knew about people different from me, I knew a lot of the
stereotypes about White Americans. They were all negative in
content. As a child I really didn’t see some of the underlining
racial actions that I was exposed to. Like in particular, I was in
third grade with this really good teacher. He was always doing
neat stuff with his classes. I was the only minority in his class and
they pulled me out and they put me in class with one of the three
African American teachers in the school who I had already had in
second grade. I just wanted to be in his class. Everyone was
responsive to him. When I was in the other class, everyone was
rude. It was as different as night and day. I performed very well
regardless of the situation I was in.

Paul’s story is not uncommon for a middle class White family that did not harbor any
particular racial animus but did not necessarily find ways to act on their beliefofracial

equality.

In my family we didn’t interact with too many people of different
racial backgrounds. I know my dad worked with people from
different backgrounds but I didn’t and we didn’t often socialize.
We (as a family) didn’t have any best friends that came over for
dinner or anything like that. I had a best friend that was Black
and I know our parents knew each but they didn’t interact or
anything. My family always taught me to love everyone and that
everyone should be equal. We never had much interaction with
people from different racial backgrounds. I came from an area
that was White and that’s what we knew.

Meghan’s parents were divided on the issue as she observed both sentiments.

As a child I was just taught to treat people the way I wanted to be
treated and everyone is different in their own way. When my
stepfather came in the picture he was racist. I was eight. He
wanted us to move out of our house because our town was getting
“too dark.” Mom fought the issue—she liked it there and did not
want to leave. He let it go and at a later point suggested it again
to get a nicer home. We looked for a house but never bought.

Ethan feels he grew up in an open-minded environment, though both parents were not

necessarily on the same page.

My mom is open-minded. She works in a very diverse
environment and has an African American boss. My dad has an
underlying attitude, like he is one of the good old boys. If I were
to date interracially, I know he’d be more upset than my mom.

The discussion about how families thought about race led into incidents that students

remembered when a member of a different racial background was discussed or described

or a situation where interactions took place. Every student interviewed had a story to

share in this category so I selected a few that represent some of the most poignant.

Lisa:

My Mom would try and tell me there is nothing wrong with you.
. .you’re beautiful, there is nothing wrong with Black people. I
had friends, Asian and Mexican American friends. Some of them
I could go to their houses and some I couldn’t. My best friend

230

Julee:

Cindy:

Teresa, I couldn’t go to her house. We had to sneak because her
dad and grandfather didn’t want her to have Black people over.
One day we had this big adventure where we left school before
they could pick us up so we could go to her house. It was like we
ran away but we got caught in the rain. We were so scared that
we were going to get in trouble that we went back to the school.

My cousin is bi-racial, her father is African American. We’re
best friends, she’s two years older than me. There was discussion
about how she should be raised because she’s mixed. They said
that she wasn’t learning enough about our culture, no one was
teaching her Tagalog. They said that she was too American. ‘It’s
good for her to integrate and to have an easy life, but still, she
should know about us.’ My father’s family said that she was
Black and not Filipino at all. They talked about what it means to
be African, what it means to be Asian. There was a hierarchy, a
mentality, it’s really unfortunate, but that’s how they were raised.
My cousin is as Filipino as I am, it’s not like you can divide a
person. We had this family ritual, the entire clan would meet on
Sundays for dinner at this restaurant. We would have discussions
and I remember someone saying ‘she’s never going to be
Filipino’ and she ran out crying.

My father, (I have trouble saying this because to me, he’s a great
man) may have held a lot of prejudices about Blacks. Being a
judge, I remember asking him the ratio of Blacks to Whites that
he saw in his courtroom (deliquents and such). At first he told me
he thought there were more Blacks, but when he checked, he
found that there were more Whites. I think that that surprised
him. He used to joke around about it with me a lot, but there
came a point when he took it seriously.

He also had a really good friend who was in line for another
judgeship that had been working the courts, and everyone
understood that he was going to be chosen. Then the government
chose a Black man over this White man and it was a big uproar in
the courts. I knew that it really bothered my dad. They thought
that it was because of affirmative action because they said this
other man came out of nowhere. My dad was a lot more quiet
about it than he would’ve been if I hadn’t been in MRULE. Later,
when I talked to him about it we discussed that his friend was of
course qualified and he was hurt because it was his friend. The

Black man turned out to be a great judge and they are friends
now. My dad keeps on being surprised.

Heather grew up in a middle class family whose father got a significant raise when she
was still in elementary school. She expressed her complete frustration in family and
social circles where she always found herself defending racial equality. They would
tease her as being the only “liberal” in the family which translated into “you care about
all those other people so we should watch what we say around you.” They rarely did
watch what they said as Heather explains.

It’s just hard because a lot of the issues overlap. Whether it was
interracial dating or affirmative action, my parents were clear
where they stood. I would have been disowned for dating
interracially and my father felt affirmative action threatened his
job security when his employer was going through some
restructuring.

I remember so many times when I just started to cry at the dinner
table because I would be so_passionate about this and it didn’t
seem fair to me. I feel like it’s a no win battle. Even last night, I
went out with friends from work and it was just horrible because
the maintenance people that work there are primarily Vietnamese
and just hearing people talk about them. It’s so hard, but the same
time you’re sitting in this room with all these people and
everyone thinks it hilarious. I was very uncomfortable. Finally
one of my good friends said to me ‘this is really bothering you
isn’t it?’ I got up and left the room and I think it was good
because people looked at me and thought, maybe we should not
be talking like this. It is hard because you feel so outnumbered.

Kai, a Black female, not from the United States often discusses the difficulties she had
being accepted among Black Americans.

Well it was a big transition because like I said, I had racial issues
when I first moved here. I was not used to hanging out with
certain crowds because of they way they looked. I would hang
out with everybody. If you happen to have a good personality, I
would hang out with you. That was hard because there were some
groups of people who did not want to hang out with me because
of my race even though they didn’t know who I was, they had the
general stereotype which is why I had some problems. And I also

232

had problems with some of the African American groups here
and in my high school since a lot of them did not associate with
me. They thought I was trying to be White. They asked why I
don’t speak Ebonics and when they would speak to me and I
didn’t understand them, I would say, what are you talking about
and they would think that I was trying to act superior to them. So
I didn’t fit in with a lot ofthem. I hung out with only two African
Americans in my high school. I mostly hung out with the White
crowd. They accepted me. They would say ‘Oh she’s from
Africa; she’s not African American. She speaks good English.
They hung out with me because we had similar personalities. I
also had Japanese and Chinese friends. We had our little group
because we’re not from here; we had something in common.

The varied backgrounds of these thirty students provide us a window to see how

lived experienced in the United States is racialized. I will now discuss how these

experiences were brought together in MRULE. Students came to MRULE for several

reasons. Some sought the group out, others were dragged by friends, some were assigned

or encouraged by residence hall staff. Once there, something captivated them and made

them want to stay. To get an understanding of what these compelling features were, I

asked the question in two ways: What stood out to you and what surprised you about

what you were learning in MRULE?

What Stood Out to You?

Lisa:

The thing that stood out was that we had a diverse group of
Blacks and Whites—through the dialogue these White students
were able to have an experience with Black students that they
couldn’t have had otherwise. They would leave the meetings
knowing there wasn’t one Black opinion on a particular issue,
that they hadn’t just met one Black person, have one Black friend
and now they understand diversity and now they know how
Black people act. In a society where we are so segregated, a lot of
times people are looking for that one friend—to clue them in on
Black culture, how Black people think and act in this situation.
Then they think that they can go about their day feeling confident
that I can maneuver if I ever come in contact with a Black person.

233

Cindy:

Heather:

Tina:

Brandon:

Through the dialogues, they were able to see the commonality of
oppression and discrimination that Black people have to go
through. They could also see the different ways that is
experienced based on class, based on gender and based on
individual personalities because that does play into it.

I was surprised at what the Black students had to say. I was
surprised at how many stories they had about themselves and
their parents’ struggles. I was surprised by how much they were
still being harassed. All of this stuff that I had seen in history
books, was still here. I remember being upset with myself for not
having realized that.

First of all, the interaction with people that were different from
me stood out. That was the big thing because that’s what I
wanted. I knew I would have to join something that would force
me to do it because I wasn’t really going to seek it out on my
own time. And of course, all the other things, like the socials, the
trips. It sounded like a great group to join. I liked the openness
and honesty, it was what I was looking for in terms of education.
They weren’t trying to cover up anything and look pretty. . .I
liked it because it was real.

Before I became a member, I knew some other members; we
would often talk about the MRULE discussions in the cafeteria.
And people would get so heated up and rattled up and I didn't
even know such discussions were going on here. I just decided
that I would go to one and see for myself. The first meeting I
went to was on affirmative action and people were saying all
kinds of things. It was interesting so I came back.

Everybody who was there wanted to be there. They were
interested in the same things I was interested in. I liked the
dialogues that were discussed. It wasn’t just people saying how
great everything was, it talked about reality, that things are not
how they’re supposed to be. That was why I was attracted to it.

I\)
DJ
A

Renee:

Kai:

Joanne:

Andre:

What stood out to me was the openness, friends confiding in each
other. I never had that. In my country, we don’t speak openly or
honestly about these issues.

When you walk in the room, that’s the first thing you see. People
of different racial backgrounds talking together. It is not very
common, especially at this university. If you go in and see a
diverse group talking together and having fun, it really stands out.

We talk in the circle, but we also do things. We have trips, we do
community service, we sit together in the cafeteria. This is where
you can see segregation. When we eat together before meetings,
people look and wonder what we have in common, and we prove
our point by sitting together. The amount of honesty in the group
stood out to me. In the beginning, people are shy, but we talk
about everything and people share their opinions. The discussions
are structured, but anything goes when we are talking. You can
ask anything and not worry about offending anyone because we
are there to learn.

What stood out to me was the activism. I was involved in
MRULE for a short time and we did more than any other group I
had been in... we were doing things, not just talking about it.

What surprised you?

Shana:

Realizing my own prejudices, my own racist views and
stereotypes that I had of people. I remember thinking why
wouldn’t I date interracially? I was also surprised by how many
students I have met with severe issues—the racism and
stereotypes harbored are serious. They believe it, they perpetuate
it and they don’t understand the importance of understanding
slavery, how this country was built. It’s hard work to challenge
their thinking but that’s what we try to do in MRULE.

235

Kate:

Paul:

Charles:

Julee:

John:

I knew I was going to be learning things but it’s really about
whether or not you apply that to your lifestyle and I think that’s
where the surprise came in. I guess I didn’t know how it was
going to affect everything I do in my life. There are people who I
wouldn’t date because I know what their views are and I’ve
talked to them and they have hard standing views which I don’t
agree with at all. I used to let that slide before and now that’s a
much bigger deal to me.

I was surprised that I would be having such a strong connection
with people. Surprising how much I've changed in thinking. It's
not that I'm brainwashed. I just opened my mind to look at it
differently. My thinking is open now and I've been told about
experiences that are different from anything I’ve known before.
I've come away with a lot of things. I never would have looked at
White privilege or that there is some inequality behind the
system.

What surprised me the most was that I didn’t think I was going to
have that much fun with people from different backgrounds. I
remember when I was thinking about joining, I was thinking, this
is just another group trying to act like everybody is the same and
everything is equal. I just wanted to say my peace and leave. But
it ended up being very interesting and fulfilling.

I was surprised by what people say in the group. You see these
people and you make assumptions about what they are like and
then they say something completely different and it’s really
reassuring to you that you just can’t judge people by what you
initially think of them. The fact that people would come back,
even though they might have been offended or annoyed, with the
faith or hope that they could continue to communicate, even if it
might hurt.

That I’m not uncomfortable being around White people. I don’t
know if I can attribute it only to MRULE. It may be because I’ve
always spent a lot of time with White Americans. I always
questioned their sincerity though based on the teachings of my

236

Anna:

Lisa:

Heather:

Derek:

parents, until MRULE helped me step out of it. My ideas went
completely 180. . .I didn’t expect it. MRULE opened my eyes to a
lot of things, stepping out of my comfort zone.

I was surprised by how everything that I had taken to arguing
about forever was challenged. I just remember being in my
government class in high school and arguing that people just had
to work harder because that is what I was taught and I saw how
hard my parents worked. ReCOgnizing that structural inequality
existed was the most surprising thing to me. I could recognize
class privilege but I always had the idea that if people from other
races worked, they would get there too.

The first thing that surprised me was the program was real. When
I was dipping my feet in to see what MRULE was about—it
wasn’t fake. Since coming to Michigan there was an element of
phoniness with my relationships with my White friend and we
never dealt with race. There were a lot of people on campus that
never had interactions with anyone other than people that looked
like them—Black and White included. Well how in the world
were we going to have real discussions based on experiences? I
thought I knew everything. I had no idea how many issues I had
to work through and am still working through.

I was surprised by how immersed I became in MRULE. I
wouldn’t have said that I wanted to live in a diverse
neighborhood or work in a diverse school before this. And now
it’s such a priority to me because I see that it is those everyday
things that make a difference. I do not want to work in a school
that was like mine. . .I really don’t. Even when I’m done with
MRULE and I graduate, it’s going to affect the decisions that I
make.

What surprised me was that I could have a good time with
students of different racial backgrounds sometimes better than
with students of my own background. It surprised me that I had a
better time doing things with Mike than with Dray, who I’ve
known for a couple of years. Without MRULE, I don’t think I
would have been open to that.

237

Building on what stood out and surprised students about MRULE, I then asked them to

identify three things that they leamed—what about MRULE had they made their own.

Lauren, a Black female of middle class background:

Paul:

Charles:

Erin:

I realized that one person really can make a difference. By going
to meetings and by learning about these things I can go to my
friends when they are talking about affirmative action or
something else and I can share what I’ve learned especially the
historical background. Whereas, before I could just state my
opinion and have no real facts.

One thing I've learned that history is something that you have to
know and understand. There's history of oppression and slavery
but there are also people in history that worked together. We have
to know this history, all history to understand who we are today.

I’ve also learned that there is a separation between what I have
and what other people don’t and it’s because of where I’m from
and not who I am. It’s because I was born where I was.

I learned there needs to be more discussions like this about race
issues because it seems like I meet people everyday but they
really don’t know about Black people. We’re here everyday and
we see you everyday and you expect us to join you everywhere
even in this university, we join you and then even when we’re
here, I think they still expect us to come to you for everything.
Why don’t you come to us? Being in MRULE I realized that
until everything is brought in the open and discussed, there won’t
be any kind of resolution to it. I really liked working together
when we did the community service. When Black and White
people work together, Whites can see that I can do as much as
they can do. Maybe then they’ll start treating me differently, as
an equal.

1 am not the norm—l thought it was normal to go to a four year
university, have two parents, walk around malls with no
problems and to go in and out ofthe city with no problems.

Cindy:

Derek:

Ethan:

I learned so much. I definitely learned that the world that I grew
up with and my perception of it wasn’t correct or full. I learned
to be a lot more aware of how I thought about people and how to
be careful of the stereotypes and the prejudices that I still use. I
learned not be intimidated to talk about racial issues. I used to
think that I didn’t deserve to talk about them because I wasn’t a
minority, so what could I say about it? I learned it takes
everyone’s effort.

I’ve learned that a person, for example a Caucasian person, can
come from a racist family and still see an African American
person as a human being, as equal. I didn’t know that. I thought
that if your parents were racist basically you were going to be
racist as well

I leamed how to feel comfortable talking with people from
backgrounds different from mine. I’ve never really done that
before but that’s what we do and why we are here and now I’m
not uncomfortable at all. I’m not intimidated to ask about
another’s experience because from the interaction comes progress
and growth.

Jeff, a Black male of working class background:

I didn’t know that race and class and gender intertwined. I didn’t
know about how Blacks were systematically kept out of higher
cultural status. I didn’t know that women were oppressed. I
learned that to get the most out of my college experience, you
have to step outside of your comfort zones. I know a lot of
people who just live inside their own little circle and I’m more
comfortable going outside of what I know. I learned how
important history is, you always hear the cliche’ “if you don’t
know history, you are bound to repeat it”, but I’ve never been a
real history buff, I just did it. But I learned how important the
process of learning history was.

239

John:

We debunk a lot of stereotypes. And when I go home I have
dialogues with my family trying to tell them “look these are
stereotypes.” We talked a lot about stereotypes.

Tracy, a White female from an upper class background:

Rick:

Julee:

I’m a bit more ready to check people when they are making a
comment or a joke or just like a vibe or an attitude. Before I
would ignore it because I didn’t want to embarrass them or
myself for not having the information. I was scared that someone
would come back with something. Even if I don’t have all the
infomiation, I know that I’m ready.

I had to learn to accept racial categories. I found this to be
submissive to the system. To acknowledge the categories seemed
to agree with them. Spiritually and intellectually the ultimate goal
is to dismantle the categories but I had to accept the difference of
the day to day lived experience. The majority of Whites don’t
know anything about race. Those that say racism doesn’t exist
make it convenient to uphold the ignorance. People of color don’t
inherently have the knowledge either. We are all operating in a
system that leaves us no option unless we consciously fight
together.

I’ve learned that it’s always good to be open to what people say
and to give them the benefit of the doubt and not simply stick
little faults to them. For example, if someone says something
really offensive to you and disagreeable, you can’t just say ‘oh, I
hate that person right now and I always will.’ Being in MRULE,
you realize these people are coming from different backgrounds
from you and they’ve had these things hammered into their
heads. They’ve had things subliminally put into their heads, so
you really can’t blame people for what they think. It’s not
entirely their fault. Communication really is the difference. Many
of our problems today could be solved by opening up and
communicating to and learning from each other.

240

Renee:

It doesn’t matter who you are——-you don’t have to be Black to
care about racial issues. . .You don’t have to be an international
student to know what is going on in the world. You can make a
difference whoever you are.

MR ULE and College Experience

As MRULE participants took ownership of what they learned and began applying

it in their lives and in class work, they found that there were many ways that this newly

acquired knowledge had fulfilled or exceeded their expectations. I asked them to consider

three categories: Social relationships, academic challenges, and job/career preparation.

The following responses are samples from all categories.

SocLal Relationships

Derek:

But I know that in MRULE they were real honest and genuine
feelings. It wasn’t lies or people holding back their feelings. It
was actually an honest, open debate forum. Everybody talked
about how they really felt inside, the background that they came
from and some of the things that they had to deal with in the past.
One of the best things was the trip, the year we went to Toronto. I
had a good time. I never went on a trip with such a diverse group.
The fact that we bonded, watched a play, ate dinner, just totally
had me hooked on the idea that this should happen all the time,
not just in a group. I mean our society should be doing this more
often, even though I knew it wasn’t. MRULE really changed my
outlook my freshmen year. Which I think is key because your
freshmen year, you’re vulnerable to different groups and
organizations. And ‘I’m glad that I joined this group instead of
some others who had a more narrow-minded view on exactly
how campus life should be.

241

Tracy:

Lisa:

Meghan:

Heather:

The social relationships are learning about people. From the
roundtable discussions in MRULE, I became more ready to share
my opinions in group setting in my classes which are in
engineering. I never had an engineering background so I wasn't
really confident about my engineering and technical skills so I
never spoke up. From MRULE you realize that even if you don't
have a lot of information and knowledge, your immediate thought
about it can help the group. It can help you when other people
disagree with you or teach you what they know to fill the gaps in
your head. That's what I noticed immediately.

Even though I didn’t expect it, my social relationships soared. I
was able to meet people that were interested in working on this
issue and able to create friendships with Whites specifically with
who I didn’t have to be the exception to the rule. I didn’t have to
sugar coat the experiences that I have which have to do with race.
As an African American, that’s a big part of my life and if I have
to take that out of my relationship, it’s impossible to have
something genuine. I made friends with people from MRULE
and I was able to start to deal with real issues about race. I could
begin to me. I am Black and that means I have a different day to
day experience. I am not an example for Black people, I’m not an
exception. It’s a difficult balance for people to understand I am
Black—do not look at me as not Black. I used to have to hear that
you’re not really Black. I hate that. Now, that I understand what
that means I say no, I am Black and don’t forget it, I’m still great,
brilliant, and can be a wonderful friend.

MRULE built my social relationships and helped me to realize
that just because people aren’t from my background doesn’t
mean I can’t relate to them. I am not secluding myself to only
people who can relate to me because of a similar background.

Because I started to see all these different kinds of people when I
first got to the university, I thought I wasn’t going to make it
here. I felt uncomfortable and did not know what to say, how to
relate. I was scared to say the wrong thing. I was worried about
being too PC.

to
is.
to

Teresa:

Charles:

I remember coming in and being afraid of making friends. I guess
I was never really confident in myself in high school. People
would always say you’re easy to get along with, you won’t have
a hard time making friends. But I was really tense and iffy about
that. I mean I always really liked my friends back home but
people have told me that even though you’ll keep a friend or two
from high school, the friends that will be long lasting friendships
are those from college. MRULE helped me with this.

I made a lot of friends there in MRULE. I really like it for that
reason. People have scattered but I still e-mail some people. It
was a lot of fun especially the trips. I see people that are in
MRULE and we just hug each other and we’re tight. We know
each other basically. It was a real good learning experience
because coming here into a college, it’s very big, and it’s your
first year, it’s a way to make friends and learn from other peeple.
I think that it’s needed for freshmen, especially.

Academic Challenges

Erin:

Academically, HST 480 was by far the most challenging thing I
have ever done in this university. While at the same time, being
in MRULE and realizing even though I was, I wasn’t perfect, that
I had my own shortcomings in racial relationships. I had
shortcomings in my own thoughts and I was challenged
consistently with academic material that proved to me why I had
these shortcomings and what I was going to do about it. The
writing was so hard. It was so hard to express myself because I
knew that you knew me but you didn’t know why I thought what
I thought and it was hard to explain that without being ignorant,
which I was but I didn’t want anyone else to know that. The
class was the most rewarding and academically satisfying course
in the sense that in all one room I was given all the information
and how to get more information. There were people that totally
agreed, people that totally disagreed, people who completely
related to the text, people with no clue what the text was talking
about. And we all had to sit in small groups and go into combat
together, linking everything we had in our own experiences and

243

Anna:

Mark:

John:

our group experiences and the material and throw it back at the
group to try and wrestle with it. It was just a constant three hours
of a combination of anxiety, frustration and satisfaction. I wasn’t
the only one that was confused and there was satisfaction that at
times I knew what I was talking about when other people didn’t
and I could offer them that and they could turn it around and
offer me something.

The academic aspect has been weaved in so intricately with the
social aspect that you don’t really realize it is academic. I can’t
say this program fell short academically because I know I learned
so much that was in books and other things that would never be
found in a book that would still be considered academic. I wasn’t
aware at the time that that’s what I was learning. I look back now
and I realize that I know who John Brown is because of History
480 and MRULE and I know when MLK was shot because of
480 but I realize the effects of it because of MRULE.

The course of study that I ended up taking has been completely
shaped by MRULE. I had known a little about feminist
consciousness but I didn't have or I really didn't care about it.
Being in MRULE, I really became aware of the way gender
inequality, all inequality affects all our lives. Academically that
was the area of great challenge because there was so much I just
assumed. A lot of things that I had taken to be true were
challenged by the reality of other people's lives.

I came into MRULE and it began challenging the way I thought.
Affirmative action was the first one I noticed. I noticed it
because within the first month of school, I had a big argument
with someone over affirmative action. By the end of my
freshman year, I was arguing an entirely opposite side than what I
had been arguing and the person that I was arguing with was not
only using the same argument, but using the exact same words
that I used to use. So, the academic sneaked in there without me
knowing it.

As far as academic challenges it reiterated most of what I was
learning in sociology and it was in my second year when I
changed my major to sociology. I was also taking an ISS class.
MRULE reinforced a lot of the things talked about in class. And I
didn’t expect that. In class we would talk about theory. MRULE
made practical links.

Teresa:

Lisa:

Derek:

I think it helped especially in classroom discussions in my ISS
classes about diversity. It helped to correlate things. My classes
helped me get backgrounds on different social issues, which we
talk about in our MRULE meetings.

I definitely found MRULE to be an academic challenge my
freshmen year. It went hand in hand with my social science
course. There was the history piece, the scholarly piece and the
experience of people’s lives that really intensified the learning
experience. It would bounce back and forth. I’d hear something
in class that would hit me and then I’d go to MRULE and talk
about it. Or something in MRULE would remind me of class and
I’d take that back to class. So there was a relationship going on
between my course and the program.

I can’t really say it helped pushed me to strive academically,
however, it had some influence. For example, I feel more
comfortable to communicate and spend time and go out with
Caucasian and Asians students. Now, in my class, I would talk to
a Caucasian male whereas before I probably wouldn’t have said
anything. Just by me talking to someone can lead to a study
group or going out together. We exchanged notes and I learned
some different ways to take notes to study for the tests.

Job and Career Preparation

Terri, a Black female ofa working class background:

Andre:

MRULE challenged me personally to let go of stereotypes and to
look at people from the inside and not just by how they look on
the outside. That could be academic and job career preparation
because it’s something I will take with me into the workplace.

MRULE gets you to look at things differently. It is one big
leaming experience, preparing us to work in a multiracial society.
Having a better understanding of diversity issues gives me a
competitive advantage in the business world.

245

Mark:

Lauren:

MRULE influenced me to double major, to add a sociology
degree to my computer degree. Now after three years in MRULE,
I don’t want to be where I would have been had I stayed only
with a computer degree. I want to be in a community where
every other face I see is different in some way. I don’t want to be
in a community that is 90% white and 10% everybody else. I
want to be a part of what I have been a part of for the past three
years. I want to be a part of showing people what’s going on in
the world and that things aren’t as simple as they may think. I
want to continue doing what I’ve been doing in MRULE. I can’t
picture my life without it. It is so much more important than
anything else.

Every time I go for a job interview, somebody has asked me
about MRULE. When they hear about the program and about my
job as a student leader, they make a connection to skills working
with diverse individuals and groups.

To examine how well MRULE has imparted key concepts, I asked each to define

some of the more frequently used terminology. The terms were: Structural Inequality,

Social Construction of Race, Social Construction of Whiteness, White Privilege, Race,

Class, Gender Intersections, Multiracial Coalitions, Genuine Relationships, Leadership

and Activism. I explained that I was not looking for a right answer but rather how they

have come to understand the temis and what meaning they gleaned from them.

Throughout the discussion of temis, the most significant connections were made with

genuine relationships, leadership, and activism. I have selected a few examples where

students demonstrate a connection with the concept and their own understanding.

246

Key Terminology

The Social Constructioa of RE

Mark:

Anna:

The concept that race is not biological, but a social phenomenon.
It came about not because there are actual biological differences,
but because people picked out traits to distinguish people by. In
distinguishing these traits, they valued one trait over the other
and they assigned the traits to different races and it helped to
build structural inequality. It’s a social thing, it holds no
biological meaning. It is fluid, it changes as society changes.

There is no biological distinction between people of different
races. It’s a historical term and historical designation that carries
a certain connotation of privileges and lack thereof in the United
States and other countries. As far as I can remember the social
construction of race didn't occur until late 16005 in the United
States.

The Social Const:rl_rctior_r of Whiteaess and White Privilege

Erin:

Julee:

I realize whiteness more than my parents ever wanted me to. I
realized how much my family and I attained because we are
White. White is right—and something to aspire to. I saw it with
my Black friend who was considered more White than Black
because he was absorbed in our upper middle class environment.

There’s a colonial mentality (growing up Filipina) that the whiter
you are, the better, and I’ve had people come up to me and say
‘oh, you look so mestiza’, mestiza meaning mixed and it’s
supposed to be a great thing. Mestiza is synonymous with
beautiful. It really is White privilege because it’s saying the
whiter you are, they more privileged you should be. Here in
America, when you are born white, you have an easier time of
life. You’ll get a job faster, it’ll be a better job, you won’t have
any problems walking down the street if you’re in the right area.

247

Brandon:

The privileges of not being judged based on your skin color, not
having preconceptions made about you. It opens a lot of doors for
you. You never have to worry about your race, period. That’s
the biggest privilege. You arejudged on your merits only.

Genuine Relationships

Tina:

Charles:

Tracy:

Terri:

I think this is my favorite thing to talk about. It’s about how
comfortable you are with a person even if they are from a
different background. It's when you're not only friends with this
person but also you share certain beliefs, even if they are
different from yours. It’s not having to change how you would
normally engage. That's what genuine relationship is. I’m more
curious about that than anything.

Being close to people even though you’re from a different
background. You feel like you can say anything to each other
and no one gets offended. After you go through a certain point of
comfort, you really understand each other. It’s not fake. I met a
lot of people who are very open and they said what was on their
mind and I really learned from them.

The differences between actually being friends with people of
different racial backgrounds or being friends with them in order
to just have a token friend so you can tell others. Learning about
cultures isn’t enough. It takes more.

The real relationships where the person comes over to my mom’s
house. We hang out together, we go out together in public, not
just one big group or at work or go to lunch. It’s more personal.
The person knows things about me that other people don’t.

Leadership

Jeff:

I understand leadership as a service. You have to lead by
example. That’s something I have to work on.

248

Rick:

Lisa:

Derek:

Activism

Joanne:

Brandon:

Taking MRULE into daily life so people understand it’s not a
hobby, not just a way to kill time but it is something that I care
passionately about. Leadership is inspiring others to be
passionate.

Leadership is service. It is not necessarily fun. It is service. It is
challenging. There are heartaches. There are times when you
don’t feel like you want to do it but it is an opportunity for you to
assist, especially in this work, to try to change the world. Try to
improve the world we live in to make it be the best it can be. It is
a sacrifice.

MRULE is like an incubator where we are like seeds being
planted in society. We are the leaders who have to go out into
society and work for racial equality When I go home and tell my
mom things that I’ve done in MRULE, it’s like a seed being
planted. In my home I do try and change the views, not only of
my parents but also my brothers and sisters who want to go to
college eventually. Hepefully they will come in with a different
mind set than the mind set I came in with. I tell them you’re
going to have to interact with people from different racial
backgrounds and there’s nothing wrong with that. All the
stereotypes that you heard from the past, forget about those
because this is the real world filled with lots of different people
and everything doesn’t revolve around African Americans.

Getting involved for a cause because you want to, not expecting a
return, but feeling like you can make a difference. I could be
doing something else, but with MRULE I get an experience that I
can’t get anywhere else. You have to feel like you’re making a
difference, that’s activism.

Activism takes sacrifice. It depends on the person, little steps
and big steps are involved. If you truly believe in something, you
are going to go out of your way to make sure it happens. You are
willing to work for change, you are not satisfied with the status
quo.

249

Lisa:
You can never become comfortable—you have to always press
yourself to move outside the comfort zone. You have to take
risks. You can get the opportunity to be an activist in MRULE
but it is something that each person has to account for on a daily
basis. Once you become involved in MRULE and all your friends
are MRULE people then it ceases to be activism because that is
not moving out of your comfort zone. Just being out in public
with a diverse group and people seeing that model does do
something, but for me that is not enough.

Rick:
Activism is knowing and committing to working in the world—
knowing that the world is socially bigger than you.

To see how knowledge and experience converge in MRULE and to gauge
whether or not a spirit of activism has been enkindled, I asked students to consider their

future. The questions started out with a focus on what they will take away from MRULE

and ended with where they see themselves in five and ten years.

What Will You Take Away After Your Participation in MR ULE ?

Shana:

The knowledge that I’ve learned from MRULE is something that
will be with me for the rest of my life. It’s not something that I
can run away from and I’m very grateful for that. It’s an
experience I consider priceless and I would never change
anything. I definitely want to do more with this program here and
wherever I end up.

Lauren:
One thing that I learned is that you can't sit back. You have to
stand up and do something. I got a better understanding of
history. I can honestly say that MRULE has given me back my
love for history.

250

Charlene:

Andre:

Kate:

Julee:

Erin:

Anna:

I will take away my determination to know the truth about things
and not just accept what people say. I will do my own research to
find out the truth and know what people say is not necessarily the
truth.

I’ll take away a lot of knowledge, friends and a great overall
experience. I’m actually trying to do something to make a
difference. I didn’t just come to get a piece of paper—I’ll walk
away with the accomplishment that I was actively involved.

But the experiences from MRULE, both being a leader and even
that first year, the distance I feel I’ve come in terms of how my
lifestyle has changed, that’s forever going to be with me. The
leadership experiences will stay with me. I’ve incorporated
MRULE into so much and so many areas of my life, it affects me
everyday now.

I’ll take away more understanding because I came here and
thought I knew a lot. I came to MRULE and realized that there
are lot of issues within myself that I need to resolve and fix
before I start haranguing others with my opinions and that’s
something I’ll take away.

I will take away the combination of leadership skills I have
gained and learned from other people around me that were not
necessarily leaders. Education and academia and exposure that
came as a result of a conversation over dinner. . . the necessity
and drive to realize that I have to do something in every possible
way to work on social problems. The confidence to stand in front
of people, friendships that I never thought I would have and
friendships that I knew I would have on a whole new plane. I will
take away the appreciation of how much I have been offered and
trained and supported thorough all this.

I think I will be active in whatever community I'm in. I think the
biggest thing that I got from MRULE is the sense of personal
responsibility and that if I'm not helping here I should be doing
something somewhere. I've learned a lot about people from other
racial backgrounds that I would not have gotten had it not been
for MRULE.

251

Ethan:

Mark:

Karen:

Derek:

I think about MRULE when I go to sleep. The program itself has
changed the way I view life. I’m much more conscious and
aware. I can’t wait to keep growing.

I joined MRULE in the first three weeks of college, my entire
MSU experience is MRULE. I’ll take with me a lot more
knowledge and friendships. I’ll take away a new career.
MRULE is the reason that I have gone from where I was in high
school to where I am now.

I look at people differently than how I ever did before—I have
more of an understanding of where people have come from. I’m
not so quick to make a generalization or stereotype or knock
them for being different from me or anyone else. I’m always still
catching myself to not think in a certain way. If friends of mine
make comments about people from different racial groups, I call
them out on it.

I had a great time and not just because I partied and danced the
night away. I honestly met a lot of good friends who I know in
the future will communicate with each other and have long term
relationships. We will bring our families together.

Describe Yourself in The F uture—Five Years, Ten Years

Meghan:

Erin:

In five years I’ll be using my skills in MRULE, no matter what. .
.in my day to day contact with people. If I have children in ten
years, they will be raised in a diverse environment and educated
correctly about our collective history.

I will always live in the areas that I’ll be teaching in. That will be
my hardest adjustment to go from White flight, upper class
suburban sheltered America to an America that I didn’t know
existed. I could never be the teacher that commutes like I used to
commute into Detroit for the novelty of a play and then fly out to
my suburban safety net. Icouldn’t understand my students if I
only saw them eight hours a day. I could never understand them
if I only saw their world confined to a 20x 20 classroom and then
threw them out to their world and then went back to my world. I

252

would lose complete respect from them and appreciation from
them that in any sense I had the ability to link their world to the
larger picture. You can’t teach where you don’t live.

Tracy:
I don't know if I was aware of social problems except by being in
MRULE. That's where I started to realize that I didn't want to be
just an engineering major but also wanted to deal with these
social problems in my career. So I started looking into urban
planning. I’ll be doing grad school and looking into the
transportation field. MRULE definitely had an influence on what
I what to do with my major.

Andre:
I will have a steady job and my Masters degree. I would like to

be involved in my community. I don’t want to look back at my
college life and say “I was active back in the day.”

Closing Comments

The information collected with thirty interviews, twenty questions per interview,
totaled over two hundred pages of written transcripts. The passages I have selected to
include in most cases are ones indicating shared experience and clear similarities and
differences among the students. These vary depending on the lived experiences that are
affected by race, class, gender, and nation. It is apparent from the data that there are
several ways to analyze these shared experiences. Each story contributes to a rich pool of
information, inside views of racial thinking and behaviors throughout the lifetime of
these particular young people growing up in the United States and abroad.” The purpose
of this chapter has been to tell their stories, with a minimal amount of analysis to
complement the proceeding chapters on the interdependent theory and practice of the
living and learning experience. I have no doubt that I will continue to refer to the data and

glean insights for further analysis. As the chapter title states my greatest concern is to

253

understand how MRULE participation can inspire a spirit of activism within and beyond
college years. Once presented with a vision of social justice and the role of human
agency in social change, what do students do when they leave the university? As was
mentioned earlier, this will be the focus of a future longitudinal study. To date we do not
have enough students, nor have they been out in the world long enough to know anything
for certain. For now, we can report what we know of the career choices of the 1999 and
2000 classes. There are eleven students total between the two years. I have been in touch
with all of them at one point since their departure and have been actively engaged in

mentoring three of them as they work their way through future steps. See figure 2.

 

3" In addition to the two international students, two others have become naturalized US. citizens as young
adults so a total of four ofthe thirty interviewed grew up outside the US.

254

Figure 2

MRULE STUDENT ALUMNI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year 1999

Student Major Current Job

1 James Madison Social Relations Boy Scouts of America,

2 James Madison Social Relations Applying for graduate
school

3 Erlgineering Arthur Andersen consulting

4 Human Resources Peace Corps for one year,
now working in Social
Services in an employment
readiness program from
welfare to work. '

Year 2000

Student Major Current Job

1 Education Internship in Lansing
school district

2 Education Internship in Detroit
suburban schools

3 Interdisciplinary Social Science Peace Corps assignment in
West Africa

4 Sociology Applying for graduate
school in Urban Planning

5 Business Working in Chicago

6 Engineering Working in City
Government in
transportation

7 History Applying for Peace Corps

 

 

 

255

 

 

The Way Forward

The MRULE program is faced with several challenges as we strive to continue to
develop a scholar-activist, living and learning race relations model. This last section will
discuss some of these challenges in an action research paradigm. The student leader cadre
and l have formed a learning community that has been actively involved in shaping our
growth and development. With each new strategy we implement, we evaluate its
effectiveness. As I bring this chapter to a close, I would like to focus on how we see
ourselves meeting some of the most difficult challenges as we strive to establish MRULE

at Michigan State University.

How Unique?

I receive regular calls from people in universities around the country asking about
MRULE. They would like to know how it’s done, how effective it is, and how it fits into
an overall university diversity initiative. Inevitably, I am asked if there are other
programs like MRULE around the country. Of course I have no way of knowing what
every university is doing. However, I have done some digging and so far find MRULE to
be unique. More accurately said, MRULE has features that may be common to other
programs but are uniquely put together. Race relations dialogues are not unique in and of
themselves. Academic vigor offering students a comprehensive program to study race
and inequality is something many universities offer. Student life programs that
encourage community building among a range of diverse students are more than typical,
they are standard. What is unique is that MRULE brings these components together in a
context in which all elements operate interdependently. At times these elements work on

students when they may not be aware of it. The learning experience is often much richer

256

than they had thought once they step away from it. While Tracy was on a semester at sea
program, visiting countries around the world she came back to tell us how much her
experiences in MRULE meant to her abroad.

When I was studying abroad I met people from many different

schools. I shared my experiences with everyone about MRULE

and no one had a program like this. It seemed liked we were the

only one. It makes me question why there aren’t more programs?

I remember that when I first came to school, I didn't think that we

needed a group like this until the newspaper started covering

issues about racial tensions on campus. I was able to use what I

learned in MRULE in so many of the settings I found myself in.

Even when I was in MRULE I didn’t realize how what I was

learning would help me in other settings.

Still, as with any new and innovative initiative, we are concerned about
sustainability. The critical questions we must ask are how do we sustain student interest
and commitment and generate faculty scholarly contributions? How do we bring all three
components: facilitated skilled dialogue, academic vigor, and community/relationship
building to bear on a significant number of our student body so that the racial climate can
be positively affected? We know for example that there are many race-related problems
that take place on a regular basis on campus that we cannot always reach. Residence halls
remain targets for racial epithets placed randomly in bathrooms, hallways, and even on
individual doors (State News, March 3, 1999, State News, March 30, 2000.). There is
evidence of racial conflict among students who bring their animus to the university and
participate in racially segregated social worlds. Some students take pride in their right to
blatantly refuse to address the animus (Interview with Joanne, February 2001). Having an
MRULE group on campus does not protect every student of color from racist
experiences, be they on the streets, in the classroom or the residence halls. It does not

guarantee that we can reach a critical mass of students with our message of equity and

social justice. We remain faced with the challenge of translating the small and intense

257

learning experience into something larger without diffusing its power. One of the ways
we hope to do this is to work more closely with faculty who are willing to assign students
the opportunity to participate in MRULE as a practicum, coinciding with their course
requirements. This would insure a larger participant pool and would give us more of a
chance to challenge fixed notions embedded in racial thinking that can eventually lead to
racial incidents.

Another challenge we face on a regular basis is the potential for MRULE student
leader burnout. The job is very demanding for a student who struggles with a myriad of
concerns: financing their education, racial/ethnic identity, gender and sexuality issues,
but most importantly excelling in their academic programs. In some cases these
academic programs lack the inspiration and intellectual stimulation they find in the
MRULE weekly seminars and preparation to lead discussions. MRULE student leaders
are required to keep abreast of current social issues and make continual connections with
a social justice agenda.

In spite of the challenging work we engage in to prepare ourselves, we face the
consistent problem of attracting and maintaining student participation. This year in
particular, we have noted that it is becoming increasingly hard to find students who are
looking for or are available to participate in building community on a regular basis. They
may come out for a meeting if the title is appealing and they think it is a one-time
program. But to commit to something on a consistent basis taps into a whole other set of
priorities that many students are not willing to consider. MRULE student leaders who
have taken these steps and made the commitment find it extremely frustrating when they

cannot attract their fellow students. There is no doubt that we struggle to create student

258

activism in a climate where maintaining the status quo is the order of the day. It is a
perennial battle between apathy and activism.

This year we had an excellent opportunity to take our beliefs into the streets as we
took on the issue of defending affirmative action in higher education in support of the
University of Michigan’s admissions policies. It started with a march on April 12, 2000
on the University of Michigan’s campus where student activism brought to light that in
spite of the university’s practices, minority enrollment had dropped. This march led to a
National Day of Action on October l9"’where several national leaders and students from
around the country gathered to demonstrate their support for integration in higher
education. A message was sent that the public in Michigan would not sit back and allow
forces to dismantle the progress made through affirmative action in admissions. Speakers
discussed examples from California and Texas, the two states that showed a considerable
decline in minority enrollment as a result of the attacks on affirmative action (Orfield
1998). On several occasions we took students to witness the trial between the University
of Michigan Law School, the Center for Individual Rights, and the third party Student
Intervenors which took place in United States district court in Detroit. They sat in the
courtroom with some of the greatest scholars on race in this country: John Hope Franklin,
Gary Orficld, and Eric Foner to name a few. The opportunity to listen to these scholars
share their insights and research into why the United States remains a racially stratified
society, requiring remedial programs such as affirmative action was a privilege none of
us expected to receive. For many students, it will be the highlight of their MRULE
experience—the ultimate lesson in using scholarship to effect social change.

Despite this high point in our activism, we were disappointed by the lack of

concern for affirmative action on the MSU campus. For example we found that in several

259

MRULE roundtable discussion students thought they were against affirmative action but
didn’t know anything about it. Through the process of learning what it is, how it is used,
why it is still needed some students changed their thinking. But when we took our
presentation outlining the importance of history in understanding the current debate about
affirmative action into ATL classes, we came upon a good deal of apathy and in some
cases, hostility. Many students expressed with confidence that a pure and simple
meritocracy (the way it used to be back in the day before affirmative action according to
some ahistorical belief) was the only way forward. It became clear to us that much more
work was needed, that MRULE has a lot of ground to plow. It speaks to the need for us to
build alliances with other student groups, a goal we have been working on throughout the
year and have made some progress. It is our hope that the issues of integration in higher
education will attract many students from a range of backgrounds. Since this current
attack on affirmative action is expected to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court,
it is an immediate to call to students who want to expand the rights movement and
continually make their campuses inclusive. This is the platform that MRULE is using as
we dialogue with student groups, courses we are invited to speak in, and the individual
students who attend our meetings and programs.

The way forward for MRULE is continual focus on social justice and human
agency. This will involve, among other plans, to consistently and methodically build our
student leader cadre. This building process will tap into lessons learned from each
group’s experiences as they struggle to attract and retain a diverse group willing to take
the extra steps to work for a multiracial democracy, while upholding academic standards
using the motto: “knowledge is power.” It consistently requires the development and

refinement of dialogue skills so that the channels of communication remain open and

260

sincere. At the center of it all, lies a belief in the possibilities of genuine relationships that
transcend racial/ethnic/class/gender/age/sexuality barriers and inspire students to work
together. With unity in diversity as their watchword, students look to MRULE for the
support they need to take on the social issues of their day. We are successful when it is
understood that they are the social change agents responsible to themselves and their
community.
Heather:

I don’t really look at MRULE for what MRULE can do for me.

It’s more my responsibility than MRULE’S responsibility. It’s

totally the experience of what you make of it, it’s your

responsibility. I’m not looking at what they can give me but what
I can give to them. You get out of it what you put into it.

261

APPENDIX A

MRULE STUDENT EVALUATION-Spring 2001

We appreciate the time you spend filling this out. It is a very important indicator for us to
understand your experience in MRULE.

Name Local Address

 

 

Gender: Male Female

Racial/Ethnic Identity

 

ClassLevel:l 2 3 4 Major

 

Permanent
Address Phone

 

Please circle the number of semesters that you have been in MRULE? 1 2 3 4 5+
What semester/year did you join MRULE?
(Example: Fall/1999 or Spring/1997)

 

1. How would you describe the demographic make-up of your high school?

predominantly People of Color (over 60%)
predominantly White (over 60%)
Multiracial—more even distribution

other please describe

P-PFTP

 

2. We would like to know something about your friendship circles before coming to
MSU.

In high school: Mark the answer that most accurately reflects your experience.
A. Frequency (How often did you interact with people from different racial/ethnic
backgrounds from you?)

Not at all Occasionally Frequently

B. Those I considered my closest friends:
Majority different from me Majority same as me

C. Of those that were of different backgrounds please rate the degree of honesty and
openness by circling the answer that best describes:

Very honest and open Sometimes honest and open Seldom honest and open

D. How often would you talk about racial/ethnic issues and concerns?
Often Once in a while Not at all

E. Of those that were of the same backgrounds please rate the degree of honesty and
openness:

Very honest and open Sometimes honest and open Seldom honest and open
F. How often would you talk about racial/ethnic issues and concerns?

Often Once in a while Not at all

3. After participating in MRULE:

A. Frequency (How often did you interact with people from different racial/ethnic
backgrounds from you?)

Not at all Occasionally Frequently

B. Those I considered my closest friends:

Majority different from me Majority same as me

C. Of those that were of different backgrounds please rate the degree of honesty and

openness:

Very honest and open Sometimes honest and open Seldom honest and open

D. How often would you talk about racial/ethnic issues and concerns?

Often Once in a while Not at all

E. Of those that were of the same backgrounds please rate the degree of honesty and
openness:

Very honest and open Sometimes honest and open Seldom honest and open

F. How often would you talk about racial/ethnic issues and concerns?

Often Once in a while Not at all

263

4. How did you hear about the Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience?
Friend MRULE Student Leader
Students of my floor Residence Mentor
Flyer Heard about it in High School
Minority Aide AOP Residence Hall Brochure
Other (explain)

 

 

5. Why did you join the MRULE?

 

 

 

 

6. Before coming to MSU, had you been involved in a group or organization similar to

MRULE? Please describe:

 

 

7. Have you had the opportunity to discuss your experiences in the MRULE with family
members and/or friends? If so, please describe one such conversation and their reaction.

Please be specific.

 

 

 

 

 

8. When you reflect on the year, what stands out as the most positive aspect of the

experience and why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. What stands out as the least positive and why?

 

 

 

 

264

10. The requirements for this group are participation in weekly round table discussions,
monthly social activities, small group, semester field trip and community service. How
have each of these contributed to your knowledge and understanding of race relations in
your lives and on campus?

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 1. What are the benefits of each requirement?

RTD

 

 

Social

 

 

SmallGroups

 

 

CommunityService

 

 

Community Building
Trip

 

 

12. What are the drawbacks of each requirement?

13. Were any of your attitudes or beliefs challenged? Yes No

 

If yes, please describe the attitudes or beliefs, how they were challenged, and what the
experience was like for you. If no, why?

14. Please complete the following sentence to the best of your ability:
Now that I have participated in the MRULE program I intend to... (do what?)

265

15. What changes could be made to improve MRULE?

Roundtable discussions:

 

 

Activism:

 

 

Social Activities:

 

 

Small Groups

 

 

Community Service:

 

 

Community building trip:

 

 

16. As a result of your 2000/2001 participation in the MRULE program, what aspects of
your thinking and behavior have been challenged or changed.

0 Thinking:

 

 

 

 

 

0 Behavior:

 

 

 

 

 

17. Please comment on what you learned about leadership through interactions with your
student leaders. What qualities did you see that you admired that helped MRULE
develop?

18. What leadership qualities would you have liked to see more of?

19. Anything else you want us to know:

Thank you and see you in the fall!!!

266

APPENDIX B

MRULE STUDENT LEADER COMPETENCIES

MRULE Participation Continuum

One semester —> One year —> Two years ——>
(two years usually lead to three and four year commitment)

Student leaders are selected from the third year pool although in some exceptional cases
from the second year pool. The following list of competencies align with those who are
student leaders or who have remained with the program beyond one year.

0 Increased knowledge of historical and contemporary racial issues and realities

0 Increased vocabulary to understand and thereby discuss racial/ethnic issues*

0 Increased opportunities to change racial thinking i.e. experiences in MRULE
challenge what is brought from the home environment and what the university
environment tolerates and/or encourages and thereby change behaviors in meaningful
and durable ways.

0 More comfort/skills with having and leading constructive conversations/dialogue
dealing with controversial issues around race and culture

0 Increased understanding of racial code words and the impact they have on particular
individuals

0 Practicing the art ofdistinguishing actions of an individual from the behavior of a
group

0 Using individual relationships to break down stereotypes as opposed to creating “an
exception” to the stereotype

- Consistent interactions with a diverse group of people. . .so that it is eventually seen
as a norm rather than an exception.

0 Understanding that the process of creating unity in diversity begins with oneself—self
initiative and discipline

- Recognizing and experiencing leadership as service

0 Increased abilities to develop and sustain genuine relationships across traditional
racial lines.

*this includes a wide range, some examples: social construction of race, race, power, and
privilege, structural inequalities, current events around race and ethnicity, race relations
on college campuses, leadership and activism.

267

APPENDIX C

The Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience (MRULE)
Student Leader Seminar
Fall 2000

Objective: To equip student leaders with the necessary vocabulary, historical contexts
and theoretical concepts needed to engage as both discussion leaders and participants in
intelligent, factual, and comprehensive dialogues about race relations in contemporary
US. society. This semester there will be two student led modules: one on history and
one on intersectionality.

September 8

Week One: Introduction to Race Relations Vocabulary and Discussion

September 15

Week Two: History Module: Session One—Native Americans (Tiffany’s Module)

Readings Due: C. Matthew Snip, The First Americans.“ American Indians

September 22
Week Three: History Module: Session Two—Native Americans

Readings Due: The truth about Christopher Columbus, James Loewen

September 29
Week Four: History Module: Session Three—African Americans

Readings Due: African American History—Eric Foner—Expert Report for University of
Michigan law suit
http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/foner.html

October 6
Week Five: History Module: Session Four—Latino Americans

Readings Due: Ricardo Romo: “Mexican Americans: Their Civic and Political
Incorporation”

From: F eagin & F eagin: Racial and Ethnic Relations, sixth edition

Puerto Rican and Cuban Americans: pgs. 337-374.

October 13
Week Six: History Module: Session Five—Asian Americans

268

Readings Due:

“Filipino Americans”

Pauline Agbayani-Siewert and Linda Revilla

Pgs. 134-157

“The Other Issei: Japanese Immigrant Women in the Pre-World War 11 Period”
Evelyn Nakano Glenn and Rachel Salazar Parrer’ias

Pgs: 215-140

“The Entrepreneurial Adaptation of Korean Immigrants”Pyong Gap Min Pgs: 302-314

October 27
Week Seven: History Module: Session Six—Asian Americans

Readings Due: Rumbaut, R. “A Legacy of War: Refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and
Cambodia”

Takiki, R. “The Tide of the Turbans: Asian Indians in America” and “The Watershed of
World War II: The Myth of “Military Necessity” for J apanese-American Intemment”

November 3
Week Eight: lntersectionality Module: Session One: (Stephanie’s Module)

Readings Due: Introduction, Glossary, Timeline of Civil Rights Era

November 10
Week Nine: lntersectionality Module: Session Two:

Readings Due: Unit One--Intersectionality

November 17
Week Ten: lntersectionality Module: Session Three

Readings Due: Unit Two—lntersectionality and Black Power

December 1
Week Eleven: lntersectionality Module: Session Four

Readings Due: Unit Two con’t—Complicity and Agency

Evaluation

269

The Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience (MRULE)
Student Leader Seminar
Spring 2001

Objective: To equip student leaders with the necessary vocabulary, historical
contexts and theoretical concepts needed to engage as both discussion leaders
and participants in intelligent, factual, and comprehensive dialogues about
race relations in contemporary US. society.

January 19

Week One: The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. What did he leave us besides “I have
dream?”

Readings Due:

The World House from Where do we go from here: Chaos or C ommunity

Martin Luther King Jr.

January 26

Week Two: Review lntersectionality

Readings Due:

Hooks, b —Feminism as a transformational politic

Eng, P.-Warrior Lessons: An Asian American Woman's Journey Into Power

February 2

Week Three: Affirmative Action Teach-In

History, Current Statistics, Facts around the U of M case
Structural Inequalities—View True Colors

Readings Due:
Chin et aI-Beyond Self-Interest: Asian Pacific Americans toward a Community of Justice

February 9

Week Four: Racial Identity

Bi/Multi-racial identities

Readings Due:

Spencer, R. Multi-racial identity

Wardle, F. —Children of mixed race—no longer invisible

February 16

Week Five: Affirmative Action Teach-In (Continued)
Affirmative Action, Residential Segregation, Desegregation
Guest Speaker: Dr. Joe Darden

Readings Due:
Orficld, G.- Segregated Housing and School Resegregation and Toward an Integrated
Future

February 23
Week Six: The Social Construction of Whiteness (Kamala’s Module)

Readings Due:

Horsman, R. — Race and Manifest Destiny: The origins ofAmerican Racial An glo-
Saxonism

Barrett, J. & Roediger, D. -How White people became White

Frankenberg, R. - White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction ofWhiteness

March 2
Week Seven: The Social Construction of Whiteness (Kamala’s Module)

Readings Due:
Howard, G. We Can ’1 Teach What We Don’t Know

Spring Break

March 16
Week Eight: Race and the Criminal Justice System
View Film: Who Killed Vincent Chen?

Readings Due:
Delucchi, M. &Do, H. -The model minority myth and perceptions of Asian-Americans as
victims of racial harassment

March 23
Week Nine: Race and the Criminal Justice System (Continued)

Readings Due:
Davis, Angela-Race and C rinzinaliwtion: Black Americans and the Pimishment Industry

March 30
Week Ten: Jeanne’s Defense
No Seminar

April 6
Week Eleven—Race Conference

No Seminar: Friday, April 13.

April 20
Week Twelve—Final Seminar

April 27
Evaluations

271

APPENDIX D

RACE RELATIONS GLOSSARY FOR
DISCUSSIONS ON SOCIAL AND RACIAL INEQUALITY

iiiAFFIRMATIVE ACTION - a governmental policy designed to put teeth in the Equal
Opportunity Law by holding employers accountable for opening doors to women and
people of color who had been historically and systematically excluded from educational
and employment opportunities. What is important to remember is that Affirmative Action
is not a be all, end all to racism but an attempt to hold people accountable to support the
law of the land--EEO. When affimiative action is applied by an employer, it is applied to
candidates who have the necessary qualifications for the job.

filsCULTURE—the integrated patterns of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that
depends upon human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding
generations. Most anthropologists agree that culture is an “evolving process, always
changing, always fragmented product of negotiation and struggle that flows from
multiple axes of inequality” (Nagengast 1997, Appadurai 1996, Comaroff 1991).

H’s DISCRIMINATION — unequal treatment of individuals or groups based on
categorical attributes, such as racial, ethnic, religious, or social—class membership.

tit» DIVERSITY — a composition of a variety of different features, identities, and
elements. Often used in contemporary terms to mean people different from the norm.

7%" ETHNICITY - an affiliation to a group of people classed according to common racial,
national, tribal, religious, linguistic or cultural origin or background.

‘3?- ETHNOCENTRISM - the belief by members of an ethnic group in the centrality and
in many cases the superiority of their group and cultural patterns.

tit- HUMAN RIGHTS — rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and
execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.

tits INEQUALITY — the differences in treatment and/or resources available to members
of groups based on the features of identification of that group.

8% INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION — The belief by members of an oppressed group in
the stereotypes and distorted images that have been given to their group.

“:34 PARTNERSHIP — relationship built on mutual respect, understanding of equality

among parties, and cooperation to serve a commonly agreed upon goal or purpose. In
healthy partnerships, power is shared.

272

1%” POWER — possession of control, authority, or influence over others.

as PREJUDICE - an unfavorable attitude toward any category or group of people,
which is formed in disregard of facts.

Fir" PRIVILEGE — a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.

253% RACE - a socially constructed concept that is used to group people by phenotypic
differences, as well as imagined differences. Although this is not a biological reality, it is
sometimes believed to be, or treated as though it were. This belief or treatment has
tangible consequences.

1% RACISM — the belief in the superiority of one race over another and thereby the right
to dominance. (Lorde, Sister Outsider, (Freedom, Calif: Crossing press, 1984). Can be
acted by individual—every day acts or systemic and structural acts which spread further
and more powerfully through institutions—legal system, education, government,
corporate.

‘r‘i‘é SEXISM — the belief in the superiority of one sex over another and thereby the right to
dominance. (Ibid.)

it?» CLASSISM, AGEISM, HETEROSEXISM — follow the same line ofthinking as
above:

2%: CULTURAL RACISM — the cultural images and messages that affirm the assumed
superiority of Whites and the assumed inferiority of people of color.

251% RACIAL PROFILING — 1) the widespread practice of stopping individuals as
possible suspects because of their race or ethnic background. 2) “Profile arrest” is the
arrest of individuals that “look suspicious” require making categorical judgments that
clearly discriminate on the basis of race.

8‘4 RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY/ANTI-SEMITISM — prejudice or discrimination against
individuals based on negative perceptions of their religious beliefs and/or negative group
stereotypes.

2%: REVERSE RACISM - A term commonly used to describe racism and perceived
racism directed at Whites. This term is controversial because the creation of it implies
that racism directed at non-Whites is the norm. It is also problematic because it is often
used to describe affirmative action which is a corrective measure not a systematic
exclusion of a group of people

based on race.

“it" SCAPEGOATING — the deliberate policy of blaming an individual or group when the
fault actually lies elsewhere.

273

it: SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of RACE — a hierarchical system that assigns value to
membership in particular groups based on phenotypical/cultural attributes. The social
construction of race was needed to create racial/social stratification particularly since
biologically human beings are one species thoroughly diverse in genetic makeup within
phenotypically similar groups as well as among diverse groups.

is THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of WHITENESS — the social system created by
Whites for Whites, which upholds a world in which white is the norm and everything else
a deviation. Within this system white privilege reigns.

1% STEREOTYPE — a preconceived or oversimplified generalization usually involving
negative beliefs about'a particular group.

a: UNITY —— a totality of related parts: an entity that is a complex or systematic whole.
Organic Unity refers to the living, growing, changing aspects of human unity. Unity in
Diversity refers to a concept of unity that fundamentally includes diversity challenging
traditional notions that unity means sameness.

 

tit WHITE PRIVILEGE - An invisible collection of special provisions and assurances
that having white skin affords individuals in a society. The message that White is right,
good, and a symbol of success permeates American society and. White people are
deliberately made to be oblivious of this reality. This is reinforced by several cultural
patterns, one of the most widely spread is residential segregation which ensures that
Whites remain ignorant of the experience of people of color except through media
renditions.

tit WHITE SUPREMACY — the belief that white superiority entitles white people to do
whatever is necessary to maintain their systems of privilege and dominance.

a2?» SEGREGATION — the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by
enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by

separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.

All definitions are a combination from Merriam Webster, cited literature and my
own words.

274

REFERENCES

Adams, Rebecca G. & Allan, Graham, eds. 1998. Placing Friendship in Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allan, Graham. 1979. A Sociology of F riendship and Kinship, London: George Allen &
Unwin.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley
Publishing.

Andersen, M. & Collins, P., eds. 1998. Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology.
California: Wadsworth.

Anner, John. 1998. “Having the Tools at Hand,” In Race, Class and Gender: An
Anthology. Andersen, M. & Collins, P., eds. California: Wadsworth.

Aptheker, Bettina. 1989. Tapestries of Life: Women ’3 Work, Women 's Consciousness,
And The Meaning of Daily Experience. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Aptheker, Herbert. 1993. Anti-Racism in US. History: The First Two Hundred Years.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Bain, Bryonn. 2000. “Walking While Black,” The Village Voice, New York: May 2
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall
Bederman, Gail. 1995. “Civilization,” The Decline of Middle-Class Manliness, and Ida
B. Well’s Antilynching Campaign (1892-94)” We Specialize in the Wholly Impossible.
Hine, King and Reed, eds. New York: Carlson Press.

Blieszner, Rosemary & Adams, Rebecca. 1992. Adult Friendship, Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.

Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as A Sense of Group Position." Pacific
Sociological Review 1: 3-7.

Bobo, Lawrence, Kluegel, James. 1996. “Perceptions of Racial Group Competition:
Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to A Multiracial Social Context”

American Sociological Review: Albany. December.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward A Structural Interpretation,”
American Sociological Review: Albany. June.

275

Boot, Max. 1994, August 24. “Oppression Studies Go Corporate,” Wall Street Journal:
New York.

Bowen, William. 1999. “The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education”
(expert reports prepared for the University of Michigan lawsuits)
http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bowen.html.

----- with Bok, Derek. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Brecher. Jeremy & Costello,Tim. eds. (1990) Building Bridges: The Emerging
Grassroots Coalition of Labor and Community, New York City: Monthly Review Press.

Breene, T.H. & Innes, Stephen. 1980. “Myne Owne Ground ".° Race and Freedom on
Virginia 's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brodkin, Karen. 1999. How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says about Race in
America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Brown, Elsa Barkley. 1995. “What Has Happened Here?” We Specialize in the Wholly
Impossible. Hine, King and Reed, eds. New York: Carlson Press.

----- 1989. “African American Women’s Quilting: A Framework For Conceptualizing
and Teaching African American Women’s History” Signs: Journal of Women and
Culture and Society. Vol. 14, no. 4.

Cancian, Frances. 1996. “Participatory Research for Alternative Strategies for Activist
Sociology,” in Feminism and Social Change, Heidi Gottfried, ed. University of Illinois
Press.

Chang, Edward & Diaz—Veizades, (1999) Ethnic Peace in the American City: Building
C ommunity in Los Angeles and Beyond, New York: New York University Press

Chideya, Farai. 1999. The Color of Our Future. New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc.

Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

----- 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Cose, Ellis. 1993. The Rage ofA Privileged Class. New York: HarperCollins.
Crawford, Vicki, Rouse, Jacqueline, and Woods, Barbara, eds. 1993. Women in the Civil

Rights Movement: Trailblazers and T orchbearers, 1941-1965. Bloomington, Indiana
University Press.

276

Crenshaw, Kimberle, (1991) “Mapping the Margins: lntersectionality, Identity Politics,
and Violence Against Women of Color, ” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241-1299.
----- (1997) “Color Blind History and the Law” in The House that Race Built, ed.
Wahneema Lubiano, New York: Pantheon Books.

Daniels. Jessie. 1997. White Lies: Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in White
Supremacist Discourse. New York & London: Routledge.

Davis, Angela, (1971) “Reflections on the Black Woman’s Role in the Community of
Slaves” in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African-American Feminist Thought, ed.
Beverly Guy-Sheftall: New York: New York Press, 1995.

----- ( 1997) “Race and Criminalization: Black Americans and the Punishment Industry”
The House that Race Built, ed. Wahneema Lubiano, New York: Pantheon Books.

DeMott, Benjamin.l995. The Trouble With Friendship: Why Americans Can 't Think
Straight about Race, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Donati, Pierpaolo. 1995 “Social Change and Sociological Thought: Towards A Relational
Theory”, in Understanding Social Change in the Nineties: Theoretical Approaches and
Historiographical Perspectives, DePrada, Valentin & Olabarri, Ignacio, eds., Great
Britain: Variorum—Ashgate Publishing.

D’Souza, Dinesh. I995. The End of Racism: PrinciplesforA Multiracial Society, New
York: Free Press

DeVault, Margorie. October 1995. “Ethnicin and Expertise,” Gender and Society.

Duck, Steve. I994. Meaningful Relationships: Talking, Sense, and Relating. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

Dugger, Karen (1995) “Changing the Subject: Race and Gender in Feminist Discourse”
in Racism and Anti-Racism in World Perspective, Benjamin Bowser, ed. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Dummet, Ann. 1986. “Race, Culture and Moral Education,” Journal ofMoral Education,
Vol. 15, Number 1, January.

Duster, Troy. 1991. “They’re Taking Over! And Other Myths about Race on Campus”
Mother Jones, Sept./Oct.

Essed, Philomena. I991. Understamling Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Evans, Sara. 1979. Personal Politics: the Roots of Women 's Liberation in the Civil Rights
Movement and the New Left, New York: Knopf, Random House.

Farley, Reynolds, Danziger, Sheldon, & Holzer, Harry. 2000. Detroit Divided. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fernandez, John. 1991. Managing a Diverse Work Force: Regaining the Competitive
Edge. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Feagin, Joe & Sikes, Melvin P. 1994. Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class
Experience. Boston: Beacon Press.

Fitch, Kristine L. 1998. Speaking Relational/y: Culture, Communication, and
Interpersonal Connection. New York: The Guilford Press.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, (1994) “Difference, Diversity, and Divisions in An Agenda for
the Women’s Movement, in Color, Class, and Country: Experiences of Gender, Gay
Young and Bette J. Dickerson, eds. London: Zed Press.

Foner, Eric. 1996. “My Life as a Historian” in Historians and Race: Autobiography and
the Writing of History. Cimbala & Himmelberg, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters, the Social Construction of
Whiteness. University of Minnesota Press.

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
----- 1998. Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum.

Galtung, Johan et al. eds., .1997. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on
Individual. Social, and C ivilizational Change. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Giddings, Paula. 1996. When and Where I Enter: the Impact of Black women on Race
and Sex in America. New York: W. Morrow.

Gilmore, Glenda. 1996. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White
Supremacy in North Carolina, I 896—1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.

Giroux, Henry. 1993. Living Dangerously: Multiculturalism and the Politics of
Diflerence. New York: Peter Lang.

----- I997. Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: A Critical Reader. Boulder: Westview
Press.

Glazer, Nathan. 1993, Fall. “School Wars,” The Brookings Review; Washington.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1992. “From Servitude to Service Work: Historical Continuities
in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor.” Signs: Vol. 28, no. 1

278

Golden, Marita & Shreve, Susan, eds. 1995. Skin. Deep: Black & White Women Write
About Race. New York: Doubleday.

Gordon, Linda. 1999. “The Trouble with Difference,” New York: Dissent. Spring.

Gosset, Thomas. 1965. Race: the History ofan Idea in America. New York: Schocken
Books.

Gould. Stephen J. 1994. “The Geometer of Race,” Discover, November.

Gouldner, Helen & Strong, Mary Symons. 1987. Speaking of Friendship: Middle-Class
Women and Their Friends. New York: Greenwood Press.

Greene, Maxine. I988. The Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Griffiths, Morwenna. 1998. Educational Research for Social Justice: Getting off the
Fence. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gurin, Patricia. 1999. “The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education"
(expert reports prepared for the University of Michigan lawsuits)
http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/summ.html

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly (I990) Daughters of Sorrow: Attitudes Toward Black Women,
1880-1920. Brooklyn, New York: Carlson

Hacker, Andrew. 1992. Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. New
York: Scribner’s.

Hall, Jacqueline Dowd. 1989. “Partial Truths” Signs: Journal of Women and Culture and
Society. Vol. 14, no. 4.

Harding, Vincent. 1994. “Healing at the Razor’s Edge: Reflections on a History of
Multicultural History " The Journal of American History, Bloomington: September, Vol.
81, Is. 2.

Hartsock, Nancy. 1996. “Theoretical Bases for Coalition Building,” in Feminism and
Social Change. Heidi Gottfried, ed., University of Illinois Press.

Harvey, David. 1996. Justice. Nature and the Geography of Difference, Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publisher.

Higginbotham, Evelyn Brooks. 1995. “African-American Women’s History and the
Metalanguage of Race, We Specialize in the Wholly Impossible. Hine, King, & Reed, eds.
New York: Carlson Press.

279

Hine, Darlene Clark. 1992. “International Trends in Women’s History and Feminism:
Black Women’s History, White Women’s History: The Juncture of Race and Class.”
Journal of Women ’s History, Fall, Col. 4 No.2.

----- 1997. Hine Sight: Black women and the Re-construction of American history.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

----- 1998. Kathleen Thompson, Shining Thread of Hope: the history of Black women in
America. New York: Broadway Books.

----- 1994. “Rape and the Inner Lives of Black Women in the Middle West: Preliminary
Thoughts on the Culture Dissemblance” in Unequal Sisters: A Multi-Cultural Reader in
US. Women’s History, Ruiz & Dubois, eds. New York: Routledge.

----- 1996. “Reflections on Race and Gender Systems” in Historians and Race:
Autobiography and the Writing of History. Cimbala & Himmelberg, eds. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Hondaneur, Sotelo. 1996. “Immigrant Women and Paid Domestic Work: Research,
Theory, and Activism,” in Feminism and Social Change. Heidi Gottfried, ed., University
of Illinois Press.

hooks, bell. 1992. Black Looks: Race and Representation, Boston: South End Press
----- I995. Killing Rage, Ending Racism. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

----- 1998. “Feminism: A Transformational Politic” in Race, Class, and Gender in the
United States, ed. Paula Rothenberg, New York: St. Martins Press.

----- 1981. Ain ’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press.

Hunt, Darnell, 1999. OJ. Simpson: Facts and Fictions: New Rituals in the Construction
ofReality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hurtado, Sylvia. 1992. “The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict” The Journal
of Higher Education (Columbus, Ohio) v. 63 (Sept/Oct. '92) p. 539-69.

Hutchinson, E0. 1996. Beyond 0.1., Los Angeles: Middle Passage Press.
Ignatiev, Noel. 1995. How the Irish Became White. New York; Routledge.

Jacobs, Harriet. [1861] (1987). Jean Yellin, ed. Incidents in the life of a Slave Girl:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jordan, June, 1992. Technical Difliculties: African-American Notes on the State of the
Union: New York: Pantheon

Jordan, Winthrop. 1968. White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro,
1550-1812, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1983. The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the
American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

280

Kemmis, Stephen and Wilkinson, Meryvn. 1998. “Participatory Action Research and the
Study of Practice” in Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in
Education, Atweh, Kemmis and Weeks, eds. New York/London: Routledge.

Kerber, Linda & De Hart, Jane Sherron, eds. 2000. Women 's America: Refocusing the
Past, New York: Oxford University Press,

King, Martin Luther Jr. (1967) Where Do We Go From Here, Chaos or Community?
Reprinted in (1986) A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin
Luther King, Jr. Washington, James, ed. New York: Harper Collins.

Kraditor, Aileen. 1965. The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1890-1920,
New York, Columbia University Press.

Lash, Joseph P. 1971. Eleanor and Franklin: The Story of Their Relationship, Based on
Eleanor Roosevelt 's Private Papers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Laslett, Barbara & Thome, Barrie, eds. (1997) Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a
Movement, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Lerner, Gerda. 1997. Why History Matters. New York: Oxford University Press,.

----- 1967. The Grintke Sisters of South Carolina: Pioneers for Woman ’s Rights and
Abolition. New York, Schocken Books.

----- 1972. (Edited)Black Women in White America: A Documentary History. New York:
Vintage.

----- 1986. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.

----- I979. The Majority Finds its Past: Placing Women in History. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Levine, Arthur & Jeanette S. Cureton. 1998. When Hope and Fear Collide: a Portrait of
Today's College Student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Levine, Lawrence. 1993. “Clio, Canons, and Culture,” The Journal of American History,
Vol. 80, Number 3, December.

Liebow, Eliot. 1967. Tally's Corner: A Study ofNegro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little
Brown.

Litwack, Leon, “The Making of a Historian” in Historians and Race: Autobiography and
the Writing of History. Cimbala & Himmelberg, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Liu, Tessie. 1994.“Teaching the Difference Among Women from a Historical

Perspective: Rethinking Race and Gender as Social Categories,” Unequal Sisters: A
Multi-Cultural Reader in US. Women’s History. New York: Routledge.

281

Loden, M. & Rosener, J. 199I.Workforce America.’: Managing Employee Diversity as a
Vital Resource, Homewood, 111.: Business One Irwin.

Loewen, James. 1995. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History
Textbook Got Wrong. New York: Touchstone.

Lorde, Audre. 1997 [1984] “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”
In Through the Prism of Difference: Readings on Sex and Gender. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Lowenberg & Bogin. 1976. Black Women in Nineteenth Century American Life.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Mandela, Nelson. 1994. The Long Walk to Freedom: the Autobiography of Nelson
Mandela. Boston: Little, Brown.

Maynard, Mary. 1994. “ ‘Race’, Gender and the Concept of ‘Difference’ in Feminist
Thought” In The Dynamics of ‘Race’ and Gender: Some Feminist Interventions, Afshar
and Maynard, eds. Taylor and Francis: London.

McIntosh, Peggy. 1998 [1988]. “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account
of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies,” in Race, Class,
and Gender: An Anthology, Andersen, M. & Collins, P., eds. California: Wadsworth.

Merriam-Webster. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10’h edition.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Miller, David L. 1999. Principles ofSocial Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Miner, Barbara. 1998. “Taking Multicultural, Antiracist Education Seriously: An
Interview with Enid Lee” in Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, Andersen, M. &
Collins, P., eds. California: Wadsworth

Montagu, Ashley. 1997. Man ’s Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race. 6m edition.
Alta Mira Press.

Murchie, Guy. 1978. The Seven Mysteries of Life: an Exploration in Science and
Philosophy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murphy, Brian K. 1998. Transforming Ourselves, Transforming the World: An Open
Conspiracy for Social Change. London: Zed Books.

Murray, Pauli. I970. “The Liberation of Black Women” in Voices of the New Feminism.
Thompson, Mary Lou, ed., 87-102. Boston Beacon.

----- 1989. Pauli Murray-The Autobiography of a Black Activist, F eminist. Lawyer, Priest
and Poet. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Naples, Nancy. 1998. “Women’s Community Activism and Feminist Activist Research”
in Community Activism and Feminist Research. New York: Routledge

Omi, Michael & Winant, Howard. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From
the I 960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

Orficld, Gary & Eaton, Susan. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: the Quiet Reversal of
Brown v. Board of Education New York: New Press.

----- I998. Chilling Admissions. the Affirmative Action Crisis and the Search for
Alternatives edited by Gary Orfield and Edward Miller. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University.

Ortiz, Anna & Rhoads, Robert. 2000. “Deconstructing Whiteness as a part of a
Multicultural Educational Framework: From Theory to Practice,” Journal of College
Student Development, Vol. 41, no. I.

Ovington, Mary White. 1995. Black and White Sat Down Together. New York: Feminist
Press at City University of New York.

Painter, Nell. 1996. Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol. New York: W.W. Norton.

Palmer, Parker J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape. of a
Teacher's Life, San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

Paulston, Rolland G. 1976. C onflicting Theories of Social and Educational Change: A
Typological Review. Pittsburgh: University Center for International Studies.

Pedraza, Silvia & Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1996. Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race,
and Ethnicity in America. California: Wadsworth.

Pogrebin, Letty Cottin. 1987. Among Friends: Who We Like, Why We Like Them, and
What We Do with Them. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company.

Reagon, Bernice Johnson. 1998. “Coalition Politics: Turning the Century” in Race, Class,
and Gender: An Anthology. Andersen, M. and Collins, P. eds. California: Wadsworth.

Rest, James & Narvaez, Darcia. 1994. Moral Development in the Professions:
Psychology and Applied Ethics, Hillsdale, NJ. : L. Erlbaum.

Roberts, Bari-Ellen & White, Jack. 1998. Roberts vs. Texaco: A True Story of Race and
Corporate America, New York: Avon Books.

Roediger, David ( I999) Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American
Working Class, London: Verso

283

Ross, Joyce B. (1982) “Mary McLeod Bethune and the National Youth Administration:
A Case Study in Power Relationships in the Black Cabinet of Franklin D. Roosevelt” in
Black Leaders of the Twentieth Century, Franklin & Meier, eds. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Rouse, Jacqueline Anne, (1989) Lugettia Burns Hope: Black Southern Reformer. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1992. The Disunitin g ofAmerica. New York: Norton.

Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning
Or ganization, New York: Doubleday.

Siegel, Reva. 1998. “The Racial Rhetorics of Colorblind Constitutionalism: The Case of
Hopwood v. Texas” in Race and Representation: Affirmative Action, Robert Post and
Michael Rogin, eds. New York: Zone Books.

Selener, David. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Quito: Global
Action Publications.

Sidel, Ruth. 1994. Battling Bias. Viking, Penguin.

Smith, S., Willms, D. & Johnson, N., eds. 1997. Nurtured by Knowledge: Learning to do
Participatory Action-Research. New York: Apex Press.

Spalter-Roth, Roberta & Hartmann, Heidi. 1996. “Small Happiness: The Feminist
Struggle to Integrate Social Research with Social Activism” in Feminism and Social
Change: Bridging Theory and Practice, Heidi Gottfried, ed. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Spencer, Rainier. I999. Spurious Issues: Race and Multiracial Identity Politics in the
United States. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sobel, Mechal. 1987. The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in
Eighteenth-Century Virginia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Southern, David. 1987. Gunner Myrdal and Black-White Relations: the Use and Abuse of
an American Dilemma, 1944-1969. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Stack, Carol. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategiesf'or Survival in A Black Community. New
York: Harper & Row.

Steele, Claude. 1999. “Thin Ice: “Stereotype Threat” and Black College Students” Atlantic
Monthly, August.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1989. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

284

Stevenson, Brenda. 1996. Life in Black and White: F amily and Community in the Slave
South. New York: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, Anslem, Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Stringer, Ernest. 1996. Action Research: a Handbookfor Practitioners. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.

Takaki, Ronald. 1993. A Different Mirror. Boston, Little Brown.
----- 1998A Larger Memory: A History of Our Diversity, with Voices. Boston: Little
Brown.

Tatum, Beverly. 1997. “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together In the Cafeteria?
And Other Conversations about Race. New York: Basic Books.

Terborg-Penn, Rosalyn. 1995. “Discontented Black Feminists: Prelude and Postscript to
the Passage of the Nineteenth Amendment” in We Specialize in the Wholly Impossible.
Hine, King and Reed, eds. New York: Carlson Press.

Thomas, David & Gabarro, John. 1999. Breaking Through: The Making of Minority
Executives in Corporate America. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Thomas, Richard. 1996. Understanding Interracial Unity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Thomas, Roosevelt, Jr. 1991. Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your
Total Work Force by Managing Diversity. New York: AMACOM.

Walt, Vivienne, (1990) “Immigrant Abuse: Nowhere to Hide; Women Fear Deportation,
Experts Say”, Newsday, Dec. 2.

Waters, Mary. 1996. “Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only?” Pedraza & Rumbart, eds.
Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America. California:
Wadsworth.

Weber, Lynn. 1997. Feminist Sociology: Life Histories ofa Movement, Laslett and
Thome, eds. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Wedin, Carolyn. I998. Inheritors of the Spirit: Mary White Ovington and the Founding
of the NAACP. New York: Wiley.

Wellman, David. 1993. Portraits of White Racism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Welter, Barbara. 1966. “Cult of True Womanhood” American Quarterly, Vol. 18.
Summer.

West, Cornell. 1993. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon.

285

White, Deborah Gray. 1985. Ar ’11 ’t I a woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South.
New York: W.W. Norton.

Williams, Gregory Howard. 1995. Life on the Color Line: the True Story of a White Boy
who Discovered he was Black. New York: Dutton.

Wills, Christopher. 1994. “The Skin We’re In,” Discover, November.
Williams, Patricia. 1995. The Rooster's Egg, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williamson, Joel. 1980. New people: Miscegenation and Mttlattoes in the United States.
New York: Free Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged, The Inner City, The Underclass,
Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

----- 1996. When Work Disappears: the world of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.
----- 1999. The Bridge Over the Racial Divide. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.

Zack, Naomi, Shrage, Laurie & Sartwell, Crispin, eds. Race, Class, Gender, and
Sexuality: The Big Questions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Zinn, Howard. 1994. You Can 't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of
Our Times. Boston: Beacon Press

Zinn, Maxine Baca & Dill, Bonnie Thorton. 1997. “Theorizing Difference from
Multiracial Feminism”, Through the Prism of Diflerence: Readings on Sex and Gender.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Unpublished Documents:

0 Field Notes from MRULE Round Table Discussions: 1997-2000.

0 New World Associates: Diversity in the Workplace Training Course, 1997.
o In-house Racial Climate Surveys, 1996.

- MRULE Student Evaluations, 1997-2000.

0 Recorded interviews (all transcribed) with 30 MRULE participants, April, 2000 and
December, 2000.

286