CIA ~ A. ‘. r: r; t ‘ g a w I - TL‘; 5-- ."4‘ ..-.4,, 4..- 44 "mu“ .; r'u-ulu' ' WA 5 dog S‘i’Sfl5/vq LIBRARY Michigan State U“- U C a any This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Implementing a Curricular Framework in the Exploration of White Racial Identity presented by Anne M. Homak has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD. _ degree in HALE Jam Vflfl W” Major‘Professor‘s’ Signature (0/ 11/0; Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 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 NOV 1 8 2005 QSZE'DZ 6/01 c:lClRC/DatoDuo.p65-p.15 IMPLEMENTING A CURRICULAR FRAMEWORK IN THE EXPLORATION OF WHITE RACIAL IDENTITY By Anne M. Homak A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 2003 ABSTRACT IMPLEMENTING A CURRICULAR FRAMEWORK IN THE EXPLORATION OF WHITE RACIAL IDENTITY By Anne M. Homak The purpose of this study was to explore how White racial identity changes for college students during a sixteen-week diversity course. The central focus of the study concerned the incorporation of a five-step framework developed by Anna Ortiz and Robert Rhoads in 2000. This framework is intended to contribute to the enhancement of multicultural education. Students should come away with a better understanding of their culture and how to address issues of multicultural education. It is also intended to challenge students to think outside their cultural comfort zone and demonstrate to students that having a high regard for culture and a willingness to learn other cultures is advantageous. Findings from the study, derived through participant observation of a diversity course, analysis of written assignments, and individual interviews with class participants included three major interpretations. The three major interpretations that emerged from the data collection and analysis include: 1. Racial identity development is a complex social construct, whose process developed on an individual level and was based on exposure and experiences. 2. Participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addresses White racial identity and White privilege increased students’ awareness of their own privilege. 3. Multicultural education and understanding must be embedded in an understanding of one’s own culture and also how one’s own culture relates to others. Copyright by ANNE M. HORNAK 2003 DEDICATION This is dedicated to my loving husband, David, for his unconditional support throughout this journey. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” Our lives are shaped and guided by the way we handle matters of injustice and inequality. 1 am shaped by the ways in which my guides and mentors have given me a voice on important issues. I am most thankful to the students with whom I have had the opportunity to work on this important project. Their stories and voices have been an inspiration as I listen to the difficult time they have had with issues of identity development. I am especially thankful to Bernadette Friedrich for opening up her classroom to my research. Her willingness to be flexible with her curriculum and incorporate a framework that she learned along the way has been an invaluable part of this study. Bernadette has also facilitated my understanding of diversity through her inspiring and educational approaches to teaching. I have been blessed to have the love and support of my family. My husband, David, has been my rock throughout this process. His love and support of my work has guided me and given me the ability to persevere at the lowest of times. My daughter, Olivia, has also been a joy in her ever curious approaches to helping me with my work. My mother and father, Maggie and Howard, and my mother in law and father in law, Joan and Jim, have been supportive at every step of the process in their unwavering ability to keep me motivated. They always helped keep my goals in perspective and have motivated me to keep moving forward. My siblings, Bill, Dawn, Katie, Kristin, and Fields - their friendship, love, and support was appreciated when I needed it most. vi I am grateful to my colleagues in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University, Judy Cordes, Jennifer Hodges, Cynthia Sarver, and Regina Zmich for their support and guidance over the course of the last few years. They picked up the load for me on many occasions and also have been my friends when I needed it the most. I also am grateful to Tom Wolff; he has been such a supportive supervisor and mentor throughout this process. I value his expertise and judgment on many issues. I am also indebted to my dissertation chair and friend, Anna Ortiz; her dedication to the scholarship of multicultural education has been both inspiring and the foundation for my work. Anna is such a thoughtful scholar and champion of racial equality; I have been stimulated by her depth and dedication to the work. She has challenged me to think deeper and stretch myself as I develop my own scholarship. I am also indebted to Rob Rhoads who was the inspiration for this study. I have been fortunate to have a dissertation committee comprised of women who are dedicated to their work and the work of their students. Ann Austin, Maxine Baca Zinn, and Kristen Renn have greatly enriched this study through their scholarship, thoughtfulness, and encouragement during this process. I am also grateful to my fellow classmates in the HALE program, Pamela Eddy, Patty Farrell, JoLee Blackbear, Catherine Flaga, and Sonia Garcia. Their friendship and motivation has been invaluable during this process. I also owe a great deal of gratitude to Tim Gunn and Lisa Gnass. Their expertise and input throughout this process has strengthened my study and me personally as an emerging scholar. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of all the people who have written before me and continue to write on this important topic. If we do not talk about racial injustice we can never reach a point where all men and women can stand next to one vii another as equals. 1 am inspired and motivated by this work and the people listed above can share in the knowledge that they have guided me through this process. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Introduction Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study CHAPTER TWO: Critical Review of the Literature Introduction Racialization Social Construction of Race White Privilege The Invisibility of White Privilege Theory of White Identity The Problem Multicultural Education Models Gaps in the Research Framework of Multicultural Education Research Questions and Rationale CHAPTER THREE: Methodology Introduction Theoretical Constructs Research Paradigm Research Design Research Site Summary of Weekly Class Sessions ix I3 16 18 2O 26 27 31 32 37 39 40 40 41 42 46 Instruments used for data collection Consideration of Qualitative Findings Consideration of Human Subjects Data Analysis Future Chapters 54 59 60 60 62 CHAPTER FOUR: Findings from Classroom Observations and Written Work Introduction Who Am 1?: The search for racial identity Student’s Awareness of the Importance of Racial Identity The Negative Feeling Students Displayed Toward Others’ Racial Identities Sheltered Perspective and Knowledge about Others’ Racial Identities Definitions of White Racial Identity Students Perspectives on Difference Aversions to Contact outside One’s Own Racial Group Differentiating Privilege and Power How Language Choice and Use Impacted Racial Identity Development The Developmental Levels Students Reached toward Intemalizing White Privilege Awareness Acknowledgment Ownership CHAPTER FIVE: Findings from One-on-One Interview Introduction 63 65 67 69 72 76 78 79 83 86 89 9O 93 97 101 Who Am 1?: The Search for Racial Identity Student’s Awareness of the Importance of Racial Identity 105 105 The Negative Feeling Students Displayed Toward Others’ Racial IdentitieleS Sheltered Perspective and Knowledge about Others’ Racial Identities Definitions of White Racial Identity Student Perspectives on Difference Aversions to Contact outside One’s Own Racial Group Differentiating Privilege and Power How Language Choice and use Impacted Racial Identity Development The Developmental Levels Students Reached toward Intemalizing White Privilege Awareness Acknowledgment Ownership Developmental Analysis of Individual Interviewees CHAPTER SIX: Interpretations, Discussion, and Implications Introduction Racial identity development is a complex social construct and process developed on an individual level and based on exposure and experiences. Participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addresses White racial identity and White privilege increased student’s awareness of their own privilege. Multicultural education and understanding must be embedded in an understanding of one’s own culture and also how one’s own culture relates to others. Theoretical Implications xi 112 115 120 120 123 126 128 129 132 134 139 144 146 150 154 156 Implications for Higher Education Organize courses and coursework that challenge White culture- based curriculum Diversity courses and workshops should be conducted to look at White racial identity, in addition to the experiences of other groups Organize conversations around racialization and White colonialism Design courses and curriculum to educate and empower students to think critically about issues of racial injustice. Evaluation of the Framework Limitations of the Study Suggestions for future research Conclusions Literature Cited Appendices Appendix A- Interview Protocol for first interview Appendix B - Interview Protocol for second interview Appendix C - Interview Protocol for final interview Appendix D - Consent Form Appendix E — WRIAS Consent Form Appendix F — Course Syllabus Appendix G - WRIAS Pre and Post Test Results from Treatment Class Appendix H - WRIAS Pre and Post Test Results from Comparison Class xii 157 158 159 160 161 162 164 165 166 167 173 174 175 176 177 178 186 187 Chapter One Introduction Statement of the Problem In the summer of 1992, Los Angeles erupted into flames as four white police officers were acquitted on charges of beating Rodney King. The riot in Los Angeles once again deepened the racial divide that exists in the United States. While there have been various allegations about Rodney King’s character and his presruned role in the police chase, one fact remains certain: Four White police officers beat a Black man with such force that his injuries still haunt him ten years later. The riot that followed the verdict brought a major city to flames and made people across the country question how much race relations has changed in the past few decades. The Rodney King case and other high profile criminal and civil cases have polarized race relations in the United States. According to Takaki (1994), by 2056 Whites will no longer be the majority race in the United States. Most individuals “will trace their descent to Africa, Asia, the Hispanic world, the Pacific Islands, Arabia — almost anywhere but White Europe” (Takaki, 1994, p.2). This predicted change in racial makeup of the United States will have an impact on how individuals think of themselves and others in society. Many of the racial tensions that are played out in the United States exist because of ignorance or resistance to learning about other races, cultures, and ethnicities (Omi & Winant, 1994). Individuals often feel threatened by racial and ethnic differences. Rather than learning about cultural differences and the value diversity brings to a society, people view dissimilarity as something to be feared. Racial tensions and discrimination do not occur just between Blacks and Whites, but most racial issues do involve White people and people of color (Themstrom & Themstrom, 1997). Some of the major perpetrators and instigators of racist remarks and actions are White individuals (Omi & Winant, 1994) and White college students (Feagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996). The universalization of Whiteness has become a major problem in American society (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; McIntosh, 1989). The unearned privilege associated with being White is both oppressive and damaging to others in minority racial groups. Many White people do not see “Whiteness as a racial identity” (McIntosh, 1989, p.13), because being White has become the norm in society and a lack of consciousness exists about racial identity. Being aware of race and other racial groups does not automatically move an individual to a better understanding and recognition of race, but it can move a person more toward accepting the differences between races and better appreciating and embracing those differences. In addition, this recognition may reveal how his or her race may fit into the larger cultural mosaic of race and ethnicity. Colleges and universities have moved to incorporating diversity into several aspects of collegiate life. For White students, the majority group in academia, not having an awareness of race presents several concerns. If students do not see themselves as a member of a racial group, they may not fully understand the benefits of participating in multiracial activities and events. Students may have a difficult time understanding cultural constructs that are associated with being a member of a racial group (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). In addition, White students may not embrace multiculturalism and diversity activities and thus may further expand the gap between minority and majority groups in the United States. There exists considerable literature devoted to White racial identity development. However, there is a paucity of data in relation to White student’s identity development and their understanding of White privilege. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore how White racial identity changes for college students during a sixteen-week diversity course. The central focus of the study was the incorporation of a five-step framework developed by Anna Ortiz and Robert Rhoads in 2000. The five-step framework of multicultural education operates under the underlying assumptions that: ...Cu1ture is a misunderstood construct, but one that is key for helping students understand diversity and confi'ont their own racism; students in general and White students in particular have a difficult time identifying their own cultural connections; cultural diversity is a fact of life and efforts to build a common culture inevitably privilege the dominant culture; and Multiculturalism is a valued and desired view for students to develop (p.84-85). I This framework is intended to contribute to the enhancement of multicultural education. Students should come away with a better understanding of their culture and how to address issues of multicultural education. It is also intended to challenge students to think outside their cultural comfort zone and demonstrate to a student that having a high regard for culture and a willingness to learn about other cultures is advantageous. At the outset of this study the model had not been tested empirically; therefore the study I conducted tested the framework empirically and has provided more research on working with Whiteness and the unearned privilege associated with being White. My operating hypothesis was as follows: If we know how White students come to understand their own culture, we could begin to develop programs that address the notion of privilege and unearned power. The study was directed to answer the following question: How does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course? a. What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts? b. What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development? c. How effective are the activities generated by the framework? The proposed research design was a dominant-less dominant study (Creswell, 1994) involving a diversity management class at a mid-sized Midwestern community college. The dominant-less dominant study is a study in which a dominant paradigm is used for data analysis and one small component of the study is pulled from another paradigm (Creswell, 1994). The dominant design of the study was an ethnographic study observing a diversity management class. Ethnographies are used to . .describe the ways of life of humankind and the cultural basis of their people hood” (Peacock, 1986, p.25). The study attempted to capture and understand specific aspects of behavior (Rudestam & Newton, 2001) within a diversity management class and the impact of the curriculum on the development of racial identity. The data collection techniques were participant observations, individual interviews, and document analysis. The use of participant observations provided detailed descriptions of the students’ development in the course. The individual interviews were done at three different intervals during the course to enhance course observations. The analysis of students’ documents included written work and assignments turned in for credit. The less dominant piece of the study was quantitative and used the results of the Helm’s White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS) (1990) as a unit of analysis. The WRIAS was administered to the class at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of the semester. The pre-and post-test design was employed to assess the racial attitude development of students after being exposed to the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) for sixteen weeks. Constructing the study as a dominant-less dominant study allowed the researcher to have qualitative data to give voice to the critical issues involved with racial identity development and especially White racial construction. The quantitative data were used to provide baseline data to assess the effectiveness of the framework that the students have worked through in their curriculum for sixteen weeks, and the scores of the individual students were also used to select the six interview participants. In addition, the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) is known as a well- established measure of White racial identity. The goal of the framework is for students to deconstruct Whiteness and to explore the meaning of being a member of the White race. Having designed a curriculum that incorporated the five steps of the framework and observed how students experienced each stage of the process, I was able to identify patterns and relationships between educational intervention and White racial identity development. The study showed that it is important for students to understand their own identity and to understand that being a part of a multicultural society is more meaningful. For the purposes of this study, a glossary of terms that were used in the data analysis has been included. These definitions were constructed using a variety of perspectives used in the discourse on racial and ethnic identity. In the literature review, the language of the cited authors was used. C_ult_u;e: The customs, values, and traditions that are shared by a set of people and are learned from one’s environment. Diversig: Individuals with different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds as well as sexual orientation, gender, and language differences. Ethnicig: Pertains to people, especially a group sharing a common and distinctive culture. Multiculturalism: The existence, recognition, or preservation of varying cultural dynamics within a society. Multicultural awareness: The process of recognizing that racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity is a resource to be developed for the benefit of all individuals and society as a whole. Multiracial: Belonging to more than one racial identity. M: A dimension of human representation, based on phenotype and ethnic origin, a cultural, political and economic concept in society, not a biological phenomenon. m: A self-identified racial category based on phenotype and ethnic origin. White Privilege: A standpoint, and a set of ideas and social practices that tends to universalize Whiteness and particularize the race of others. Implies access to certain forms of preferential treatment, and exemption from racial oppression. A historically constructed form of racism that expresses, justifies, and binds together the US. White supremacy system. Whiteness: A personal sense of being White, synonymous with White racial identity. Therefore, Whiteness will be used in addition to White racial identity. White Culture: The collective culture of being White, the collective history, experiences, language, symbols, meanings, and traditions. There were three major interpretations that emerged from the data collection and analysis. The interpretations are: 1. Racial identity development is a complex social construct, whose process developed on an individual level and was based on exposure and experiences. 2. Participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addresses White racial identity and White privilege increased students’ awareness of their own privilege. 3. Multicultural education and understanding must be embedded in an understanding of one’s own culture and also how one’s own culture relates to others. The next five chapters in this study explore the literature, methodology employed, findings from the study, and major implications and interpretations of the data. Chapter two is an overview of the literature reviewed that provided an in-depth look at the relevant studies conducted on racial identity development, multicultural education models, White identity, and an in-depth look at the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Chapter three lays out the methodology employed in this study and the rationale for using this particular research design. Chapters four and five present the findings from the classroom observations and students’ written work and the one-on-one interviews conducted during the semester. The final chapter discusses the major implications and interpretations of the study. In addition, the limitations of the study are presented as well as the implications for higher education. Chapter Two Critical Review of the Literature Introduction The literature relating to and addressing racial identity issues and multiculturalism is ample. Scholars have researched these areas in a variety of ways and with multiple goals in mind. This chapter addresses what has been done in the areas of multiculturalism and racial identity as it relates to the hypothesis and goals of this study. The chapter will be organized under the following major themes: racialization, social construction of race, White privilege, invisibility of White privilege, theory of White identity, research objectives, multicultural education models, research gaps, multicultural educational framework, research questions, and rationale. Racialization Individuals and society at large in the US are increasingly influenced by race and the racialization of every cultural discourse (babb, 1998). Race in American society has not been defined in the same way as ethnicity (Takaki, 1994), even though racial and ethnic experiences are often observed and analyzed within a shared context. Some would argue that the biological features an individual is born with primarily define race. Omi and Winant (1994) define race as “a concept, which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to different types of human bodies” (p.55). This definition does insist on the presence of biological features in the formation of race but also the importance of social structures in the definition of human representation and identification. Historically, states defined race for individuals and categorized individuals into racial categories based on legal definitions (Omi & Winant, 1994). This has changed significantly, and now individuals may select their racial category, which may be tied to country of origin and ethnicity (Omi & Winant, 1994). Nathan Glazer, Daniel Moynihan (1963) and Thomas Sowell (1978) argue that ethnicity is more important than race when identifying individuals. Ethnicity is more than a biological fact; it is also a collective entity that depends on ideas, attitudes, and cultural practice as much as on skin color, eye color, and hair texture. Omi and Winant (1994) define racial formation as: ...The sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed. . .Racial formation is the process of historically situated projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized. [In addition] racial formation [is linked] to the evolution of hegemony, the way in which society is organized and ruled. Such an approach... can facilitate the understanding of a whole range of contemporary controversies and dilemmas involving race, including the nature of racism, the relationship of race to other forms of differences, inequalities, and oppression. (p.55-56) Omi and Winant (1994) continue by saying that racialization and racial dictatorship is the norm against which all US. politics must be measured and has had three large consequences: First, they defined “American” identity as White, as the negation of racialized “otherness” — at first largely African and indigenous, later Latin American and Asian as well. Second, racial dictatorship organized the “color line” rendering it the fundamental division in US. society. The dictatorship elaborated, articulated, and 10 drove racial divisions not only through institutions, but also through psyches, extending up to our own time the racial obsessions of the conquest and slavery periods. Third, racial dictatorship consolidated the oppositional racial consciousness and organization originally framed by marronage and slave revolts, by indigenous resistance, and by nationalisms of various sorts. Just as the conquest created the “native” where once there had been Pequot, Iroquois, or Tutelo, so it too created “Black” where once there had been Asante or Ovimbundu, Yoruba or Bakongo. (p.66) Historically, the theory of racialization has set apart ethnic minorities from European immigrant groups (Takaki, 1994). The immigration literature has been a great source for information on the formation of Whiteness in America and the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness. In American society, White has become the majority race and the race that, over the course of time, has become privileged and in power (Allen, 1994). It would be useful at this time to put into context the evolution of the White racial identity in America. There are many historical conditions that have fostered the creation of Whiteness and the norrning of Whiteness into America. This study is not a historical analysis of the creation of the White racial identity, but it is important to illustrate briefly how history has impacted the construction of the White race. White has historically denoted a racially privileged people (babb, 1998), but being White did not always mean being part of the privileged group. The identification of distinctive traits in individuals and groups of people dates back to prehistory and biblical literature (Omi & Winant, 1994), but the evolution of modern concepts of race in 11 societies did not appear until the influx of European immigrants to the US. (Waters, 1999). Ethnicity was also used to categorize individuals in many of the same ways and has been the primary way people were categorized throughout time. Immigrants from some European countries (Italy, Poland, and Ireland), though a majority of these individuals were White, were discriminated against and oppressed upon their arrival to America (Massey, 1998). These individuals physically appeared to be members of the White privileged race but were not because of their ethnicity and in some cases, their religion and language (Alba, 1990). These Irish, Italian, and Polish groups saw the privilege of belonging to the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) group and worked hard to become part of what these oppressed groups could see as the “ruling class” (Allen, 1994, p.247). They positioned themselves with powerful people, WASPs, and aligned their political identities with those in power (Takaki, 1994). In addition, the Irish, Italians, and Polish were helped when African immigrants and other immigrants of color began entering the US. in larger numbers (Omi & Winant, 1994). During the largest influxes of European immigration, race was used to both oppress and advance groups of people into positions of leadership and power or oppression and enslavement (Allen, 1994). The movement from being part of the oppressed White immigrant group into becoming a member of the powerful, White immigrant group redefined race. This was a definitive time in the modern definition of race. Racial formation is also an everyday experience that is played out in the form of stereotyping and generalizing individuals. Omi and Winant (1994) explain race on the micro-social level as: 12 Our ability to interpret racial meanings depends on preconceived notions of a racialized social structure. Comments such as, “Funny, you don’t look Black,” betray an underlying image of what Black should be. We expect people to act out their apparent racial identities; indeed we become disoriented when they do not. That Black banker harassed by police while walking in causal clothes through his well-off neighborhood, the Latino or White kid rapping in perfect Afro patois, the unending faux pas committed by Whites who assume that the non-White colleagues are less qualified persons hired to fulfill affirmative action guidelines, indeed the whole gamut of racial stereotypes - that “White men can’t jump,” that Asians can’t dance. Etc., etc. — all testify to the way a racialized social structure shapes racial experience and conditions meaning (p.59). Social Construction of Race Social constructivism as a theory is widely misunderstood. Using social constructivism to define an event or phenomenon means that the explanation or outcome will be different depending upon who is telling the story or giving the recount (Manning, 1999). The relationship between the individual telling the story and the event is never static or fixed and is mediated by the social position of that individual (Geertz, 1973). In addition, knowledge is a product of the relationship between the individual and the social position of that individual and the many coordinated activities that create the relationship. Knowledge is created in a social context and the meaning belongs to individuals (Gergen & Davis, 1985). Clifford Geertz (1973) describes social construction as “socially established structures of meanings. . .” (p.12). These actions can only be understood exactly by the 13 actor but can be interpreted by an onlooker. The meanings of events and actions are defined in the eyes of the actor and depend on social position, vantage point, and life experiences. When looking at historical events from a social constructivist view, the events are as accurate as the account given. Two individuals can describe the same event in different ways, both being factually accurate, and each description is unique to the individuals’ personal attributes, voice and ways of making meaning (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986). Race is constructed solely in social contexts and is not a biological category (Roediger, 1991). This allows race to be deconstructed and reconstructed at any time. Racial categories are neither objective nor natural, but ideological and constructed. Race is not so much a category but a practice; people are raced in society through upbringing, interactions with others and everyday life (Jones, 1997). The social construction of race is a modern expression used to define race and the place race has in modern society. Race as a social construct does not mean race is not real or that we can “just stop doing it” (Mahoney, 1997, p.305). In society, as well as in law, race has come to stand for several different concepts. Race is partly about culture, partly about skin color, but is insistently about domination (Mahoney, 1997). The meaning and construction of race has been contested in many ways and the reality that White is the dominant race in America, even though other races have had a great impact on the culture, remains the norm (Mahoney, 1997). Defining race as socially constructed means that using biological factors as indicators would no longer be applicable. Race becomes a way of understanding history, ways of thinking about self and others, and even ways of thinking about the notion of 14 culture (Frankenberg, 1993). Individuals define for themselves what it means to be members of a racial category. How an individual looks externally does not solely define race and classify him or her into a racial category. Individuals define and redefine for themselves race and racial categorization and the process is ever changing (Omi & Winant, 1994). Race as socially constructed means that an individual’s racial identity belongs to the individual rather than outside constituencies (Omi & Winant, 1994), but the outside constituencies create the racial reality and the importance of race in a social context. Viewing race as a social construct can also pose problems because America is a society that uses race to define and categorize people (Omi & Winant, 1994). In addition it is a construct that is ascribed to individuals by others. Race defined as a biological entity is an important part of how people communicate and interact with one another. Individuals choose to make judgments and assumptions about others based on racial features. Individuals may also choose to interact with or not to interact with others because of racial features or categorization. It is an unfortunate practice of placing values on different races in America, but this social practice takes place today as much as it did prior to the Civil Rights Movement (Feagin, Vera, & Batur, 2001). Society is critical in the formation of race as much as it is in the formation of gender. White people are “raced” just as men and women are “gendered”. Social construction plays a major role in the defining of race (Omi & Winant, 1994). Society also plays a role in the norrning of the White racial identity (Omi & Winant, 1994). As White individuals perpetuate their position of power and the existence of racially unearned privilege, racism will deepen and further divide White people from people of 15 color (Bowser & Hunt, 1996). Race, to many White individuals, is viewed as an “irregularity” (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 55), rather than a social structure that is central to personal beliefs and understandings of the social world. Race is posed as a problem because Whites do not see themselves as having race. White individuals often are afraid to address the issues involved in race and the construction of race. Americans would rather not talk about race than address race as something that defines how we live and interact with others (Themstrom & Themstrom, 1997). Omi and Winant (1994) also say that there are others who would like to abolish race and live in a race-less society. However, to rid society of racial categories would remove a construct that is central to individuals’ identity and also central in the understanding of the social world (Omi & Winant, 1994). Instead Omi and Winant (1994) and F rankenberg (1993) propose that we look at the role race plays in our fundamental understanding of our social world. White Privilege The literature defining White privilege and the problems associated with it are plentiful. There are many researchers and publications (Delgado & Stefanie, 1997; Helms, 1992; Lipsitz, 1998; McIntosh, 1989; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Roediger, 1991) that identify and address the existence of unearned White privilege. White privilege is defined by Peggy McIntosh (1989) as an “invisible package of unearned assets. ..[to] cash in each day. . .but ...were meant to remain oblivious” (p.1). The assets are “special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks” (p.2). White people benefit from these privileges on a daily basis. Some examples of the privileges that benefit White people are access to 16 quality education, employment opportunities, more credibility, quality and safe housing, products designed for White needs, access to networks and mentors, and being viewed as an individual first, rather than as a member of the White race (Obear, Dalpes, & Scott, 1990). This list represents a few of the advantages and privileges race plays for White individuals. Many privileges are invisible and only identifiable to people of color. Not acknowledging White privilege and the consequences of White privilege leads to racism and racist acts. White privilege and racism are clearly connected but also differ with respect to individual actions versus institutional situations. The sum total of all the individual acts of discrimination and harassment in which White people mistreat people of color is not the only definition of racism (Kivel, 1996). The accumulated effects of centuries of injustice have given racism and White privilege an institutional nature. There are many examples of institutional racism and how evident it is in institutions in the US. Past discrimination excluded students of color from institutions of higher education, which has forced students to play catch up in college and to take longer to complete degrees (Kivel, 1996). In addition, people of color make considerably less than their White counterparts as a result of years of discrimination and unequal employment opportunities (Kivel, 1996). Hiring practices have been an area where White people have been advantaged for hundreds of years. It was not until the affirmative action policies of the 1960’s that people of color were granted legal access to equal employment opportunities in both the private and public sector (Kivel, 1996). The spirit of the affirmative action policies of the 1960’s was to place real value on things such as race, ethnicity, gender, and disabilities. The laws do not lower standards for individuals who do not show potential to be successful but do make allowances for 17 individuals who have not been afforded the same opportunities as their counterparts due to various forms of discrimination (Kivel, 1996). The intent of affirmative action policies was to encourage fair hiring practices. Corporations and institutions of higher education should reflect the racial makeup of the US. Under affirmative action policies, minorities have the same opportunities for admission, federal contract funding, and employment as majority group members. Affirmative action policies have created a system where racial fairness is part of the hiring process and institutions are legally bound against creating formal barriers to employment for minority candidates (Themstrom & Themstrom, 1997). The Invisibility of White Privilege The invisibility of White privilege in society is played out everyday. Whiteness is taken for granted with no apparent need for group identity, but Whites practice group identity preference and often assign a group identity for Afiican American, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, and other groups of people. The notion of Whiteness as an asset is modeled to many White children at a young age (Helms, 1992). White children see a person of color and ask the parent about the difference in color. The parent quickly hushes the child and explains that people are different colors and you should not make them feel bad by saying something to them (Helms, 1992). The parent has just communicated to the child that they believe people of color feel bad for not being White and that White people feel bad for people of color. The parent modeled White privilege by not acknowledging color as an asset and discussing the unique differences in individuals and groups of people (Helms, 1992). This teaches the child that being White is an asset and being another color is a deficit and that we should not look at other colors 18 or talk about the differences. Rather, we should keep quiet and hide differences and that race should not be acknowledged. This lesson at a young age starts the cycle of White prevalence and the notion that Whiteness is the norm and all other races are unequal/lesser (Helms, 1992). There have been many writers who have discussed the consequences and invisibility of White privilege (F eagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996; Frankenberg, 1997; Helms, 1990, 1992; Lipsitz, 1998; Mahoney, 1995; Roediger, 1991) that exists within American society. The consequences of White privilege are quite visible on college and university campuses around the country. Many campus traditions and rituals cater to White students and the “best” spaces on campuses are used by White students or are mainly occupied by White student groups (Feagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996). Majority students often occupy first floor student lounges and lobby meeting spaces, making students of color feel that they have no space on campus. This notion of space may not even be physical space but the tone of the campus. In F eagin, Vera, and Imani’s (1996) study of Black 'students on predominately White campuses, the idea of space referred to the entire campus rather than identifiable spaces on campus. The . .campus reeked of Whiteness” (p.16) which referred to the overall character and tone of the campus. Many campuses have seen students of color protest and fight for physical spaces and meeting rooms on campuses (Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996). Students have also protested for more classes, programs, and library collections that address the diverse racial and ethnic histories of the students that make up the student body (Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996). This cycle continues past college campuses as people of color struggle to find basic products like shampoo, food, clothing items, cultural artifacts, and other items that 19 define their racial identity (McIntosh, 1989). Most White people do not have to worry about whether or not they can find a television program with people of their race widely represented, or if they will be treated differently for consideration of a job or promotion. The list of conditions that White people may never have to worry about addressing because of their Whiteness is extensive. The problem with not challenging these unearned privileges and powers is to perpetuate White privilege and universalize the White race, and thus the disenfranchisement of other groups. White privilege is an institutional, as well as a personal, set of beliefs that belongs to the group, bears no relation to whether one is a good person or not, is bestowed prenatally, and “allows us to overlook race in ourselves and to be angry at those who do not” (Kendall & Wickham, 2001, p.4). Since most White individuals have a difficult time describing how racial identity development has impacted their lives, it is not hard to see how White privilege becomes invisible. Since race is defined in this study as socially constructed, it is continuously being formed, transformed, destroyed, and re-formed and is not tangible (Omi & Winant, 1994). Racial development is an ongoing process and is impacted by external factors; it is also possible to hold several racial and ethnic identities at any one time (Waters, 1999). White individuals usually do not have many problems naming their ethnic heritage, but have great issues when defining their understanding of how their racial identity affects them (Helms, 1992), therefore making it impossible to describe how their racial identity is oppressive to others in the form of White privilege and racism. Theory of White Identity Development There are two main theories on the development of a White identity. Ruth 20 Hardiman (1992) and Janet Helms (1992) both have developed models that look at the formation of a White racial identity. Both models are based on general theories to provide frameworks for understanding the socialization and common life experiences of White people (Hardiman, 1992 & Helms, 1992). I will be using Helm’s theory to discuss White identity development and use her framework in this study. I have selected Helm’s model for various reasons. Helm’s (1992) White Racial Identity Attitude Scale was not created with the idea that practitioners or researchers would use the scale to diagnose individuals, but rather as a tool to assess the development of racial identity and how attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are affected at each stage of development. Helms (1992) contends that White people created racism in the 14008 when Columbus decided that the red-skinned people were property to sell, kill, and transport. This was exacerbated when the US. constitution was ratified to say that Black men were to be counted as three-fifths a person and therefore have no representation as citizens in a democratic society and White people could buy, sell, and enslave them. These events in history paved the way for White privilege and the universalization of Whiteness (Roediger, 1991). The strict racial classifications and rules about what rights and freedoms people possess have created and helped maintain the system of White dominance (Wright, 1995). Many writers and theorists have written about what Whites gain from White privilege and what Whites may lose, but most have not addressed the construction of Whiteness and how an understanding of this construction can be transformative in challenging White privilege (Mahoney, 1997). The construction of race, as described earlier, is defined through society in both collective action and personal engagement (Omi & Winant, 1994). Race is the central 21 axis of relations that define social, economic, and political policies (Hartigan, 1999). Being a member of the majority race would enable an individual not to see how central race is in defining himself or herself, both personally and in the larger context of society (Helms, 1992). Being a member of the White race means having society constructed around that person, enabling him or her not to view race as part of the process because for them it is normal and has been like this forever. The construction of racism is rooted in not addressing the benefits of being White and the privileges associated with the White race (Helms, 1992). The WRIAS (Helms, 1990) is designed to measure the attitudes associated with identity development. The scale helps people identify their attitudes about being White and their relationship to others who are racially different. The scale originated from Helm’s theory that looks at the development of a positive White racial identity (1990 & 1995). The scale has been subjected to empirical investigation and is oftentimes seen as the primary theoretical source for White racial identity development (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The scale was first developed in 1984, revised in 1990, and again in 1995 to investigate and theorize about the attitudes, emotions, and behaviors of White people regarding their own racial identity. Helm’s scale has two phases of White racial identity development and six statuses within those phases. The theory suggests that feelings, beliefs, and behaviors can be influenced by a person’s racial identity status (Helms, 1990 & 1995). The first phase is the abandonment of racism and the second phase is evolution of a non—racist, White identity. Within each of the two phases are three statuses. The first phase of abandonment of racism begins with the contact status and concludes with the reintegration status. The 22 second phase of the theory is defining a positive White identity. The phase begins with the pseudo-independent status and ends with the autonomy status (Helms, 1990 & 1995). The first status in the abandonment of racism phase is contact. Innocence or ignorance about race and racial issues (Helms, 1990 & 1995) characterizes a person at this status. People in the contact status oftentimes have limited interaction with people from other races, both socially and occupationally (Helms, 1990 & 1995). Individuals may stay in the contact status as long as they pretend race does not matter or that race is the only thing that matters. Once a White person consciously acknowledges Whiteness or that racism exists, he or she is oftentimes conflicted and leaves the contact status and enters the disintegration status. During the disintegration status the White person begins to question the racial realities they have been taught to believe, and the denial of race no longer is enough (Helms, 1990 & 1995). Confusion is the general theme of this status since this is the first acknowledgment of Whiteness and the meanings associated with being White. The individual also begins to see that there are certain benefits to being White and some of those benefits are membership in groups that share common cultural characteristics and association with the most powerful people politically, economically, and socially. The person in this status begins to see that being White has privileges, and those privileges are at the expense of other groups. The dilemma begins when the individual questions whether to subscribe to immoral social practices and continue to be loved and valued by other Whites or to consider how to give up privileges and set a higher standard for the treatment of people of color. The individual usually resolves this dilemma by resorting to a distorted view of reality and then moves into the third status in the abandonment of 23 racism, reintegration. During the reintegration status the individual is not only conscious of Whiteness but acknowledges that White is the superior race. People in this status begin to believe that the privileges and preferences associated with being White are due to them because of the inferiority with people of color (Helms, 1990 & 1995). People in the reintegration status are reintegrating their view of White entitlement and superiority both passively and actively. They are also reintegrating their White identity. Many White people tend to stay in this status for a long time, especially if their expressions are passive and they are not actively engaging in behaviors that are public expressions of White supremacy. It usually takes a major event, like moving to a community where the Ku Klux Klan is visible and active, or experiencing a perceived negative interaction with a person of color, to move them out of this status and into the second phase, redefining a positive White identity. The first status in developing a positive attitude about White identity is pseudo- independence. The individual’s continuing a positive White identity, but beginning to scale this back to more realistic and positive proportions marks pseudo-independence. The belief that White is the superior or perfect race is replaced by a new belief system to replace previous socialization. To replace old beliefs the individual begins to adapt a view that people of color can be helped through Affirmative Action policies and other special programs that will help them achieve the equal of Whites. This is a stable stage for most White people to stay in, because they will most likely receive positive support from other Whites who are looking for a new way to view Whiteness. Individuals in this stage also verbalize what they believe to be socially desirable, but most likely they do not personally believe it. But as the individual begins to realize that most people of color do 24 not want to assimilate to White culture and that Whites need to take responsibility for maintaining racism, he or she moves into the fifth status of immersion/emersion. In the immersion/emersion status the individual begins to actively question the role White people play in the perpetuation of racism historically and critically by examining what it really means to be White. The individual is uncomfortable with racism and begins to question his or her role as a member of the dominant group. The person in this status is abandoning the beliefs that Whites are superior and begins to actively seek out experiences to help him or her understand what it means to be White. During this status the individual is also seeking out racial and cross-racial experiences that permit him or her to develop a humanitarian attitude toward others, regardless of race. This quest for a better definition of Whiteness moves the person into the final status, autonomy. Autonomy is the final status where individuals “no longer feel a need to oppress, idealize, or denigrate people on the basis of group membership or race” (Helms, 1990, p. 62). Race no longer symbolizes a threat but an opportunity to learn about other cultures. The person at this status also begins to see the intersections of other forms of oppression, i.e. sex, class, religion, age, etc. Autonomy is the highest level of White racial identity, but it does not end there; Helms (1990 & 1995) argues that this is an ongoing process of development and education. Reaching the autonomy status of White racial identity does not change personal identity characteristics in a person; for example, if the person was ill- tempered before going through the racial identity development process, her or she will still be ill-tempered upon completion. However, ill-temperament will no longer be driven by racial or cultural constructs (Helms, 1990). 25 The Problem Being White is not problematic, but being White and not acknowledging that White is a race is problematic for both the individual and society at large. If White individuals do not see themselves as having race, it is difficult for them to become part of a multicultural environment. The racialization and construction of race in American culture has evolved over hundreds of years. Through all the construction and deconstruction of race, one thing has become evident; the White race has become the norm. The study of race has come to mean the study of people of color. Whiteness has been lost in the study of race and, actually, some would even argue that Whites have lost their sense of race in some regions of the country (Helms, 1992). Lack of consciousness about White racial identity is a critical issue when looking at multicultural education and integrating multiculturalism and diversity into our educational institutions and places of business. If White is not considered a racial category and treated as a racial category, it becomes easier for White students to take on the attitude of racial neutrality and continue to believe that race only belongs to others who are not White. The construction of Whiteness as the norm (Barrett & Roediger, 1997) raises issues about diversity and the role that White individuals play in a multicultural society. If White individuals do not see themselves as having race, how can those individuals come to understand what it means to live in a racially diverse world and how they have an impact on it? In addition, what does it mean to live in a multicultural world, and what attitudes, knowledge and skills are needed to be successful in that world? The problem then lies in how we are engaging in multicultural education with White people. Diversity training and multicultural training should be tailored to the 26 audience to which the program is being delivered. Most programs are designed to look at people of color and how White people can work toward more cultural awareness of differences and acceptance of those differences. Programs need to be designed to engage more White individuals in deconstructing, defining, and redefining their culture and race. Multicultural Education Models Many educational institutions and private sector businesses have engaged and are engaging in diversity training and multicultural awareness training. The issue of multiculturalism and awareness of diversity is widespread as the population in the US. changes at a rapid rate. By the year 2056, White Americans will no longer be the majority group (Takaki, 1994). This demographic shift is already having an impact on how multiculturalism and diversity are being integrated into the educational curriculum at all levels and becoming mandatory for employees in corporations and small businesses. Incorporation of multiculturalism into the curriculum is a common goal for many diversity task forces and other educational policy makers, but this is the not the only reason that we engage in this type of programming. Combating racism and racial prejudice is another main reason that corporations, businesses, and health care organizations have been diligent about diversity training and multicultural competency training. As the American population becomes more diverse, giving people factual information and exposure to other racial groups can decrease prejudice (D’Angelo & Dixey, 2001). Learning about other races and cultural attributes of people of color can be powerful in forcing White people to address their own racial attitudes (Faulkner, 2001). Educational institutions have been one of the leaders in developing multicultural programs and working hard to integrate diversity into the curriculum. Theel (1990) 27 developed a program in the Syracuse City School District that is designed to integrate multiculturalism into the curriculum. The program contains seven recommendations for inclusion: (1) every curricular area should be taught with a multicultural perspective; (2) field trips should be arranged to expose students to culturally diverse experiences; (3) school assemblies should be arranged around multicultural themes; (4) cognitive and affective domains should be the focus of multicultural classroom materials; (5) cooperative learning and group work should be integrated into lessons; (6) literature and readings should represent multicultural perspectives and experiences; and (7) a mentor program with culturally diverse community members should be integrated into the curriculum. Theel’s (1990) program is designed for middle and high school students to gain exposure to diverse individuals. Barger (1991) developed a similar program for integrating multiculturalism into the curriculum. This program was designed for high school students in West Virginia. The three-step program involves (1) evaluating one’s own level of cultural awareness, (2) identifying cultural bias in textbooks, and (3) integrating aspects of multiculturalism in secondary schools. The first step, evaluating one’s own level of cultural awareness, is necessary and can be an effective tool for looking at prejudices and stereotypes, but the program does not include a comprehensive definition for what it means to represent the different levels of the awareness scale. If students do not have a good understanding of their own cultural biases, it would be challenging and somewhat ineffective to have students look at textbooks for cultural bias. There are many textbooks that are laden with inaccurate cultural representations (Fritzsche, 1990) and analyzing those inaccuracies without a solid understanding of one’s own cultural biases would be ineffective. 28 Marrow (1967) and Winter (1971) developed similar programs designed to look at interracial encounters. The programs included structured group encounters where the underlying assumption behind the work was that racial and ethnic communications would improve and subsequently lead to positive action. The results of the group interactions did provide positive results; participants reported a reduction in interracial tensions and an increased capacity to learn about other races (Marrow, 1967; Winter, 1971). While the results from the group work were positive and participants reported an increased willingness and awareness of others, the burden of the work seemed to fall onto individuals of color. The minorities in the groups held the burden of teaching the White pe0ple in the group and the process further exploited people of color for White people’s purposes (Marrow, 1967; Winter, 1971). Another powerful tool that has been incorporated into some multicultural education programs is the idea of social constructivism (Gonzales, 1995). Gonzales uses social cOnstructivism to illustrate how individuals come to understand their environments. The program challenges students to look at how they make meaning in their lives, what their lives mean in relationship to others, and how the values and educational concepts they embrace are rooted in the meaning they make of their lives. King and Baxter Magolda (1999) also have a similar hypothesis that looks at how students’ cognitive firnctioning relates to their understanding of multiculturalism. While this study does not address cognitive abilities and ways of understanding (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule 1986; Baxter Magolda, 1992), it is important to take into account the cognitive level at which the individuals engaging in the program are operating. 29 Many of these multicultural education programs are designed to help students understand and appreciate cultural differences. The programs attempt to introduce participants to the ideals of a pluralistic society and the value of living in a diverse society. However, there are several shortcomings to these programs in multicultural education. First, many of these programs focus on minority cultures without a complementary focus on White culture. Second, they address the need for people of color to develop a positive sense of identity — the assumption being that Whites already have that positive sense of self. But Whites also need to identify themselves as White and feel good about it. Finally, many of these programs are mandatory, breed a sense of discontent, and discourage open participation. When individuals are forced to participate in programs in which they feel they have no vested interest, they will resist and participation will be mediocre. Another major shortcoming of many of these programs is that they do not address the notion of internal racist attitudes and prejudices. The programs do not address how an individual comes to identify himself or herself with a racial group and what that may mean for the individual in the larger context of diversity. Working with White students about their own racial construction should be the first step in multicultural education. Individuals from races and cultures outside the White race usually have a much better sense of their own race than White individuals (Helms, 1992). Before any multicultural education begins, individuals should look at their own race and the attributes that make up their race. This is especially important for White individuals who do not see that they have a race. If individuals see their race as invisible and believe that only people of color have race, it is hard to address the ideas that escalate racism and privilege (hooks, 1994). 30 It has been argued at many levels that multicultural education and multicultural policies are just rhetoric until they are actually put into practice (Campbell, 1971). The programs that were just presented are attempting to integrate into businesses and classrooms multiculturalism and the appreciation of diversity. While this approach is a good place to begin the quest toward the appreciation of cultural and racial differences, it does not go far enough in globalizing the issue. The populations that are exposed are quite small and most likely contain individuals who search for higher levels of knowing and understanding or are mandated by their employers to attend. The problem lies in moving a society, where Whiteness is the norm, to address the power and privilege of Whiteness and to embrace and foster diversity. Multicultural programming and diversity workshops can work toward these goals, but most programs do not incorporate White racial identity into the process of education and are remiss in addressing the issues that further polarize White individuals and persons of color. Gaps in the Research This brief review of the literature is just a piece of the knowledge that exists about the existence and consequences of White privilege. The gap exists in what can be done to address White privilege and to educate White students about their own racial identity development so as to enhance their multicultural competence. The Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework was designed to help White students increase their multicultural understanding. A major limitation of this framework is the lack of empirical testing of the model. This limitation appears to be widespread among many of the multicultural models. The theoretical underpinnings that guide multicultural educational models are primarily rooted in sociological and psychological literature. 31 Racial identity development can also be a political process that could benefit from analysis using the politics of identity literature and theories. Framework of Multicultural Education Anna Ortiz and Robert Rhoads (2000) developed a Framework of Multicultural Education to advance the “exploration and deconstruction of Whiteness” (p.81). The framework is a guide to help White students begin to see how their Whiteness fits into a larger multicultural framework. Much literature exists that addresses the complex issues students of color face in society, but there appears to be a gap in how White students fit into the multicultural mosaic (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The design of the framework is a five-step process meant to move students to the overall goal of multicultural education. The process is not linear, and the outcomes will vary depending on the cognitive development of the students and their willingness to challenge their own assumptions about race. Deconstructing and defining Whiteness is a key element of the framework. If students come to better understand Whiteness, they will come to understand the “inequitable universalization” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.82) associated with it. Deconstructing Whiteness means to gain knowledge not only about what it means to be White individually, but also about White as an ethnic group with common characteristics and cultural attributes. The first step in the framework is understanding culture. The cognitive goal in this step is to see how culture shapes people’s lives and how people shape culture. Geertz (1973) defines culture as “the basic unity of mankind” (p.36). Culture brings diverse people together; in this step; students are engaged in activities to help them see their own culture and the social construction of culture (Roediger, 1991). The beginning problem 32 statement reads: “1 see culture as something a society creates” and the end problem statement reads: “Culture is something I create, but that also creates me” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.86). The exercises in this step should help students to attain an understanding of how culture shapes them and how they shape their own culture. An example of an activity to help students understand how culture shapes them is to have students observe a setting on campus. The setting could be lunchtime in the cafeteria. The student needs to put together a list of questions that will guide the observations. What kinds of behaviors might they observe? Following the observations the students need to record their observations and reflections of what they witnessed. The larger group process should include having students look for norms and their origins, then asking did anyone violate these norms? This exercise should help students see how they are shaped by culture and how people come to know cultural norms (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Another example of an activity is to have students watch movie clips from an event that occurs in many cultures and notice the different rituals and behaviors associated with each event. Wedding clips or scenes from funerals fit nicely into this step because each culture has a different way of welcoming a new member into the family and saying good- bye. The discussion should revolve around critically looking at each event and noting the rituals and ceremonies that define the culture and how the participants are actively engaged in this. The second step in the process is learning about other cultures. This step involves a much deeper analysis of cultural awareness than simple exposure to other cultural groups. This step involves building enthusiasm and energy for learning about other cultures. The beginning problem statement in this step reads, “1 know that 33 differences between cultural groups exist, but the differences are only superficial.” The ending problem statement reads, “I understand that many cultural groups exist within the US. and each reflects deeply held norms, values, beliefs, and, traditions” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.87). The activities to facilitate the development of knowledge about other cultures can include attending cultural events and programs on campus and reflecting on the meaning of those events. Additionally activities include spending time with individuals of different cultures and establishing an ongoing dialogue. This activity also tends to increase students’ confidence about interacting with culturally diverse people and groups (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Recognizing and deconstructing White culture is step three in the five-step framework. The major goals in this step are to help students see that Whites have culture and that the White culture has been the universal standard to judge other races and racial identity (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The key that directs and informs the exercises in this step is the deconstruction of Whiteness. The lack of understanding of White culture is a barrier to achieving multicultural competence. Therefore, this step is critical. Deconstructing Whiteness is key to being able to challenge White privilege and promote multiculturalism. The beginning problem statement reads, “1 see culture as something that some have, but others do not” and the ending problem statement reads, “1 see culture as something that all people have” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.88). The educational activity designed to promote these goals is the analysis of White culture. The analysis of White culture involves listing on paper the ten most significant characteristics, adjectives, or statements that describe the White racial identity. The facilitator needs to establish rules at the onset of this exercise, for example, only one person can speak at a 34 time, no heckling, keep an open mind and participants must stay for the debriefing. Often during this exercise White students have a hard time identifying items for their lists because of the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness. They do not see these characteristics as being part of their White culture because they have taken them for granted. The exercise is interesting if there is diversity among the participants and the students can write what race they belong to at the top of the paper. Students of color oftentimes have an easier time identifying characteristics of White culture. Debriefing includes “reconnecting the purpose of the exploring White culture exercise with the larger goal of advancing racial and multicultural understanding” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.89). Step four in the framework is recognizing the legitimacy of other cultures. This step involves moving students from the general understanding of other cultures to the understanding that multiple cultures have a legitimate place in society (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The beginning problem statement reads, “I understand that there are many cultures, but we should agree on a common culture” and the ending problem statement reads, “1 see that many diverse cultures can co-exist including my own and that is a good thing” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.89). The activity is designed to help students move toward an understanding that many cultures should be valued. Students are asked to look at the impact of their own culture in shaping their lives. They are given a sheet with three headings on it, the first heading says, “Cultural Attribute”, where they list important aspects of their culture. The second heading says, “Contribution to Sense of Self” where they explain how each attribute contributes to their sense of self and how they feel about themselves in reference to others. The final column is entitled “Affects How I See the World by...” participants record how each attribute in column one may shape their 35 perception of self, other individuals, cultures, and societies (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The students should then be placed into small groups to compare attributes they have in common but should note how columns two and three are different as these explain how culture shapes individuals. The final step in the framework is developing a multicultural outlook. The cognitive goal in this step is to help students see that all cultures shape each other and that the inclusion of all these cultures requires the reconstruction of US. society (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The four previous steps have helped students define culture, learn about other cultures, recognize White culture and those privileges associated with it, and recognize the legitimacy of other cultures. This final step motivates students to take action in creating a multicultural society. The beginning problem statement reads, “1 value living in a society that is multicultural” and the ending problem statement reads, “1 can work to make society an equitable place for people of all cultural backgrounds because our vitality is intricately tied to one another’s” (Ortiz &Rhoads, 2000, p.90). This final step calls for students to take action toward the inclusion of diverse cultural perspectives. The activities encouraged in this step are on going and call for the students to analyze how their institutions shape culture. The activities include making office visits to different units on campus and analyzing their publications, engagement with students, connections with other units on campus, and the space they are utilizing. The students are encouraged to look for the ways in which diverse cultural expressions are present or absent and how the unit can enhance cultural inclusiveness (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). This framework is not intended to complete a person’s multicultural journey, but rather provide a stepping-stone to addressing prejudice and other social justice issues 36 (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The framework is intended to be one step in this journey by creating challenges and building on those challenges. The steps were specifically designed to begin at a less threatening place and move to more challenging steps like addressing White privilege and White racism (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Research Questions and Rationale Will students who better understand how they fit into the cultural mosaic of society be more willing to accept others who are different? The gaps in the literature exist when the impact and outcomes of educational programs intended to teach others about ethnic and racial cultures are not explored and when these programs fail to directly address White culture. While I see that intentional education about White culture and White privilege is not intended to heal all the racial injustices that have been created over time, I do feel that the more White students know about their culture and privileges the more willing they may be to learn and embrace others who are different. Educating White students about their own identity and privileges and the segregating effects of those privileges may help them see how they can work toward giving up some of those privileges. Understanding the unearned privileges associated with being White does not mean giving up upward mobility. It means White people give up oppressive power over others and make society more equal and just. Given the gaps in the research literature, this study asked the following question: How does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course? a. What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts? 37 b. What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development? c. How effective are the activities generated by the framework? 38 Chapter Three Methodology Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology that was used for this study. The chapter details the research paradigm, population of the research sample, instrumentation used for data collection and the rationale for selection of these instruments. The procedures for collecting data are described in detail, as well as the consideration of human subjects, and the procedures used to analyze the data. Copies of the consent forms, interview protocol, and the Helms White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS) (1990) discussed in this chapter are included in the appendix. This study observed a diversity course at a large, Midwestern community college, named Mid-Central Community College (MCCC), and tells the story of the development of White racial identity and the developmental issues that students face during the process. The study was also designed to provide more research on working with Whiteness and the unearned privilege associated with being White. The students were given the Helms WRIAS (1990) at the outset of the sixteen-week diversity course in which they were exposed to the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework and activities intended to teach multicultural growth. At the conclusion of the semester, the students were again given the Helms WRIAS (1990) to assess their understanding of their racial attitudes and privileges. The operating hypothesis was that if we know how White students come to understand their own culture, educators can begin to develop programs that address the notion of privilege and unearned power. The study was directed to answer the following question: 39 How does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course? a. What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts? b. What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development? c. How effective are the activities generated by the framework? Theoretical Constructs The Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework for multicultural education was the major theoretical construct being employed in this study. This framework was designed to contribute to the enhancement of multicultural education. Students should come away with a better understanding of their culture and how to address issues of multicultural education. It was also intended to challenge students to think outside their cultural comfort zone and to demonstrate to students that having a high regard for culture and a willingness to learn other cultures is advantageous. This model has not been tested empirically. Therefore the study I conducted tested the framework empirically and has provided more research on White racial identity development and the unearned privilege associated with being White. This framework was also selected as the theoretical foundation because Dr. Ortiz is the chair of my dissertation committee. Working closely with one of the authors of the framework allowed for clarification, as well as preservation of the theoretical goals. As an author she had the unique ability to assist with the data analysis process. Research Paradigm The research paradigm that this study falls under is the constructivist paradigm 4O (Lincoln & Guba, 1995). The constructivist paradigm states that knowledge consists of multiple understandings and interpretations. The meanings belong to the individual and constructions are subject to continuous revision and change as the individual’s position changes (Lincoln & Guba, 1995). The purpose of this inquiry was to understand and reconstruct the development of racial identity over sixteen weeks. The rationale for situating this study under the constructivism paradigm was because racial identity development is not static. The Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework was designed to deconstruct racial identity, mainly White racial identity, and help move students to a better understanding of diversity and multicultural education. Research Design The research design used was a dominant-less dominant study (Creswell, 1994). The dominant-less dominant design was used because a majority of the data collected was gathered through qualitative methods and a smaller piece of the data collected was quantitative in nature. The qualitative data was ethnographic in nature and was gathered from participant observations and individual interviews. The rationale for choosing participant observation was to attempt to capture and understand specific aspects of White racial identity development by observing patterns of behavior (Rudestam & Newton, 2001) in a diversity course over sixteen weeks. The quantitative data was generated from the results of the WRIAS (1990), which was given as a pre-and posttest to both the primary research class and a comparison class. The advantages to using this design was having the in-depth observation data to give detailed descriptions of the students being studied and also having a larger sample that did not undergo the same treatment for comparison. 41 Research Site The class, Diversity in the Workplace, A Domestic and Global Perspective course at MCCC was the site for data collection. The course is required for students seeking an Associate’s Degree in Business and is taught during all three semesters MCCC offers courses. The average size of the course each semester is twenty-five to thirty students and is taught by both full-time and adjunct MCCC faculty. The individuals teaching the course have been students in the course prior to teaching and are also required to meet with other course instructors as a form of professional development. The course that I studied was taught at a branch campus of MCCC. The branch campus was approximately 35 miles from the main campus. The campus offers a good variety of courses but not whole degree programs: At some time, many students have to take classes on the main MCCC campus. The rationale for choosing this course at MCCC was threefold. The first reason was that the content of the course was diversity management and specifically addressed issues managers need to be aware of when supervising others. The students were not only exposed to other racial and ethnic groups, but also had the opportunity to look at their own racial and ethnic identity, prejudices, and internal stereotypes. The students were challenged to critically reflect on how their identity, prejudices, and stereotypes had implications for their aspired role as supervisors and managers of other people. Working with the instructor, the students were encouraged to look at their own racial identity and how understanding that will help them become more multiculturally educated as individuals and managers. The second reason for selecting this course was that it is a requirement for degree 42 completion therefore retention of the research subjects in the study was more likely than in other courses. In addition, the course included subjects who may not otherwise have elected to be in a diversity course. The final reason for selecting this course was the instructor teaching the course. She has taught the course for four consecutive years and is also a doctoral student in a Higher Education program at a major research university. Her education includes a master’s degree in counseling and she has worked in higher education for more than twelve years. Her racial background is White. In addition, she is a colleague, and was willing to allow me significant input in the design of the course for the purposes of this research project. There were 19 students in this course when it started in August and one student dropped the course, leaving a sample of 18 for the sixteen-week course. There were ten women and eight men in the class and the ages of the students ranged from 18 to late 40’s. More than half of the students worked full-time jobs and attended school part-time. All of the students were from the local area and had a short commute to the MCCC branch campus. Many choose the MCCC branch campus because of the close proximity to their homes and places of employment. The racial composition of the class was White, with one female student who was Native American, but self-identified as White and one male student who was Asian American, but also self-identified as White. Socioeconomic characteristics of the class matched what MCCC published as their college-wide characteristics with most students from middle-to lower-class backgrounds, and many students who were attending school as a result of governmental grants and other financial aid packages and programs. This diversity class is a requirement to earning an Associate’s Degree in General 43 Business Administration. This degree can lead to entry levels jobs in retail management, administrative assistant positions, office supervisory positions, sales, and other positions that require a minimal background in management practices. The course also helps established individuals earn promotions and pay increases. The course is not a traditional transfer course to a four-year institution, therefore students who are intending to transfer into a bachelor’s degree program are not likely to be enrolled in this course. The Mid-Central Community College (2001) course description of “Diversity in the Workplace, A Domestic and Global Perspective,” Management 234, is the following: Explores cultural, gender/sexual, and physical diversity experiences in the workplace and in the world. The management of human resources is examined from a global perspective. The emphasis is on educating both majority and minority students to become aware of each other's opinions, feelings, and perspectives and on encouraging decision-making in the workplace free from prejudice. The students are exposed to a variety of cultures, through panel discussions, readings and a minority experience. The emphasis lies in looking at cultures that are different from their own ethnic and racial identity (p.52). During the course, the students were exposed to the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) Framework of Multicultural Education. The framework was embedded into the curriculum, and it was not completely evident to students what portions of the class were parts of the framework and what parts were not. Given that the students had signed a consent form for me to observe the class, they knew that the curriculum in this course was revised to include the framework. Since the course is a degree requirement with outcome expectations, the entire course could not be devoted to the framework, but the 44 entire five-step framework was incorporated into the course. I worked extensively with the faculty member teaching the course in the incorporation of the framework and to make sure that proper care and attention was paid to all five steps. Together, we completely revised the curriculum to include the framework and also to include the management information that was an essential piece as a required course for the associate’s degree. At the conclusion of the course the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) was administered again to see if the framework had changed or influenced students’ attitudes of racial development. Incorporating the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework into the course also challenged students to explore and deconstruct Whiteness. The curriculum was enhanced to include an in-depth look at culture and the understanding of how culture shapes peoples lives. Learning about other cultures and advancing their understanding of other cultures was incorporated strongly into the curriculum. For example, the students were required to engage in a situation in which they were not the majority. These experiences ranged from church services, meetings of ethnic groups other than their own, and conventions of groups where they were not the majority. Once the students had a good understanding of how culture shapes people and people shape culture, the curriculum moved into recognizing and deconstructing White culture. This was meant to encourage students to challenge the notion of Whiteness as normal. The final two steps in the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework are recognizing the legitimacy of other cultures and developing a multicultural outlook. The activities and assignments for these two steps revolved around looking at other cultures and how many cultures coexisting together in society should be valued. Developing a multicultural outlook included working with 45 students to help them realize that living and working together with individuals who are different is a value to our society as a whole, and this requires working toward inclusion and acceptance. The design of the framework is a process meant to move students closer to multicultural awareness and education. The process was not linear and the outcomes varied and depended on the cognitive development of the students and their willingness to challenge their own assumptions about race. Deconstructing Whiteness was a key element of the framework. Since the model had not been tested empirically, there was no evidence of validity or reliability at that time. Using the scores from the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) pre-and posttest, both from the course where the framework was being incorporated and from the comparison class, and the themes that emerged from the observations, I made conclusions about the effectiveness of the framework. Summary of Weekly Class Sessions This section will briefly describe the class sessions and put into context how the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) was incorporated into the curriculum. The following accounts are brief, but should guide the following finding chapters and discussion chapter. Week One — August 22, 2002 The class began with an introduction of the instructor and a discussion of classroom expectations. Then she handed out the syllabus (appendix) and began going over assignments, grading, and the semester in general. The students were then encouraged to look over the syllabus and ask questions about the class. When the students were finished with the syllabus the instructor explained how a 46 research study would be conducted in this course and the impact it would have on the curriculum. The class moved into a discussion of having a researcher in the class and consent forms. It was explained to the students how participant observations would be conducted over the course of the semester and the two consent forms were explained. All the students agreed to participate and then were given the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS). The class ended with a preview of the following week, a discussion about culture. Week Two - August 29, 2002 This class began with an icebreaker. The students were asked to write down three things about themselves, two that were true, and one that was not true. The students then shared their responses with the class. Next the students had to write down the name of a movie that they felt represented them, and again the students shared their responses with the class. Next the instructor moved into a discussion about the importance of diversity, and the students filled out an” inventory about their perceptions of diversity. Finally the concept of culture was introduced, and students were encouraged to think about how culture is defined and how culture impacts their lives. The session ended with a recap of the session and students were asked to write one-minute paper about the session. Week Three — September 5, 2002 This week the topic was communication and diversity. The instructor reintroduced the concept of culture and the students’ understanding of culture. The students were asked to think about how a marriage ceremony takes place in their culture. How are the bride and groom introduced to the family? What are the 47 components of the wedding ceremony? Is there a reception? What is appropriate behavior at the wedding ceremony and the reception? Is there a wedding reception? The students were asked to think about these questions individually and then to share with the larger group. The instructor narrowed in on the dynamic nature of culture and how it is something that not only individuals create, but also creates individuals. The class ended with a preview of the following week’s topic, women and the workplace. Week F our — September 12, 2002 This class began with a discussion of how September 11, 2001, one year later, has impacted their lives. The students had to draw their feelings on paper and then reflect as a large group. The instructor also read some poems from an elementary class in New York and talked about how her life has been affected in the past year. The second half of the session began to move into step two of the framework: learning about other cultures. The discussion of women in the workplace started the process of learning about other cultures. The instructor showed a video of women in the construction business, and the class then discussed the film and the role of women in the world of business and industry. The session concluded by revisiting the role of culture and their understanding of culture. The instructor then talked about the next session; African Americans. Week Five — September 19, 2002 This session was devoted to learning about African Americans and the role this racial group has played over the years in American society. The instructor talked again about the importance of learning about and experiencing other racial and 48 cultural groups as a manager and supervisor of individuals who are diverse from one. The instructor then introduced the movie The Color of Fear. The movie is about a group of eight diverse men who go on a weekend retreat to discuss issues of diversity and racism. A Japanese American man facilitated the group. The discussions in the movie are extremely heated and difficult to watch at times. Following the movie the instructor led the class in a discussion about the movie and how they felt watching the movie. The class concluded with a preview of the next session; Asian Americans. Week Six — September 26, 2002 This session follows the previous two weeks in the second step of the framework, learning about other cultures. This week the students learned about Asian Americans. The class began by taking an Asian-American cultural exploration quiz. The instructor then discussed the answers to the quiz and had the student’s think about how they scored. The students seemed surprised that they did not know more about Asian Americans. Next the instructor led a discussion about Asian stereotypes and the problems associated with assigning false assumptions about people based on those stereotypes. Finally the students watched a video entitled Democracy under Pressure, about the Japanese internment camps during World War II. All 18 students in the class said they had never heard of the internment camps before this movie and were amazed the US. government would do this to US. citizens. The session concluded with a one-minute paper exercise. Week Seven — October 3, 2002 This class began with the instructor reading journal entries anonymously and 49 asking the students to look for themes in the papers being read. The instructor wanted the students to see how culture and learning about other cultures was being explored and defined by individual students in their papers, and yet the class discussions did not mirror the level of understanding the papers reflected. The students were quiet this session and did not respond to questions about their definition of culture at this point in the semester and how this definition had changed over seven weeks. The goal was to review the first step of the framework and look at outcomes in the seventh week. The session then moved into an exercise about stereotypes and challenging stereotypes. The students were split into small groups and had to play the roles with the same stereotype until they played all the roles in the exercise. At the conclusion of the session the students discussed how it felt during the different roles. The class concluded with a preview of the next session, Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transgendered (GLBT), and a reminder that midterms are due next week. 8 Week Eight — October 10, 2002 This class session began with the instructor reviewing what had happened in the first ten weeks. The students were invited to evaluate how the class was going and ways it could be improved. The students were quiet, but some turned in a written response to this question. Next the instructor introduced the movie The Laramie Project. Background on the project was given to the students, and the Matthew Shepard incident was put into context for the students. Many of the students said they remembered the event and all the coverage surrounding both the death and the responses from the around country. Following the movie the instructor led a 50 discussion about GLBT issues and their reactions to the movie. The class was extremely quiet and some even said they were too sad to respond at that time. The instructor told the students to think about the movie and consider whether a similar event could happen in their towns. Week Nine — October 25, 2002 This week was devoted to a one-on-one discussion between instructor and students about their individual progress in the class. The second sets of individual interviews were conducted during the class session. Week Ten — November 1, 2002 This week’s class was very small and appeared disinterested from the session. The students handed in their minority experience papers and the topic of discussion was Arab Americans. The instructor handed out a questionnaire with 100 questions that asked about Arab customs, religion, family, marriage, and many other topics. The students were asked to look it over and answer 20 questions. The responses were shared with the class as a whole. The students appeared interested in the answers and sharing what they knew about Arab Americans and what they thought they knew were actually stereotypes. The session ended with the instructor talking about the reading for next week’s class on White privilege. Week Eleven — November 7, 2002 The topic of this class session was White privilege. The session looked at analyzing White culture and the ubiquitous nature of White culture. First the students drew a picture of what it was like to be White. They shared those pictures 51 with the entire class. Most of the pictures dealt with their daily lives as individuals and many of the students remarked that it was kind of a silly thing to draw. Next the students turned the sheet over and drew what it was like to be a person of color. The students drew pictures that depicted a variety of things from a sunset and two people driving into the sunset to a city street and an individual of color walking down the street and being stared at by others in the picture. Next the students had to think about aspects of their culture. This was extremely difficult for the students; they asked a great many questions for clarification. Next the instructor read statements from Peggy McIntosh’s (1988) work on privilege and asked the students to think about whether they felt they had this privilege or did not have this privilege. The instructor then tied this back to noticing racial privilege and most of us do not because it is so much part of our lives and American culture. The session concluded with the instructor talking about next week’s class presentations. 1 Week Twelve — November 14, 2002 This week the students gave presentations on the regions of the world they studied in small groups. The students looked at the culture, business style, housing, religion, clothing, family values, and many other aspects of the people residing in the area they were assigned to research. Week Thirteen — November 21, 2002 This session was dedicated to step four of the framework; recognizing the legitimacy of other cultures. The instructor began by talking about current events in the world and the role the media play in how we hear and interpret events going 52 on around us. The students then proceeded to an exercise that helped them see how multiple cultures live and work together in society. The students filled out a questionnaire with three columns. The first column was titled Cultural Attribute, the second column was Contribution to Sense of Self, and the third column was titled, Affects Howl See the World by... (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The students completed the grid individually and then came together as a class and shared their responses. The class ended by talking about the final two sessions for the semester. Week Fourteen - November 28, 2002 No class due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Week Fifteen — December 5, 2002 This week was the final academic class session. The instructor concentrated on bringing the entire semester into context for the students and encouraged students to think about ways they will use this class as a stepping stone to building a multicultural perspective. Step five of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) was designed to motivate students to “. . .take action to assist [in] creating [a] multicultural society” (p. 90). The activity used to support this step was a small group exercise looking at artifacts from local businesses. The instructor divided the class into groups and each group had a set of newspaper clippings, bulletins, and other print media and was encouraged to look at ways in which the views of different cultural group are expressed and what those expressions say about the organization in a multicultural perspective. The class ended with the students filling out the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) post test and the final class evaluation. 53 Week Sixteen — December 12, 2002 This session was held at a local restaurant. The class ate dinner and chatted among themselves. Instruments Used for Data Collection Since the design of the study was dominant-less dominant (Creswell, 1994), there were multiple instruments that were used for data collection. Participant observations, interviews, the curriculum, the course syllabus, student assignments, and the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) were the main instruments used for data collection. The central goal in designing this study was to tell the story of the development of White racial identity and multicultural understanding through observing a semester-long course. Participant observation was the main instrument used for data collection (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994) The goal of the study was to attempt to capture and detail the development of racial identity over a sixteen-week course. The participant observations focused on obtaining full and detailed descriptions from informants by observing behavior, customs, and lifestyles, and class involvement (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). My role as the researcher was to record group interactions and develop themes that described racial identity development using various qualitative inquiry tools (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990). The participant observations were done weekly for three hours during the regular class meeting time for sixteen weeks. The field notes of all observations and interactions in the class were in written form and then entered into a computer after each observation. The field notes were kept in a locked file cabinet with the researcher. Individual interviews were conducted with selected participants of the diversity 54 course. The interviews were done with six individuals who represented the six statuses in Helm’s (1990 & 1995) WRIAS. Since it was not possible to identify one student in each status, the sample represented the range of statuses the students characterized. Most interviews were conducted in the classroom at the MCCC branch campus, and one was conducted at a local restaurant. The interviews were in-depth, phenomenological interviews conducted in a series of three separate interviews (Seidman, 1991). The first interview, at the beginning of the semester, was geared toward getting background information on the participant and the context of that individual’s life (Seidman, 1991). The goal of the second interview, at the mid-semester mark, was to concentrate on the details of the experience being studied (Seidman, 1991). The final interview, conducted four to five weeks after the class was finished, was to reflect on the meaning of the experience and evaluate the student’s understanding of White racial identity development. The final interview was not to gather information on satisfaction, but rather to reflect in-depth on the impact of the class and the meanings this particular course has had on racial identity development. The final interviews were conducted four and five weeks following the course rather than immediately after the course, because that gave the students time to reflect and internalize their experiences in the course. The interviews were one hour in length, taped, and transcribed using the interview protocol included in the appendix. The interviews were all transcribed by a professional transcriber and were later reviewed by the researcher for accuracy and corrected as necessary. The interview data were used both to tell the story of White racial identity development and to further assess the effectiveness of the Framework for Multicultural 55 Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The interviews and transcriptions were kept in a locked file cabinet with the researcher. Another instrument used for data collection was document analysis. The written work from all students in the class including papers, journal assignments, and class presentations, are used as artifacts to further tell the story about racial identity development and multicultural education. In addition, the course syllabus and the curriculum were analyzed as part of this process. Written work can provide fundamentally different knowledge from linguistic knowledge, because of how it is organized in the mind (Hodder, 1994). I read the students’ work throughout the semester and analyzed for patterns and themes that were simultaneously emerging through the observations of the class. These data have enhanced both the weekly observations and the individual interviews. My reading students’ work and using it as part of this study did not impact their grade in the course; that was made clear at the outset of the study. The written assignments were copied weekly and kept in a locked file cabinet with the researcher. The Helms WRIAS (1990) was used as an instrument of data collection as a pre- and posttest to assess students’ attitudes about racial identity development. The test was administered on the first day of the course and then at the end of the sixteen-week course. The WRIAS (1990) was developed from earlier work done by Helms in 1984 and again revised in 1995. The scale was developed to assess the attitudes related to the original five stages of White racial identity development. Attitudes a White person would have about oneself as a White person and attitudes about Black people and their relationship to them characterize the five statuses (Helms, 1995). Janet Helms (1995) made some 56 revisions to the scale in 1995; the most significant revision was changing stages to statuses and shifting from thinking about the theory and scale as a stage model to a process of racial identity development. The statuses begin with attitudes that are least sensitive to race and racism and move to statuses that contain attitudes that are most conscious of race and aware of racism (Helms, 1990 & 1995). The sixth status that Helms (1990 & 1995) added to the WRIAS from the earlier version is immersion/emersion. This status is intended to reflect Hardiman’s (1992) contention that it is possible for White people to seek out information about historical, political, and cultural contributions to the world. This is an important step to developing a positive White identity. The WRIAS contains fifty attitudinal statements that are answered using a five- point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree). The statements are broken down into five subsets of questions with ten questions in each subset. Scores are tallied using the point values for each subset, and the sum of each subscale is divided by ten to maintain the scale metric. The higher the score on the subscale, the more descriptive the respondent is to the subscale and the attitudes associated with that status in the model. It is best to use all five of the respondent’s scores to form a profile rather than single scores to assign him or her to a single status. Analysis and assignment to a status was done on the collection of scores. The scale was tested for reliability and validity using 506 respondents. There were 339 females and 167 males. The norrning showed that males and females did not differ significantly on any of the subscales, but did have some minor score differences on the Autonomy scale and the Pseudo-Independent scale (Helms, 1990). The reliability of the 57 scale in the pilot study was in the .90’s for each scale. The validity for the scale was somewhat limited since, at the time of publication, the scale was very new. Some research did show that the correlations between the statuses in the scale are all significant at or above the .01 significance level. The reliability and validity information available provides more evidence that this scale is a strong scale and therefore a good tool to use in this study. The pre-and post-test data obtained from the Helms WRIAS (1990) test did not show any difference at the conclusion of the sixteen-week course. The treatment class had two students whose score changed from pre-test to post-test and the control group had one student whose score changed from the two administrations of the instrument. The major reason for little change was due mostly to the dichotomous nature of the instrument, not a flaw in the design. The test compares relationships between Black and White individuals, and the class included many racial backgrounds. More in-depth reasons for the lack of significant changes are discussed later in the limitations section of chapter six. As stated earlier, the Helms WRIAS was administered to the class at the outset of the course and at the conclusion. The scale was used as a pre-and posttest measure to assess the status of racial identity development in individuals. This pre-and posttest measure was built in to help identify some of the attitudes and personality characteristics, such as feelings, beliefs, and behaviors, which influence the construction of racial awareness. Helm’s (1990 & 1995) theory contends that individuals who score higher on the WRIAS have a more positive attitude and understanding of racial identity development. Therefore movement on the WRIAS to a higher status in the primary 58 diversity class could be directly correlated to the curriculum and the inclusion of the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). The Helms (1990) WRIAS was also administered as a pre-and posttest to 19 other students in another section of the Diversity Management class at MCCC as a comparison group. This class did not have the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) multicultural framework embedded in the curriculum. The decision to have a comparison group was made to help assess the effectiveness of the framework in the construction of racial attitudes. Lack of movement on the scale was not directly related to the effectiveness of the framework; this becomes evident in the findings and later in the discussion chapter. Consideration of Qualitative Findings As a researcher in a qualitative study, bias is a key that needs to be addressed. The accuracy of the information and the degree to which it represented the voices of the participants (Creswell, 1994) were critical in this study. Participants were involved in all phases of this research process. The students’ voices were used to tell the story. To accurately convey this story multiple instruments were used to collect data: oral stories in the interviews, field notes from the class sessions, and written work handed in as class assignments. These items have been analyzed for common themes that address both racial identity development and multicultural education as the semester progressed. Using multiple items for analysis helped identify common themes among students in the class and was a form of data triangulation (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Janesick, 1994). An additional researcher not involved in the data collection process was also used to check the accuracy of the findings and themes (Janesick, 1994). The instructor teaching the course was involved in the research process; therefore she was not used as a 59 peer debriefer (Lincoln & Guba, 1995). Using another researcher outside of this process also enhanced the credibility of my inferences as the researcher, as I relied on this individual to review the findings as they emerged. I also kept an ongoing research journal to record my own perceptions and interpretations (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994) and as an outlet for my personal thoughts about the process. Consideration of Human Subjects The use of human subjects in this study was given considerable thought. The study included a two-step consent process in which the students had the option to consent on two different levels. The first level was consent for me, as the researcher, to sit in the class for the semester and observe the class, take notes on my observations, and read class assignments. The first level of consent also included the possibility of being selected to participate in three one-hour audio taped interviews. The second level of consent was to voluntarily take the WRIAS (Helms, 1990). This consent was requested of both the primary class being researched and the comparison class. Students had the option to consent at each level at which they were comfortable; the students in both classes consented to the WRIAS and all the students in the primary class consented to the first level as well. I took special care to make sure that the consent forms and the levels of consent were clear at the outset of the data collection. Data Analysis The qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed in different ways. The quantitative data from the Helms WRIAS (1990) was scored at the beginning of the semester to determine the status to which the students in the class fall in terms of racial development attitudes. This was done at the outset because interviewees were selected 60 based on those statuses. The posttest was scored to see if the students’ attitudes about racial identity development had changed as a result of the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) and taking a diversity management course. The WRIAS from the comparison class was also compared to the data from the class with the treatment to look for differences between the two classes. The scores from both the pre- and post-test from the primary class and the comparison class has been included in the appendix, but did not show any changes. The observational data were analyzed by reading notes from the class sessions, the documents that students handed in as class assignments, and transcriptions from the individual interviews with the six students. The data were analyzed, and coded for themes, and other developmental issues concerning what the students were experiencing as a result of participation in this course (Huberrnan & Miles, 1994). The data analysis process was a combination of constant comparative method and ethnographic data analysis procedures (Creswell, 1998). The first step in the analysis process involved reading over all the data collected and openly coding the data. The next step involved comparing highlighted data to one another to determine patterns and emerging themes (Creswell, 1998). When themes that represented the voices and stories of the students and began to materialize and address the research questions employed in the study, the themes were further narrowed. When three major themes were identified, sub themes were defined to further focus the presentation of the data. The themes represent the behavior and language of the students in the class and evolved primarily through direct observation (Creswell, 1998). There is a significant amount of data that did not directly fit into the themes that evolved. Those data have placed in a locked file cabinet and will 61 be used in future studies to be discussed in chapter six. The data analysis process emphasized the voices of the respondents and how they are constructing their racial identity (Manning, 1999). The participant voices in both the classroom and individual interviews were used to produce an in-depth story of the students’ racial identity development over the sixteen-week course. Also, the written work the students turned in for course credit was analyzed to further convey the multiple themes and ideas that were generated from the course observations and interviews. The major themes that emerged and will be presented in chapters four and five are: 0 Who am I? The search for racial identity 0 Students perspectives on difference 0 The developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege Future Chapters The next three chapters describe the findings for the semester, discuss implications for future research, and address the limitations of this study. Chapters four and five describe the findings from the classroom observations, students’ own written work, and individual interviews and are organized around the themes developed. The decision to design the study to include two findings chapters was prompted by the amount of data collected in the study. Two findings chapters allowed the opportunity to present the data from the classroom observations and written work and then the individual interviews. Chapter six ties the study back to the literature presented in chapter two, addresses the effectiveness of the framework, presents implications for higher education, presents the limitations of this study, and ideas for future research. 62 Chapter Four Findings from classroom observations and written work Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and illustrate the major findings from observations of a sixteen-week Managing Diversity course at Mid-Central Community College (MCCC). This chapter will present the findings from classroom observations and the students’ written work. Notes of classroom observations were taken during the three- hour session once a week. Written work included journal entries the students were required to complete, a midterm examination, a minority experience assignment, a variety of in-class written work, and a final examination that included reflections of the class experience. The study was conducted to investigate White racial identity development over the course of a sixteen-week diversity course. The findings and upcoming discussion was geared toward addressing these research questions: How does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course? a. What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts? b. What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development? c. How effective are the activities generated by the framework? The course was designed around the Framework for Multicultural Education written by Anna Ortiz and Robert Rhoads in 2000. The framework is a five-step educational tool designed to encourage students to examine their own culture in an attempt to deconstruct 63 Whiteness and address the universalization of White culture and notions of White privilege. Activities generated by the framework were incorporated into the diversity class curriculum. The class at MCCC was taught at a branch campus of a small rural community forty minutes from the main campus. There were eighteen students in the class, ten females and eight males. The racial composition of the class was primarily Caucasian, with one female Native American student who self-identified as White and a male student who was Asian American and also self-identified as White. The ages of the students ranged from eighteen-year-old traditional college students to a retired schoolteacher in her late forties. The goals of the students in the class ranged from fulfilling requirements for graduation with an associates degree to engaging in lifelong learning. The analysis of classroom observations and the written work led to the development of three major themes. This chapter will be presented around the three major themes that emerged from the findings. Each major theme has several sub themes that are described in detail in the chapter. The themes are presented in a developmental progression, but students represented pieces of a variety of themes throughout the semester. The data within the themes represent the entire semester; some themes were present during the beginning, others during the middle, and finally some themes only arose at the end of the semester. As the chapter progresses, there is an indication of what point in the semester when each theme presented itself. The themes and sub themes that evolved through the data analysis process were: I. Who am I? The search for racial identity 64 Student’s awareness of the importance of racial identity The negative feeling students displayed towards others’ racial identities Sheltered perspective and knowledge about others’ racial identity F305”? Definitions of White racial identity 11. Student perspectives on difference A. Aversions to contact outside one’s own racial group B. Differentiating privilege and power C. How language choice and use impacts racial identity development 111. The developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege A. Awareness B. Acknowledgement C. Ownership “Who am I? " - The search for racial identity 8 The issue of racial identity development was one of the major ”questions that students were asked during the sixteen-week course. Students were asked, “What does racial identity mean and how does being aware of my racial identity impact my life?” These questions were asked many times and in different forms during the sixteen-week semester. At the beginning of the term many of the students in the class had not given a lot thought to their racial identity or to identifying as White. On the first day of class students filled out a written questionnaire, and one of the questions prompted students to identify their racial background. None of the nineteen students indicated White as their racial identity. More than half of the students were clear on their ethnic background and three students had no idea how to identify their ethnic background. A female student said, 65 “I do not have a clue what my ethnicity is.” Another male student said, “I do not know what country my ancestors came from and have never thought about it.” The instructor asked these two students if they could think of foods or traditions they experienced while growing up that could help them identify their backgrounds; both said “No.” The fact that racial and cultural identity did not play a significant role in the lives of these students was interesting, because six of the nineteen students reported working in environments they considered culturally and/or racially diverse. The six students indicated working in a diverse environment on a questionnaire given to them on the first night of class. As the questionnaires were reviewed, it was discovered that seventeen out of the nineteen students lived in an area they indicated was not distinctly racially diverse. In the description of the themes that follows, it was uncovered, through multiple document analysis and observation, four sub themes that are defined by the “Who am I? The search for racial identity” major theme. The sub themes represent a progression of developmental attitudes toward racial identity. This first theme “Who-am I...” emerged closer to the beginning of the semester. Each subsequent sub theme will be revealed through the voices of the students and in the context as to which class session or written work elicited the response. The subthemes also demonstrate how students evolved in their thinking about racial identity throughout the semester. These subthemes can also be used as benchmarks for determining at what level students approach the topic of their own racial identity. The subthemes for the first major theme include the students’ awareness of the importance of racial identity, the negative feelings students displayed toward others’ racial identities, sheltered perspective and knowledge about others’ racial identity, and definitions of White racial identity. 66 Student’s Awareness of the Importance of Racial Identity The emergence of this theme was observed through students who exhibited a lack of awareness initially about the importance of their own racial identity. The theme also encompasses how the students perceived the importance of others’ racial identity. While some students may have been aware of the significance of White racial identity, most of the students did not have a strong understanding of the impact of being White. The first step in the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework is “Understanding Culture” (p.85). One of the activities designed to help students understand culture was to have the students think about how they stand as a group in an elevator. The instructor asked the students how they learned to stand in an elevator. The instructor asked whether most people stand looking straight ahead or do they stand in the comer with their backs to the door? The students seemed puzzled at first, but eventually began to understand that we are indeed shaped by cultural norms and as individuals we also shape these norms. A female student said: When you put it like that it is easier to think about all the things that we just come to know what to do. . .You know like your example about the elevator but also how to greet people and answer the door... I think I get it... In a journal response to the first class session, a male student wrote about his work environment. He wrote, “My boss is Italian unlike myself and my other co-worker. I have never worked with an Italian before so I really didn’t know much about the Italian race to be honest.” He later wrote about how his boss was no different than he was; he argued that because his boss had White skin, he was unsure why his boss talked about being Italian. 67 In another class session about stereotyping others and how to discern fact from fiction, 3 female student was responding to rumors about the town where she was raised and currently resides. She reported rumors that high-ranking Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members live there and have held rallies in the town square. The student said in class, I have lived in [town] for over 35 years and never remember hearing about the KKK except through people that don’t live in [town]. I never had any reason to move because of this either, even though it’s something I would never consider being part of. It was never anything that I was conscious of. The student admitted that she does not pay attention to the KKK. Even if she were to acknowledge their existence she said, “Why would it matter how close they are to me if I do not take part in it.” It is interesting to note that students, who had trouble identifying their own racial identity, also had trouble understanding why other Americans would want to hyphenate (African-American, Japanese-American, etc.). In a written response to an article about how more and more Americans are hyphenating part of their racial identity, 3 male student wrote, “[The author] figured everybody to be Americans. I feel the same way, people are people, and there is no reason to hate or discriminate. Who really cares what color you are anyway?” Similarly a female student said in class: I also was never aware of my race. I never thought about myself as being White and what it means, but to me my race is not a big issue I wouldn’t care whether I was White, Black, or any other race. When the student made this comment, many students responded with comments like, “Yes who cares what color you are — it has never made a difference to me,” “I do not 68 think about being White, it does not matter to me.” The instructor challenged the students to ponder how easy that statement is to make because they are White. In a written response to that class session, a female student wrote: To be honest I don’t even know what heritage my family and I are from. I guess that t0pic never came up in a conversation. My point is simply that since the topic of culture and heritage has been brought to my attention I have seemed to grow an interest or should I say ambition to seek answers for myself. Five other students in the class responded in their journals with similar statements. The next subtheme illustrates the students who had some understanding of racial identity but were portrayed in a negative way passively and actively. The Negative Feeling Students Displayed Towards Others ’ Racial Identities The class not only showed a lack of awareness of importance of racial identity but some students displayed negative attitudes toward others’ racial identities. This theme emerged as White students talked about being in situations where they were the minority. This theme also highlights feelings of anger that students manifested when labeled racist or prejudiced toward individuals of color. Affirmative action was the topic one night in class when the decision came from the Supreme Court to hear the University of Michigan lawsuit on race based admission practices. A female commented: Schools are supposed to be based on a belief that hard work and knowing the material is key to success, yet somehow there are many kids in 6-12th grades who can’t read or write. Higher education is different than any school before it: it’s the real world in homework. The students who graduate with degrees are supposed to be the best in their selected areas of study. To pick someone of average or below 69 average intelligence in favor of someone with higher intelligence goes against the reasons for higher education: to pick the best. If I were to have an operation or need a great lawyer, then I would want someone who knew their stuff, rather than someone who got by because the standards were lowered for them. As for reparations for past sins, I don’t believe that there are, as one man put it, ‘creditor race and a debtor race’. When the student made this comment many other students nodded their heads in agreement and appeared to support her statement fully. The instructor asked the students to think about “. . .the value of a diverse education and what it means to be in a classroom learning with someone who is different.” A male student said, “That is fine but as long as my daughter or son does not get dissed for a lesser qualified person.” During a conversation about past reparations for atrocities against disparaged people, a male student said, . .I am sick of Black people bitching about slavery.” Another male student said, “Yeah, what is the big deal. It was so long ago and we did not have anything to do with it.” It was clear the instructor was frustrated at this point. She asked the students to “step back and think about something unjust that has happened to you personally or [to] a member of your family. How do you deal with this? How long did it take you to forget?” Immediately the instructor continued to ask the student’s questions like, “How easy is it to forget? How long did it take you? Are you really over it? If there were some way that society could help repay some of the damage would you be willing to participate?” She was trying to elicit responses from the students and encourage them to think about situations of unequal treatment on a personal level. Many of the students affirmed the professor’s assertion by nodding their head in agreement. The 70 instructor said, “Not the best way to talk about how society tries to make rights out of wrongs but you can get the idea.” In response a female student said, “I understand that Whites have treated people badly, but not all of us should be punished for that.” Four other students responded with “Yes.” Students exhibited negative attitudes toward individuals of different backgrounds in other ways, referring to situations in which they felt like the minority. A male student was writing about attending a concert in which a majority of the other attendees were African American. He writes, “I brought a fiiend with me for safety reasons, I would have taken an African American fiiend to the event, but I do not associate much with. .. people of different colors so a Caucasian friend accompanied me.” Another female student was talking about her retail job and expressed concern over being in the store by herself: Sometimes it was uncomfortable in the store because there was only the few people who worked there and then all the Indian clients. I felt uncomfortable because of the language barrier. ...It was hard to communicate with them. I was sort of naive about racism until I started working at my current job. I’ve come to learn that if some customers don’t like a policy or something else that they play the racism factor, which is very unfair. Developmentally this subtheme showed a negative reaction to diverse others. In the next subtheme the students were more willing to learn about others and maintain a positive outlook, but portrayed an extremely sheltered perspective on others’ racial identities. 71 Sheltered Perspective and Knowledge about Others ' Racial Identities The sheltered perspective and knowledge about others’ racial identities was the subtheme that emerged as students wrote and talked about interactions and communications with individuals and groups who were from different racial groups. The subtheme also revealed the students’ willingness to learn about other cultures despite their limited exposure. The study was conducted in a small rural community considered by some to be a suburb of a large metropolitan area. Most of the students in the class were born and raised in this community. Interacting with diverse individuals was not something they neither did nor do on a daily basis. The movie, The Color of F ear, was shown to help the students think about how individuals from other racial groups and White individuals communicate about racial relations and racism. The movie was about a group of men who attend a weekend retreat to discuss racism, White privilege, diverse group interactions, affirmative action, and many other topics. The group is diverse racially, ethnically, and in nationality, with two White men and six other men of color. The movie takes place at a retreat house in Northern California and is a facilitated by a Japanese American man. The discussions get heated throughout the movie and much of the intense debates are the results of comments by a White male named David who appears to be extremely na’r‘ve when dealing with issues of diversity and diverse individuals. In our interview following the end of the semester the instructor said the movie, The Color of Fear, usually elicits some strong responses from the students. She said many times an individual in the class will side with David and talk about feeling victimized for being White. The discussion following the movie revealed a male who said he felt sorry for David in the movie. The male student 72 said: David did not say anything mean or racist he was just not sure about some of the feelings others had. I have felt like David before for not knowing stuff about people who are not White. This class for example makes me feel stupid sometimes. . .I do not know any colored people and do not know much about the stuff that deals with them that we discuss in this class. I guess it is my own ignorance or lack of experience. .. Following the movie many other students wrote journal entries about the movie. A female student wrote: Maybe I just wasn’t in the mood for that type of movie, but I didn’t really think that movie was all that great. It didn’t really stir up any emotions or strong feelings. I think a big reason is that I live my life in my own little world, and that most of the time I have a feeling this event [a focus group discussing race] would never happen in my community since it is so small and not a lot of people who are not White... Similarly in response to the book, The Education of a WASP, which was a required reading for the mid term examination, a male student said: I felt like Lois in the beginning of her education. I drew a complete blank and realized I have lived a sheltered and safe life from the prejudices and stereotypes that had an impact on a number of people. I realized how naive I am towards understanding different cultures, and the hardships they encounter. The sheltered perspective and knowledge about others racial identity seemed to be revealed in how much interaction these students have or have had with individuals who 73 are diverse. A female student commented: I really don’t have a lot of direct interaction with a variety of cultures so I truly don’t comprehend all the problems associated with prejudices and stereotypes. To me the problems I see are the ones I’ve only heard of, so to me, in my [own] little world there aren’t any problems. The same female student in a different class session made the comment, “I don’t think it’s fair to be upset with Americans who don’t fully understand a culture and might make some assumptions about them.” Early in the class the students were asked to take the Diversity Awareness Profile (Training Trends Newsletter, 1993). The profile asked students to respond to questions that asked: Do they challenge derogatory comments made by others, do they speak up when someone is being humiliated, do they confront organizational practices that do not support cultural diversity, and do they refuse to join organizations that reinforce biased or prejudiced values and practices. The profile is ranked on a Likert Scale, “never” to “almost always” and the students then score into categories like “naive offender” for the lowest scores to “fighter” for the highest scores. While taking the profile a male student raised his hand and said, . .some of the questions. . .do not apply to me because I only hang out with all White people.” The instructor asked him if he worked with anyone who was from a different racial or ethnic background and he said he did not work. When this question was asked, it became clear this student had no context to think about how he interacts with diverse others because he does not interact with others who are not White. A dominant string that emerged in this subtheme was the fact that all of the students in this class are from a predominately White, small town. During a discussion 74 about who lived in small towns, a male student said, “Small town people are used to people like themselves. When someone from out of town stops through, people start talking...” During the same discussion a female said, “A car with a colored man and Indian female made me turn my head — it seemed like an odd couple and not much makes me turn my head.” Another female who works in retail said, “. . .my store doesn’t have to deal with any cultural issues at this moment but someday we might have to.” The instructor challenged the students to think about what it would be like to move to a community where you were the minority. She said: Many of you have written about being a minority at one time or another and how this did not make you feel safe or comfortable. How can individuals of color move to a community like this and feel welcome and comfortable? A male student responded by saying, “Black people can live in [this town], just move here.” The instructor countered by saying, “Where would a Black person get their hair cut, buy ethnic foods, clothing, hang out, etc?” A female then responded by saying, “Black people can pretty much stay in all Black areas and never have to interact with White people even in [this town].” On the one-year anniversary of the September 1 l, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the instructor had the students draw how they felt as the day unfolded, and then on the back of the paper, how September 11th has changed their lives. The point of the exercise was to encourage students to think about the implications of the event for individuals who have been stereotyped as terrorists. After a few moments of silence, a male student raised his hand and said, “This event has not had any affect on my life.” Then a female student said, .. [My town] is such a rural area and 9/11 has not changed 75 me at all. It was so far away and I have never been to New York or the Pentagon.” Other students nodded in agreement. This example shows the limited exposure the students have to diverse others. In addition it shows how the students feel that they have to have direct experience with a topic, issue, or event for it to be relevant to them. The examples described also show how students view world events in relation to their lives in a small town. Unless the event had a direct impact on their way of living it was not deemed as significant or life altering. Definitions of White Racial Identity The subtheme, “Definitions of White racial identity,” emerged through the voices of the students as they began to think critically about what it means to be White. Many of these voices evolved through activities and assignments that were designed to challenge the students to think about their own identity. The subtheme includes comments that are both positive identifiers of White racial identity and negative definers of White. The negative definers became apparent as students were challenged to think about being White and what that meant to them. This occurred most often when students were in situations where they perceived themselves to be the minority. One female student talked about making a delivery in a metropolitan area; she got lost and was unfamiliar with her surroundings. She wrote: I looked like lunch to them, and I say that not because I’m racist but because I could see it in their eyes and the way some of them tried to approach me. I know they were wondering why a White woman was in their area. Another female student was talking about shopping in a large urban shopping mall she defined as “extremely racially diverse.” She said, “The people at the mall didn’t seem to 76 care that I was a White person shopping in an almost all non—White place. I felt really White and I cannot remember feeling White before.” The instructor spent a lot of time encouraging the students to think about how perceptions of situations as a White person will differ from those of an individual of color. The instructor elaborated, “It is about your own experiences and how you define those experiences, but that is also your perspective as a White person. This is radically different for someone of color.” The instructor reinforced this concept throughout the semester as students examined how they could define their racial identity, and were challenged to redefine individual definitions of culture. One of the objectives of the framework was to recognize and deconstruct White culture (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). According to the Ortiz and Rhoads framework (2000), developing an understanding of how White culture has been universalized as the norm can help students see their own White racial identity and the privileges associated with being White. This was difficult for many of the students, as most had never given much thought to being White and what that meant. A female student said: I have always been White and am aware of being White, but it was nothing more than skin color before this class. I think I would say being White means you have more options and do not have to think about skin color... In response a male student said: I am not sure I understand why you are having us look at our own race. I think if we understand better our own race we can work with non-White people better. In that case I think being White is about your family and the color of their skin. It is how you celebrate holidays and what church you go to. It is kind of the same as 77 when we talked about our culture at the beginning of the class. It was clear that some students were able to recognize their life as a White person and what that personally meant to them. It was ultimately impossible to acknowledge if the students were able to verbalize or write about being White. This became clear when a female student said in a journal response to class: I know my skin is White, but that does not mean anything to me that is meaningful. I had a hard time thinking of things that are associated with being White in class the other day. I guess being White means being White. . .I do not think of myself as White everyday or really ever until you made me think about it. I do believe that I have a hard time talking about being White because it is all around me. I live in a White town, [have a] White job, watch White TV, and all the other things we talked about in class. I can understand that so maybe I do get it. The manner in which the students developmentally defined White as a subtheme fit into the “Who am I? The search for racial identity” main theme, which marked the beginning of the journey the students made throughout the semester. More than any of the others, this subtheme represents growth and advancement that spanned the entire semester. In their semester-long journey their questions about their own identity were critical keys to almost every class session. Student perspectives on difierence The “Student perspectives on difference” theme emerged from the combining of three related subthemes. It began to surface as students talked about their life experiences. It will become clear in this theme that some of the students had strong 78 feelings and opinions about working and interacting with individuals of color. The three subthemes that emerged under the main theme were: aversions to contact outside one’s own racial group, differentiating privilege and power, and how language choice and use impacts racial identity development. The following section will outline the main theme through the observation of three subthemes combined with exemplars from both classroom observations and written work. Aversions to Contact Outside One ’5 Own Racial Group The first subtheme is “A versions to contact outside one ’s own racial group.” This theme appeared as students were required to immerse themselves in situations where they were not only the minority, but also where they had an opportunity to reflect on what the situation meant from their perspective as a White individual. Reflecting on a situation in which he perceived himself to be the minority, a male wrote: For two Caucasian males that have never been part of violence or drugs, having been surrounded by African Americans with several smoking marijuana was making us extremely uncomfortable. ...Something that impressed me was the politeness of the late night African American security guard who viewed the parking area that our vehicle was located. This man said hello, actually walked us to the car and politely said, ‘Have a good night gentlemen.’ I was surprised to see such courtesy toward us young White males from an Afiican American, especially after how we were treated throughout the concert. The efforts of this one man made the entire event seem positive. I did enjoy the night but would rather just stay in my own community with the people I know and trust. It was kind of scary. 79 Another male student wrote about going to a Harley Davidson convention in Black Hills, South Dakota. He wrote: I went with some preconceived stereotyped ideas, of the people that would be there. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I was not that far off with my first impressions. They go out of their way to look like what I would label as freaks. Whether they do this to “belong” or because they really think they look good is something I do not know. I am glad I did it, but would rather just hang with my own people. In another minority experience report, a female wrote about attending a male-dominated martial arts class: All I had to do was keep up with this class so I wouldn’t draw extra attention to myself, simple enough. I felt extremely inferior and weak when we ran through some of the techniques, several times I wanted to get up and leave. I had to prove to them that I was as good as they were, so I did and didn’t show any mercy. The students showed a strong willingness to push themselves in what they chose to participate in for their minority experience, but most came back to the conclusion that being in a familiar group was the safest. The “Minority Experience” was assigned to them at the beginning of the semester and was due during the thirteenth week of class. I believe the students felt obligated to participate in high-risk activities because the instructor had to approve the projects before they were conducted and she challenged them to “engage in activities that were going to make them feel uncomfortable.” Also embedded in this subtheme was the issue of foreign languages and the 80 aversion students had to individuals who spoke a language other than English in their presence. A male student was talking about his work environment and said, “. .. [Speaking Spanish] gets very irritating because I will walk by all of them trying to get work done while they look at me and speak to each other in Spanish.” Referring to language a female student said: A large percentage of the people that I work with speak Spanish along with English. I have grown used to hearing them speak among themselves in Spanish, although I feel it is very rude and unprofessional to hear them switch from English to Spanish in my presence. I still feel insulted when this happens and usually walk away feeling like the door was just shut in my face. This was brought up by the instructor in class and many of the students felt that since English was the language of the United States it should be the only language individuals are allowed to speak in public. The instructor challenged this and said, “English is not the language of the US. There is not a national language, English just happens to be most widely used in most of the states.” A male student raised his hand and disagreed. “I think English is the national language. Just like the American flag is the national flag and Christian is the national religion.” The instructor said “Yes, the American flag is a declared symbol of America, but we do not have a national language or religion in this country.” The student had a difficult time believing the instructor so she told him to find evidence to prove otherwise and she would be more than willing to admit being wrong. “I am more than willing to change what I think I know if you can find evidence otherwise.” During the same class discussion a male student raised his hand and said: Our country was founded on this culture, and evidently, it’s still the same in most 81 American beliefs. So if you don’t like what our country has been doing for many years and still would like to do, then why don’t you just move and find out where you really can fit in. This student clearly had a perception of an American culture. He was unwilling to admit that it may not be universal across all racial and ethnic groups and, more importantly, that all Americans may not believe in the same values. Aversions to contact outside one’s own racial group reached beyond language and a homogenous American culture. The students also talked about who is at the center of the discussions about racism and discrimination. A female student said: Working as a supervisor I had employees try to say that they were being discriminated for one reason or another because they were Hispanic, a single parent, etc. Usually this was just an excuse because they wanted to have special treatment than all others, blaming others for their downfalls. Another female student said: Over all I got the impression that the African Americans were blaming Whites for the start of prejudice. Now for one I agree that back in history “our people” may have done them and others wrong and that there are still ignorant people out there today who still act in hatred. But, for one, that was so long ago, and two, who is to say that only Whites are racist? This subtheme also included conversations the students had about how White people are always being blamed for others’ disadvantages and blamed for racist comments and actions. Some of the students were unwilling to validate the feelings other racial groups have about treatment at the hands of White people. A male student yelled, “Well get over 82 it,” when the conversation about power was presented and who has power in the United States. Another student said, “. . .I have to worry about getting gray everyday and you do not see me crying about that. . .skin color is not always the biggest deal and so many non- White people make it the biggest deal.” This student was commenting on being Black and what that may mean for a Black person on a daily basis. Oftentimes this subtheme emerged during discussions about the White man’s treatment of others over the course of history and what society is doing in modern times to rectify those past incidences. This subtheme materialized more at the beginning of the semester when the students were just starting the process of racial identity development. Diflerentiating Privilege and Power This subtheme arose in almost every class session throughout the semester. On the second day of class, the instructor made a chart on the board with different privileges listed across the top and the words, “have” or “do not have” along the side. The privileges listed on the top were race, class, gender, religion, physical ability, education, religion, and sexual orientation. Then the class went through the sheet and one by one looked at the privileges they do have and do not have. The instructor made the comment, because all of you self-identified as White you have racial privilege, but may not have any of the other privileges listed. She went on to say, “You need to look at the intersections of privileges.” The students all nodded in agreement and appeared to understand the concept, but as the semester progressed it became clear that it was difficult for the students to differentiate their privileges, especially racial. A female student wrote: Maybe I am blind to what is going on around me but I feel that most people of all 83 races are being treated equally. There will always be Blacks who do not like Whites and Whites who do not like Blacks. Something was also said that a poor Black man would never be able to make it out of [the poor] life style. I understand that when he goes to get a job (from a White man) he may not get it. I don’t think it’s because he is Black, I think it is because most likely he is uneducated. Another female student wrote: White privilege isn’t something everyone experiences. I don’t feel like I have a privilege over another person because I am White. I work just as hard as other Americans to have what I want. There are African Americans who work hard for what they want also. How else can they afford to drive brand new SUVs and cars? I was filling out financial aid forms the other day for school. I thought to myself all forms ask you your race. Why the heck should it matter? I thought back to all the things I have filled out that asked me race. All those standardized testing forms in school like the MEAP, ACT, and SAT. Does it matter whether I am Caucasian, African American, Pacific Islander, or whatever else relates to how smart I am or am not? When I applied for college the application asked me my race. Why? Am I more intelligent because I am White? I don’t think so. Don’t accept me into a college or hire me because I am White. Hire and accept me for my abilities not my race. In a class session discussing which movie best depicts your life, a female student said, “Coal Miners Daughter, because I grew up poor and managed to succeed despite my upbringings and this had nothing to do with the fact that I am White.” Another female 84 student made the comment, “I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I have worked hard for everything I have and that has nothing to do with being White.” The instructor addressed this and said you are intersecting race privilege with class. Maybe you do not have class privilege but you still have race privilege. The student became visibly upset and said, “I do not.” In a written journal response to the class session where White privilege was introduced, a male student wrote: I feel that the White privilege is a stereotype. I’ve been tagged this name and I don’t want it. I’ll earn the title that I want to have. I feel that a Black man can earn any title that he wishes to have. In fact, we all earn whatever we want and go wherever we choose to go. After the same class session another male student wrote, “I work 3 jobs to get better and still going to school - it does not matter that I am White.” The intersection of race and class was especially difficult for the students to differentiate between during the semester. In a written response to a class session about power a male student wrote: I’m not exactly sure what [the professor] meant by saying Whites had the power, because power is used in so many ways. As individuals Whites don’t have any more power than any other colors. Any American can vote, find a job, or even start a business. Anybody colored or not can find a job; it takes a little hard work, ambition, and determination. Any African American person can work where I’m employed; I wasn’t hired based on my ethnicity. The most ridiculous thing I heard the entire class was “why is it when you watch the news you see more people of color being convicted of crimes than Whites”. That statement was absurd. More 85 of them are convicted because they commit more crimes. The court system is not racist; people just need to quit breaking the damn law. . . . To sum up my thoughts, a high crime and African American populated city like Detroit may never be even a middle class city but the people and families that want to get out and further their lives have the possibilities. It is not in Omaha in 1963 anymore and people of color may buy a house wherever they may please. I am aware that it is not only people of color that are located in Detroit. White people and White families are located there also, but to make something out of themselves people need to get jobs and stop committing crimes. Anybody can further their own lives if they want to, I don’t care what color they are! It became evident that the intersection of race and class was difficult for students to differentiate. Some also had challenges seeing the differences between race and gender. A female student wrote: By the way, I do not feel I have the power you speak of because I am White. I am also at the mercy of the White man, and I really don’t care if this is considered less of a problem than an African American woman because MY life has been made much more difficult due to my gender. Who is to say whose hardships are less important than others? How Language Choice and Use Impacted Racial Identity Development. The final subtheme under “Student Perspectives on Difference” was “How Language Choice and Use Impacted Racial Identity Development.” This theme emerged as I read and listened to the voices of the students as they talked and wrote about diverse individuals and groups of people. The elements of language in this section include: 86 impact of language choice, use of over-generalizations, and use of contradictory statements. The instructor challenged the students at the beginning of the semester to think about the impact of the language they used: “Even if you do not intend to hurt or make value judgments in your statements, the impact can be something very different.” A male student commented: I know I don’t treat minority groups different than Caucasians but I do look at them differently, because I grew up with all White people. I don’t treat them differently, because I grew up learning that all people are equal, but I do look at them differently. I think I look at them differently because I am not used to seeing lots of them. Immediately the instructor had the student think about that remark. She pointed out that using the terms; “they and them. . .are overgeneralizations and can have a negative impact on a group of people. You really need to think about the words you use.” The same student later in class said, “I never have been racist to anyone. Ok, I might have had a few thoughts.” The instructor challenged this student to think about the contradictory tone in his comments. He responded by saying, “. . .so I don’t speak up as much as I would like, I do not agree with racial remarks and jokes. I was never really a racist or stereotypical.” The instructor stopped the class and asked the student to think about that statement. She said, “Sometimes not saying anything can be as harmful as confronting a person. Confrontation can be painful but necessary.” Another student in the class stated, “Just because you do not challenge someone who is saying something mean does not mean you are racist.” The instructor said, “. .. No, you are not automatically racist. I am curious to know why are so many of you are so worried about being called a 87 racist?” The students did not respond during class but many wrote about it later in their journals. A male student wrote: I think I understand the impact of my language. But what I do not understand is for year’s people have been beating it into people’s heads that Afiican American is the correct way to name them, now it is Black, what is up? Pick a name and stick with it. We are always White or Caucasian just decide what you want to be called would you? In addition to using contradictory language the students in the class also made statements that over-generalized groups of people. The students used terms like “they”, “them”, and “those people” to describe groups of individuals. The instructor challenged the students both in class and in written work about the impact of these words. A female student wrote, “Colored people are victims of the stereotypes they have learned [from] White people ...” This is pointed out because of the use of the term “colored” which was alsopointed out by the professor. In addition the student was beginning to understand internalized oppression. She said, “Using the term colored is not totally appropriate. You are talking about someone who is of a darker skin color, but Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino or whatever racial group they belong is more appropriate.” The students had a difficult time accepting changes in how one should refer to people of color. The instructor said using the term ‘colored’ was not appropriate, and that “terms like Oriental and non-White also do not accurately depict individual people.” A male student said, “How come we always have to worry about being so politically correct?” The instructor responded, “It is not about being politically correct, it is about accurately describing people. ‘Colored’ is derogatory term and using non-White perpetuates notions that White 88 is the superior race.” Once the students were able to recognize their language choices and the impact those choices had on others, the instructor was able to focus on selection of words and statements and challenge the students to think before they spoke or wrote something on paper. Language was an issue throughout the semester but closer to the end of the semester students would catch themselves in class when beginning a sentence or statement with an over generalization or contradiction. A female student wrote, “I am working very hard at not saying terms like ‘they’ and ‘them.’ I know it is not what I am trying to say.” In response to a question about African-American history month, a male student said, “They ...I did not mean to say they, I should have said, he. . .” The students also began to challenge one another on the use of language and the impact of the words they were using. A male student said to another male student, “I heard you say all of those people living in that community. . .did you mean all of them or just one family?” In another class session a male student said to a female student, “I think you are talking about just the Black man who attacked your friend not the entire Black population...” At this point the students were clearly beginning to understand the impact of their language choices and their implications for others. At this point, the concept of White privilege and White racial identity through language use was becoming clearer to the students. They were beginning to see how all aspects of their lives are interconnected and how being White did not have implications just for racial relations with others, but also affected language, actions, living environment, and all other aspects of their lives. The Developmental Levels Students Reached Toward Intemalizing White Privilege This theme developed near the end of the semester as students were challenged to 89 think about their White racial identity and the privileges associated with White racial identity. As the class moved toward the recognition and deconstruction of White culture, students were better able and willing to see how White individuals in the United States benefit from White privilege everyday. This theme includes three subthemes that emerged under the main theme: awareness, acknowledgment, and ownership. These three subthemes represent a progression that outlines their developmental nature and are meant to indicate the grth students made in this area. This theme and its related subthemes differ from the previous subtheme, “differentiating privilege and power,” because they address notions of how and to what level students are willing to internalize and take ownership of their White privilege. The three subthemes represent levels of ownership and internalization. Awareness The first subtheme, “Awareness,” describes students who become aware that White privilege exists, but does not represent the students’ willingness to own White privilege. A male student said: It’s a burden to hate. . .It is easier not to hate is what I have realized through this class. I think I hated may be a strong word but [I] avoided my co-workers who are not White because I was scared of them, but also because I guess I realized I could as a White. He was referring to how he values working in a diverse work environment and how much he has learned from his co-workers and this class about his own racial identity. A female student said: I have learned that some of my views are not always acceptable. But I have also 90 learned that there are many reasons for them that have nothing to do with discrimination. I have also realized that I am a hypocrite and part of that is the fact that I am White. Unfortunately, I have also learned that will never change. A male student made a similar comment about accepting others: I must admit that I kind of resent others always thinking I am the one that has to change and accept them instead, because I am White. Maybe they are the ones that should change to fit in with me. An even better solution would be that we compromise a little and both be happy. Both of these students were clearly aware that being White had some advantages in terms of both work and how others view them, but the level to which this was personalized was ambiguous. There was also a clear sense of resentment and even hostility. With both of these students there was a clear unwillingness to give up some of the racial privilege of being White to be more inclusive of others. Awareness also included the students’ views on how they noticed differences and reacted to them. A male student said: Also, I am not noticing that people are a different color as much and let the people’s actions speak for them first, instead of letting their color speak first and their actions second. I think that it’s a good start. Another male student wrote: However, opinions may vary. I can say that I do not know what it is like to be a person of a different race living in this country. This nation is the way it is, and I will be the first person to admit that many things are unfair. As a White man, I do what I can to change those things but it isn’t much. 91 This particular male student was willing to admit unfair racial treatment, but his level of internalization of White privilege was at the beginning stages. In a different journal response paper the same male student wrote: I just hope I will always remember all the issues we have learned about. I just hope that in 6 months down the road I don’t just brush off issues of women’s rights, religious rights, and minority problems of being accepting, etc. I never looked at it like that; I just really didn’t care what people thought, which I know I can do most times as a White male. But some people just [cannot ignore the situation] because their battle really hurts their everyday life, and I was never aware of that before. The students appeared to be exhibiting an understanding of the battles diverse individuals have faced. A male student wrote: I can see how it is hard for a minority to voice their opinion in a group that is different than the one they are from. I could understand how afraid a minority would be when criticizing the majority group that they are around and I can see how being uncomfortable around a majority group can make a minority feel contempt for the people of the majority. . Around here darker skinned people can’t even go get a drink without people saying something rude, staring or worse. This is the biggest thing I’ve learned so far. I learned that I need to be more tolerant of others, even if we have different viewpoints or different skin color and to be forgiving of others even if they have wronged or upset me. This student was willing to accept that people of color are treated differently and that he plays a part in treatment of those individuals. 92 Many of the students also exhibited an awareness of how White privilege adversely affected everyday life for minorities. A male student made the comment in class, “Juries are not non-racist because they are never really a jury of your peers.” Another male student said, “More Blacks seemed to be convicted of crimes because they are more watched — they are under a microscope.” In a discussion about why neighborhoods and communities are so segregated in the United States a female student said, “. . .Living among individuals who are the same racial background is better because then you will not feel uncomfortable.” A female classmate said, . .good analogy but that does not mean it is right, opportunities should be equal for everyone but that is easy for me to say as a White woman.” This student is a good example of awareness because she is willing to say life is easier for her as a White woman and her choices in life are made easier by the color of her skin. She also was willing to challenge one of her fellow classmates, who personified this subtheme and the grthh she achieved during the semester. Acknowledgment The next subtheme under “The developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege” is “Acknowledgement.” This theme depicts the students who exhibited an understanding of White privilege and also a willingness to acknowledge that they held a privilege as a White person. To the researcher it became clear that students who reached this level were willing to give up the idea that acknowledging you had White privilege did not mean you lived the easiest life. The students characterized in this subtheme reached a level to which they were able to understand the difference between certain privileges, but that they all had race privilege. It was difficult to 93 determine how many students were represented in each subtheme. The students tended to move in and out of subthemes as their thinking became more advanced and they were exposed to more of the framework. A male student wrote in a journal response to class: As a White person. . .I see how morbid racism is. It is pointless. I think people are racist because they fear what they do not understand. The only way to stop racism is to talk to your friends and family. . .. I also see how a White person fits into the continuation of racism and privilege. Another male student wrote: After the 9-11 attacks I was one of the people who felt they should load up all the Arabs and send them back. I quit going to the party stores and [the] Coney Island next to my shop. But now I took time to think about it. That was a prejudice. So actually and truthfully realized I was wrong and now I go to [the] Coney Island every morning for my coffee for the ride home. I’ve also found out that in my position at work as a supervisor I can send powerful messages fast. After I had my kids read The Education of a WASP I leave it on my desk in my office. It’s a great conversation piece. Everyone will ask what I’m reading. I tell them it’s a great book that will make you understand racism especially as a White person. A female student began to acknowledge her White privilege by acknowledging how her language could affect others. She said: I know I have more stereotypes, yet I am ashamed at myself when I think of them and wasn’t very comfortable telling you about them. In just admitting that I do have stereotypes and identifying them, is helping me view my motivations and everyday life. I also am beginning to see how [as a White person] I am part of the 94 institution of racism. Another female student acknowledged her own bigotry by saying, “This class has opened my eyes to the fact that I am a bigot. I pass judgments on every person I see; usually these judgments are very negative.” This seemed like a tremendous acknowledgment for her to make, as she said it out loud to her peers. She appeared to be very sure of her statement but also somewhat ashamed to have admitted her bigotry. Developmentally this particular student showed grth that went well beyond many of her colleagues. Acknowledgment also materialized in relation to the language the students used. A male student said, “As a people, we need to accept each person as an individual rather than as belonging to any particular group. We also need to address individuals as individuals rather than as groups.” Another female student said, “Not all Blacks are lazy. Usually if your statement starts with all or none and groups people it is a prejudice or stereotype.” The theme also included students beginning to see how White privilege and White culture has been institutionalized in the United States. A female student wrote: Once I look back on it, I know our education system is quite discriminatory against all the other cultures that made this country work. Most of our history that is taught is all about the Europeans and the impact they had. It also seems that when you do hear about other cultures in history, it’s usually the negative aspects of their history. Yet when they talk about the history of the European-Americans, they seem to weed out most of the negative things they did throughout the past. They only want to be seen as the hero and make us think that we are always right and never make mistakes. It helps me realize why minorities believe that the 95 white man is all-supreme in America because they truly are and that is very disappointing. After September 11th, they went to Arabic towns and detained a number of people just because of their ancestry. A lot of us looked at their culture completely different after that point. Yet do we look at young white males differently after the Oklahoma City bombings? We have become a very hypocritical country. In a similar journal response, a male student wrote: I feel that it is dismal that other ethnicities are exposed to this uncomfortable feeling regularly and sometimes cannot remove themselves from the situation, as I am able to. As time extends, more minority group’s populations increases. Eventually Caucasians may be minorities rather than African Americans, Asians, or Hispanics. Until then hopefully all people will consider everybody equal, I know I will. Acknowledgment also included how the students came to understand their White privilege in relation to power and access. A female student said in class, “This country thinks White, [is] controlled by White...” and another male student said, “. .. [Who has the power?] [It] goes by the point system — White men have the most points, then White women, etc. Like a hierarchy.” In addressing issues of access, a female student said, “Kids in [a large city] do not have access to good education which then means they do not have access to the good jobs and way of life.” As this theme arose in the analysis of the data, about ten of the eighteen students were represented in this subtheme. I believe that more students would be represented in this subtheme if the class had been longer and I had more time with these students. 96 Ownership The final subtheme under “The developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege” is “Ownership.” This subtheme differs from acknowledgement because it represents a deeper understanding of White privilege but also a willingness to own the privilege. These students also represented their understanding that their White skin and White privilege did not make them evil persons. The theme also depicts students who were not only aware and acknowledged their White privilege, but were also ready to internalize the privilege and admit that as an individual this was something they possessed. A male student was writing about growing up and he said: I myself [saw] racism and grew up with White privilege. When I was young, I met a young Black man named Prince. For fun, I brought him to my house to ride dirt bikes. My dad’s reaction was what I expected. He didn’t want him there. That pissed me off; he was a good guy. I [saw] nothing different between us but our skin [color]. My father only looks skin deep. I informed him how ignorant he was being. Till this day he has not changed, my brother [also] still has the same views, because he is around him all the time and my sister [even] show’s racist views. I have stopped her [from] using the N word. [I think] people should interact no matter [what their] skin color, religion, or political views. The world would be a better place. A female student wrote: This class has taught me that I do judge people and treat them differently based on age, sex, race, and religion. After taking this class I don’t look at peOple and judge 97 them. I’ve learned that I don’t want to be the person that laughs and points at pe0ple who are unlike me. I don’t want to make people feel bad for being who they are. I have also learned that it is easy to laugh and judge people as a White person. I have the power and the privilege to do that. The ownership subtheme also included students who noticed behaviors they exhibited during the class. The students at this developmental level were willing to admit those behaviors. A male student was reflecting on a class session exploring Arab Americans and he wrote: I also noticed that as I was reading I was skimming the paragraphs and sentences that broke down their culture and religions. Maybe subconsciously I was trying to stay the same and not expand my point of view, in turn keeping me biased. After I noticed I was doing this, I made a conscious effort to read and understand every word and sentence before I moved onto the next and I am glad that I did. A female student said, “Stereotypes set restrictions on me; I was setting limitations on myself. I could have met a number of new and interesting people, if I hadn’t restricted my interactions with the people I had stereotypes against.” For some students, ownership was a point where they were able to exhibit an ability to explore other cultures and embrace their differences. A male student wrote: Sometimes when people finally let themselves reach out and try to explore different cultures, one bad experience with only one person, can turn them back to how they were before. If they would just focus on blaming one person and not their whole race then they would find that there are nice people and bad people. The color of their skin or what they believe has nothing to do with it. 98 Another component within ownership was the willingness for students to admit that they did not have all the answers and did not know what it was like to live in another person’s shoes. The students were willing to open themselves up to the unknown as the semester progressed and admit that, “it is easy to stay within the same White culture I have always known, but it is not right”. A female student was writing about homosexuality and wrote: I may not understand why people are homosexual but my lack of knowledge is not an excuse to hate them. I don’t think that a heterosexual can understand homosexuality because we have never spent a day, week, or even a lifetime in their shoes. We don’t know what it is like to feel like a social outcast and I think until we feel what it’s like to be on the outside looking in, no one should discriminate against homosexuals. Another female talked about the differences and said, “The only reason [individuals from other racial and ethnic groups] scares a person is because it’s different and people are afraid of people who aren’t like them.” Another female was talking about White privilege with regards to how much easier being White can make one’s life: White privilege is having the freedom to make decisions and choices in our life as we desire. Not having to base decisions based on our skin color or nationality. White people have more privileges than Black people do; White people blend in more than Black people. Black people can’t discriminate as White people can. The world that we live in makes it easy for White people to live without coming in contact with Black people. Black people have to come in contact with White people because there are more White people than Black [people] in the US. 99 This particular student was reflecting on the ease of being White and making choices but also how many White individuals can choose freely who they want to associate with, while this may not be a luxury enjoyed by all racial groups in the United States. When reflecting on what they learned during the semester and how that will impact their lives, a male student wrote: The most important thing I have learned in this class is that I have a privilege or unfair advantage over a lot of minorities. Because of this privilege I should try to break down the biases I have and help others to remove their biases. Once this happens, we will have leveled the playing field and humankind will advance a lot further. A female student wrote: Through my experience in [this class] I can relate to individual experiences one at a time knowing each experience is truly unique, and try not to let any previous experiences or situations influence my attitude. I have learned that I should encourage myself and others. . .to speak out to improve and protect our cultures. I also have learned that I have the privilege to lead this fight by the color of my skin and that is what I should be doing. The themes presented in this chapter represented the students during class discussions and through their written work. The next findings chapter lays out similar themes through the voices of the students who were interviewed one-on-one at three different points during the semester. 100 Chapter Five Findings from One-on-One Interviews Introduction This chapter introduces the six individuals who were interviewed three times during the semester and their development over the sixteen-week course. The six individuals were selected to represent the statuses on the Helms (1990) WRIAS. Since the intent of the WRIAS was not to assign statuses to individuals based on the way they answered questions, these individuals were chosen based on how they represented the varying scores in the class. Since individual scores are not meant to assign a student to one exclusive status, individuals who scored the highest in each status were selected. The test was scored anonymously. The interviewees were a good representation of the class, as will become clear as the chapter progresses. The six statuses represented by the individuals in this chapter are: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudoindependence, immersion/emersion, and autonomy. Each status increases how an ”individual views their racial identity and also increases how an individual positively relates to individuals of color. The six individuals represented in this chapter all consented to three one-hour interviews at three different points in the semester. The first interview was conducted in the first two weeks of the semester, the second interview took place at the mid-semester mark, and the final interview was done four to five weeks after the semester ended. All names have been changed to protect the identity of the individuals interviewed. The six individuals represented in this chapter are, Boats, Madeline, Noah, Lucy, Angel, Chloe, and Tatiana. Chloe replaced her for the following two interviews. Boats is 101 White male in his late thirties who takes classes part time and works in a factory in a large city. He is taking classes to earn an associate degree in general education and hopes to get a bachelor’s degree someday. He works the night shift and is the supervisor of a large, diverse crew of men. He is married and has two older children. Madeline is a White female in her early twenties; she is engaged and works a job in retail. She takes classes on a part-time basis and hopes to earn a bachelor’s degree in business someday and become a retail store manager. She is planning to marry in a few years but currently is living at her mother’s home to save money for the future. Noah is a single White male in his early twenties. He is attending this school near home because he was dismissed from a four-year school at the end of the last semester. He works a part time job and is not sure what his educational plans are for the future. He describes himself as an “easy going, go with the flow kind of guy who likes to have fun. . Lucy is a divorced female in her late twenties with two children. She describes herself as White but is actually fifty percent Native American and fifty percent Italian. She describes herself as White because she says “. . .she feels more White and looks more White than Native or Italian and everybody thinks I am White. . .. I also pretty much act more White as well...” Chloe is a married, White female in her late twenties who is taking this class because diversity and issues of diversity fascinate her. She describes herself as “. . .completely open minded and I actually have never lived in such a non-diverse area. It is very strange and I am not sure I like it here...” Chloe has attended two other schools and is not sure what she wants to do with her education. She is a musician and also loves 102 to draw and paint. “I am not sure I could make any money so I need something to fall back on...” Tatiana is a female in her late forties and is taking this class for fun. “I am recently divorced and also loved to learn. . .this class was right up my alley and so I decided to take it. . She works full time as an administrative assistant and only takes classes every few years. She has a bachelor’s degree in education and taught school for many years. She is retired from the public school system and describes herself as a “. .. life long learner. . While these six individuals did not fit perfectly into each category of the WRIAS they did represent the range of scores in the class. They also represented the range of ages, gender, socioeconomic conditions, and reasons for pursuing higher education. Most of the interviews were conducted in the building where the class was held either before or after class, but four of the interviews were conducted at local restaurants for scheduling purposes. This chapter reports the six interviews through the lens of three main themes similar to the themes presented in the last chapter. The themes will be described through the stories of the individuals interviewed. The first interview was intended to gather information about previous experiences with diversity and multicultural education, a description of the subject’s racial identity, perceptions of diversity, and feelings about the racial environment on the campus. Some questions asked were: 0 Describe previous, formal, and informal experiences with diversity or multicultural education 103 0 Describe your racial background and identity. What does your racial identity meant to you? 0 What is it like to be a member of your racial group on this campus? 0 What kinds of skills or tools do you think you need to interact with individuals and groups from different racial identities? The second interviews were conducted to determine how the semester was progressing for the students and gather some preliminary data on the effectiveness of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) after eight weeks. Some questions that were asked at this interview included: 0 Tell me about your experience(s) in this class so far... 0 Has this class changed how you look at or interact with diverse others? 0 What class session thus far had the most impact on how you think about your race and identity? The final interview was conducted five to six weeks after the final class session. This interview was intended to gather data about their development over the semester and determine, from an individual viewpoint, how effective the course was for the student. Some sample questions from the final interview: 0 Describe your racial background and identity. What does your racial identity mean to you? How has this description changed since the beginning of this course? 0 How does your culture impact your life? How do you think you impact your culture? 0 Are you aware of yourself being White? If so, when? Has this changed or become 104 more important as a result of this course? 0 How has this class helped you advance your ideas about diversity and your role working with diverse others? Tell me about the session(s) that had the most impact... A complete listing of the questions used during each of the three interviews is included in appendix A, B, and C. The chapter will now begin framing the interviewees’ responses to the questions around the three themes: who am I? the search for racial identity; student perspectives on difference; and the developmental level students reached toward internalizing White privilege. Who Am I? The Search for Racial Identity The theme, “Who am I? The search for Racial Identity” materialized in much the same way as it did from the classroom observations and written work. Many times during the semester, students were challenged to think about their racial identity and what impact that had on their lives. “Who am I? The search for racial identity” had four subthemes that arose from the interview analysis: student’s awareness of the importance of racial identity, the negative feelings students displayed toward others’ racial identities, sheltered perspective and knowledge about others’ racial identity, and definitions of White racial identity. The subthemes emerged as the interview transcriptions were analyzed and coded. The subthemes evolved prior to the main themes and were then grouped together to show the movement the students made as the semester progressed. Student 's Awareness of the Importance of Racial Identity The first subtheme to illustrate the main theme, “Who am I? The search for racial identity” was “Student’s Awareness of The Importance of Racial Identity.” This theme 105 manifested itself as the students were asked to describe their racial background and what it meant to them as individuals. The theme also includes exemplars that mention how the interviewees talk about others’ racial identities. Many of the students found it easier to talk about their own racial identity in relation to people from other racial backgrounds. Some used those descriptions as benchmarks to talk about their own racial identity. Some of the students had an extremely difficult time describing their racial identity. During the first set of interviews, Madeline, Noah, Lucy, and Angel could not think of anything. Many said, “. . .It is not something I have ever thought about.” Boats said, “What a strange question; nobody has ever asked me that and I have never had to think about it before...” Noah said: To tell you the truth, I don’t really think about it. It’s not a big deal to me. I’ve never like thought of it really, mostly because I don’t care really. I don’t walk into a place and say, geez there’s a lot of Black people here like downtown [in a large city]. A bunch of friends and I went to [a hall] for [a] show and on the way back we stopped at a ...restaurant down [in the city]. There’s actually a bullet hole in the front window and you got your food through bulletproof glass. You put your money through the slot. A couple of my friends were really leery about stopping there. To me it was not a big deal. It doesn’t bother me. I just don’t look at it. I never really think about it. When asked if it made him feel uncomfortable being in a situation where his friends were clearly uncomfortable and he was a minority, he said, . .I guess I did not think about it, but maybe a little. . .It was just different.” In the first set of interviews the students had a difficult time thinking about how to describe their own racial identity, but had little 106 difficulty saying it was not a big deal and moving on. Later in the same interview with Noah he said, “. . .So they have different skin color whatever. It’s not a big deal to me.” Boats replied in much the same way he said, “. .. but I just don’t look at me as a race or a gender. ...I could really care or less about what race I am. and I do not think about it. . The students were also asked about their culture both in class and during the one- on-one interview. The questions asked about the impact of culture and individual impact on culture. Lucy said, “. . .I don’t really impact my culture. I’m just a fly in a big bowl of soup. (Laughter) I’m just a little drop of rain in a big ocean. So I don’t think I really have any impact on anyone else.” When she was challenged to think about influence and what kind she has on society as an individual, she replied, “. . .again I am such a small part of a larger system that I cannot possibly affect anything... It is just the everyday things and my children that I deal with. . .” The question was complex and their understanding of the question may have impacted how they responded. Madeline responded that she did not understand culture and wondered how it had any influence on your life at all. . .I pretty much do what I need to and get by. I do not live a fancy life and probably never will. . Their level and depth of understanding of the questions was unclear. The questions asked paralleled what the instructor was teaching in the classroom, but the students did not always correlate their responses to the classroom curriculum. The first interview was conducted only one to two weeks into the semester so the students were just beginning the process of racial identity exploration. For most of the students involved in the interview process their awareness of their own racial identity was unclear at the outset. As this chapter progresses their growth and advanced thinking about both their own racial identity and others’ racial identity becomes more in depth and 107 advanced. The Negative Feeling Students Displayed Toward Others ' Racial Identities “The Negative Feeling Students Displayed Toward Others’ Racial Identities,” emerged later with the interviewees as, in class, we began to explore other racial and cultural groups. The students began to see the significance of race. In some of the interviews it evolved into a negative concept of themselves as White, but also of other racial and ethnic groups. It became evident that some of the students had the idea that people of color automatically think of White people as racist. The narrative in this subtheme illustrates the negative notions some of the students had about individuals from other racial and ethnic groups. Lucy said: I believe that because I am predominately White, because I look White, [that] ethnic [ally] diverse [individuals] ...think because I’m White, that automatically makes me racist. There [are] ...a lot of White people that people automatically think they’re racist because they’re White and it is not true. I think this is bad and sometimes get very angry at people for thinking this. Take a look in the mirror buddy. . Lucy became very angry at this point in the interview and said, “I am sick of people thinking I am racist because I am White... It is just bad. . .and it seems to happen all the time,” Madeline had a similar response to Lucy. She said: ...They assume because I am not Black or Asian, I’m prejudice against them. That has nothing to do with it. I deal a lot with it at work. It makes me mad ...to know they have played the race card. Both Madeline and Lucy had a difficult time in class understanding that not all 108 individuals of color hate White people and are afraid of them. The instructor was able to cite many examples of how individuals of different cultural backgrounds come together and work toward racial harmony. The students, in class, appeared to accept this but in their interviews it was not clear if Lucy and Madeline agreed. Fear and assumptions of other racial groups were also common threads among the interviewees in this subtheme. When asked about positive and negative things about being a member of another racial group, Madeline said: Most of the people who steal from us are Black and I know it for a fact. It’s not just hey, you’re Black, you are going to steal. ...And I don’t like how minorities treat me. I guess they think the way we do business is bad; you know how some people think all Black people are bad people. Well they probably think all White people are racist. I never thought about positive things about being another race. But I don’t think I’m superior to anyone else because I am White. When asked Madeline to comment more, she said, “. . .When Black people come into my store and want something that is against company policy I know they think I am being racist against them because they are Black.” She went on further to say that she probably, “Looks at Black customers differently because they do steal more and come from bad areas more.” While Madeline could not tell me where these assumptions about Black people came from, Boats was very clear about where he learned that Black people were bad. He said: I wouldn’t say I was brought up a racist but back in 1976.1 lived in the city and a couple of Black men moved in so my mom and dad packed up and moved to the [country]. Why we moved from our friends because these Blacks moved in 109 I am not sure. I was 12 at the time. That’s all I ever knew. I didn’t know any Black people. I just knew when they moved in, we moved out and I still do not live around any Blacks... I do work with some though...” Boats was very clear about the origins of his negative attitudes toward people of color. He continued, “My father is extremely racist and to this day [he] chooses not to associate with or be friends with any Black people...” He continued with, “I am not proud of my father’s racist attitudes and feel that raising my children differently will help...” While Boats was very clear on where his negative attitudes about race originated and Madeline was unable to verbalize the origins for her own negative attitudes. Lucy talked about how the fear she has of people of color originated as a child from her mother’s attitudes. She said: I did not go to a school that was diverse and I could have in the neighborhood where I lived. But my mom sent me to a different school that was not very diverse. I think she was afraid of the school in my neighborhood. I also could have gone to a school on the reservation my dad lived because I am Native American. But I feel like I grew up White. Lucy referred to this decision by her mother as, “her way of keeping me away from my father’s heritage since they hated each other...” She went on to say, “This class has made me think about how evil my mother made colored people out to be. . .She could and can say some mean stuff.” At this point Lucy spent some time pausing and it was evident talking about this was painful. As she became visibly uncomfortable, she quickly changed the subject and began talking about how she feels being White can be scary. She said: 110 Actually sometimes I think... it is scary being White; like I can’t go in a “tough” neighborhood, where it’s predominately other cultures and feel free to be myself and not worry about my safety. My mom said I should always be leery of, she uses the word ‘those’ people. I guess it was a learned thing for me. In an interview with Noah he was asked how he felt about being able to work with individuals of color knowing that by 2050 Whites could become the minority in the US. He responded: I just hope that when this happens Whites don’t become underprivileged. They look at us different; things like that. I hate it when people blame other people, like when there’s a minority and they say we’re not getting the same rights as everyone else. I hate when they rip that. I hate that groups of minorities say we’re being racist and we don’t have as many privileges as other people, we can’t get a job, this and that. I don’t want to hear that. I really don’t. Most of the places that I’ve lived I’ve fit in. I guess what feels bad is you have some negative aspects from other races toward your whole group because somebody has done something in racism. ...If a guy in a town is Black and murders someone, then he puts a negative aspect on pretty much everyone of that race. I hope that does not happen to White people. That would suck... Noah began to touch on aspects of privilege and the idea that potentially the White man may not hold the privilege. He also talked about the negative treatment individuals of color face and how an entire population of people can be misrepresented by the actions of one individual. He seemed willing to accept that currently this does not happen to White people, but this could happen and he said, . .That would suck.” His perception of being 111 a minority in the future illustrates the negative feelings he currently holds for others who are perceived to be members of the minority race. The students that displayed negative racial attitudes also seemed to be blaming these attitudes on someone else or a situation rather than on something someone has done to them. Many of the comments noted above made by the students during the interviews, are based on their assumptions about other people, rather than on their own experiences. Sheltered Perspective and Knowledge about Others ’ Racial Identity The, “Sheltered Perspective and Knowledge About Others’ Racial Identity,” subtheme materialized as students began to examine who shaped their beliefs about racial identity. Many of these exemplars are related to living in a community lacking diversity and to being sheltered from diverse people. In addition, age and experiences in life had an influence on some of these students and their responses. When asked how they felt when interacting and working with individuals of diverse cultures, many answered with responses like, “. . .I do not have much experience working or living among people who are different, after all I grew up in [a small town] which is almost all White...” Boats talked about his interaction with diverse individuals: There were no Black people in [a small town]. Then when I graduated from high school, I went to work with my dad. They didn’t have any Black people there. It was like family, not because they didn’t want any Blacks, [but everyone was White]. That’s just the way it was structured. My dad grew up in the inner city and it was Whites against Blacks. Noah also talked about lack of exposure: ...When I was in high school, I think we had two blacks in our whole school. 112 [They were]... the only two Blacks [in the town and school]. So I think it comes back to [the fact that] I’ve never really had any experience with [diverse people]. I think the fact that there are positives if you’re with your race and negatives if you’re not, if you’re the minority. Madeline said her lack of exposure to people of color does affect her being able to talk and be with diverse individuals. She said: It’s pretty easy when I’m in the store to talk to them [people of color] ...because I am in charge. I was at a barbecue at my to-be sister-in-law’s and she lives in [a large city] and some of her neighbors [people of color] were there. I said ‘hi’ and introduced myself and we chitchatted for a little bit but then I was kind of like what do I talk about next. You know I didn’t know them and they didn’t know me. When asked if she was uncomfortable because she did not know the individuals very well or if she was lacking conversation because they were people of color, she said, “I do not know anything about their culture so I was uncomfortable because they were not White...” Madeline was more than willing to admit that her uneasiness in social settings around individuals of color is due to lack of exposure and experience. She said, “At least in the store I know everything about our product and they do not expect small talk.” Boats told a story about a colleague who is Black. He told the colleague about his new riding lawnmower tractor and the individual said he had never been on a tractor and his kids had not either. He said: Hendrick was telling me about how his kids [have] never even been out in the country and his kid wants to drive a tractor. Well, I just bought a new John Deere, 113 power steering and tilt and all that, and I said, ‘Hendrick, just come on out and you can drive the tractor.’ And the funniest thing, out of the clear blue sky he goes, ‘Oh yeah, look, Boats got one.’ When asked what the colleague meant by “one” Boats said, “Well, since my community is all White they would think I got a slave if I let him come to my house and ride my tractor.” He was then asked how this made him feel and he said, “. . .Well I may have thought the same thing if I saw a Black man at my neighbors riding around on a tractor. It is a very White community after all.” Having also had limited exposure to people of color Lucy talked about moving from her hometown, which was predominately White, to a diverse community. She said: It took me a while when I moved to get used to other things. Like I’ve never seen a Black and White couple. I was 19 years old when I moved and I had never seen many [people of color] before. I’d only been to pretty much all White schools my entire life. I only remember two African American people and I am not sure they lived in the community. I am Native American but I did not consider that a colored person. My dad lived on the reservation but mom and dad hated each other so I never went there. She said it made her ask a lot of questions about other cultures and she still felt “ignorant most of the time.” She also said she is beginning to realize how powerful her mother has been in “framing her sense of other non-White people...” Lucy appeared willing to be extremely honest and open during our interviews even though much of what she talked about was painful for her. The class obviously had a strong effect on her attitude about her own sense of racial identity, but also how she viewed others. 114 In addition to a willingness to admit having a sheltered perspective about other racial identities, the students being interviewed also talked about offending individuals from other racial groups. These thoughts paralleled what the students in the class not being interviewed feared. Madeline said, “I don’t want to say anything [around people of color]. You know I’m always afraid I’m going to offend them and I don’t want to...” Tatiana said, “I lack so much exposure that I am just not sure how to act around people who are different than I am...” She went on and said: When I am in the company of people who are different I just kind of take it all in and observe. I guess I really do not say much because I do not want to offend anyone... What is offensive to people of color? The students represented in the above subtheme were more than willing to admit that they lacked both the exposure to and experience with diverse others to make educated assumptions about their racial backgrounds and lifestyles. This showed an immense amount of growth toward discovering their racial identity. Since knowing oneself can be a major step toward developing a sense of racial identity, these students were progressing toward a multicultural education. Definitions of White Racial Identity The subtheme, “Definitions of White Racial Identity,” surfaced as the students began to talk about being White and what that meant in their lives. This theme emerged much later in the semester after the students looked at other cultures and began to deconstruct and reconstruct the White culture. The students represented in this section appeared to be in conflict about their identity and many had a difficult time with the unanswered questions they were posing to themselves. Much this data materialized at the 115 mid-semester interview and the final interview. At the mid-semester interview the students were asked how their views of racial identity have changed and Lucy answered: For me, my identity has become more important to me in all the areas. I [would] like to learn as much about my Sicilian, my Indian background, my German background and everything. Since I don’t look like anybody in the family, even the Sicilian side, most are blonde hair and blue eyes. So I don’t really look like anyone even though I’m three or four different things and that is confusing to me. I base so much on the way people look and vise versa that when I do not look Native American how can I be. I also need to come to grips [with] ...my own views on racism and discrimination and all that. So I’m still quite confused myself and I hate being confused. I just need to understand all this crazy stuff. I feel like I do not fit into many places because [of] the way I look... Lucy found herself quite confused about her racial identity because biology has been the sole determining factor for her in determining racial identity. The idea that race is socially constructed was something Lucy found to be challenging. It changed everything she had ever known and believed about race and the construction of race. Boats reflected on his past experiences with racial relations in the military. He said: When I joined the Marine Corps, I got a different perspective of [race relations]. That’s when I learned there are a lot of Black people that are just as good as White people because we all bleed red. That’s a Marine Corps thing. I guess this class has made me rethink about that and how I used to feel. I need to get back to my Marine Corps roots... 116 Boats talked many times about being in the Marine Corps and said that it was “for the most part a positive environment for colored people, but it was also a place that is pretty White. I am not sure I would have admitted this before this class.” Boats’ thinking about his racial identity and others was becoming more complex as the semester progressed. He was using concrete examples from class to think about past experiences he has had with diverse individuals. He said: During the class we were told to write down things that were things that described our racial identity or culture. I had a hard time doing that. It made me think ‘why is this so hard?’ I was kind of embarrassed. It has made me think a lot about why it was so hard. Boats showed immense amounts of grth and advancement toward developing a complex sense of racial identity. The Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) clearly was a big factor in Boats’ racial development. The activities he cites as most influential are directly attributed to and generated by’the framework. The students at the mid-semester mark were also better able to address questions about how it felt to be White. Tatiana said, “. . .This class has made me think about what [being White] really means. . .or should I say that it does mean something. . .I guess it means I can make decisions about things without thinking about implications.” Lucy said: [This class] ...has only reinforced beliefs I was not sure I had positive, I mean. It has also made me more aware of [other] people’s cultures and how it relates to their race or different things like that. I guess I had never thought about being White and now I do. I am not totally sure what that means but I do know it means 117 something. Similarly, at mid-semester, Chloe said: I realize how people think of me and I think more about my own racial identity as a result of this class. I think intentionally looking at being White and other races has made me more aware of my own identity. Madeline talked about a drastic change in how she defines White. She said: ...I never really thought about my race that much. I was just hey, whatever you know. I’m here. But having this class ...opened my eyes to a lot of things. It made me more aware of what is going on in this world. Before I just went about my daily business. . .I am thankful in some ways that I have a better understanding of being White but I am also sad and want to do more; I am not sure what or how. .. At this point she was asked to talk more about her understanding of being White and she said, “I am not sure. I just realize now I am White and not just when I am around other non-White people. I guess being White may have some benefits that not being White does not have.” Madeline had begun to address the notions of privilege and the association those privileges have to racial identity. At this point in the interview it was clear Madeline was uncomfortable with where the interview was going. She was visibly becoming angry at her admittance of privilege associated with her racial identity. Tatiana was also beginning to confront the privilege associated with being White. She talked about how painful identifying as White can be and said: [Being White] can be very rewarding and also painfirl. Since this class I find myself almost philosophizing about what it means. I am not sure I have come up with a great definition and I am also not sure I need to come up with a great 118 definition. Does [a great definition] really exist. . .? But I am more aware of my culture and the fact that I do have a culture and a race. I also realize historically how normed White has become. It hurts to think about that and how some take advantage of their skin color. The student’s racial identity development was defined for many by their experiences and knowledge. Many talked about this class being particularly influential in their changing definition and knowledge of racial identity. Boats said, “How would I ever learn this stuff if I had not taken this class. I think everyone should have a class like this, especially kids.” Many of the interviewees talked about the influence of this course and the curriculum as both “a great experience and a good way in gaining knowledge.” Development was defined individually, and captured nicely by Tatiana when she responded to a question about tools that are needed to work in a diverse society. She said: I am not sure you can ever have ALL the tools and skills you need to work with diverse others. As a White person my tools and skills are different. . .. I do not have access sometimes to inside knowledge of being another racial group but I have access to being White, which is something I feel everyday. I could not say that sixteen weeks ago or even probably eight but now I feel more empowered to make good decisions about diversity. . Most goes with knowing I am White and what that means... Clearly Tatiana had done an immense amount of personal reflection about White racial identity development over the semester-long course. The voices cited above reflect the effectiveness of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) that was incorporated into the class, but also the commitment the students made to their racial identity. It was clearly 119 painful for some of the students, yet they challenged themselves to delve deeper into the complex nature of racial identity development. Student Perspectives on Difference The main theme, “Student Perspectives on Difference,” included three subthemes that captured the struggles the students experienced during the semester-long journey to racial identity development. The theme arose many times during the interviews and created angst for the students. Many were angry at different points in the semester and really wanted resolution to some of the anger; it is unclear whether they achieved that resolution. Nevertheless, it was clear that the anger decreased by the final interview. The decrease can be attributed, in some way, to the curriculum in the course, which helped the student clarify unanswered questions about their racial identity. The subthemes that materialized under the main theme exemplify the anger many of the students felt during the semester long journey. The three subthemes of this main theme include aversions to cOntact outside one’s own racial group, differentiating privilege and power, and how language choice and use impacts racial identity development. Aversions to Contact Outside One ’s Own Racial Group “Aversions to Contact Outside One’s Own Racial Group” emerged many times as students were talking about situations in which they were not in the majority group. This theme differs from previous themes and subthemes, because many of these exemplars are examples of power and privilege, issues and many of the exemplars dichotomize race into a Black and White issue. Many of the experiences were directly related to class discussions. The theme also shows the difficult time students had believing that situations of extreme power differential exist in the United States. Another trend that can be seen in 120 this subtheme is the choice of these students to take classes at a branch campus rather than on the main campus. Most choose the branch campus because it resembles the homogenous environment to which they are familiar. When asked about being a member of their ethnic group on campus; Boats said, “I like the fact that I go to school and I see similar people, not only White, age... I just like that. . Similarly, Noah was talking about his classmates and playing video games. He was asked to talk about the racial identities of his friends and he said, “All White. I do not know or have any colored friends.” Noah also said, “I think it goes back to the positives [that] come with when you are with your kind.” When asked to expand on what the “positives” were, he said, “You know, not having to worry about using race to get stuff.” He was unable to expand more, but it appeared he was referring to differential treatment of individuals of color and the worry about having to address that in a social setting. He finished the thought saying, “. . .To me I don’t look at, like, the color of their skin. I look at more personality-wise and stuff and I have way more in common with White people.” When Noah was challenged to think about being with other racial groups, he responded: “I have never been forced to and I really do not care to. I am pretty comfortable in my little area and doing what I do... I chose this small branch campus for reasons...” Both Boats and Noah spent some time talking about their personal comfort levels being around individuals of color. Boats works with many individuals of color but said that is different because “he is the supervisor and he knows those people well and trusts them...” When asked if he does not trust other individuals of color that he does not know well, he said, “I did not mean it like that, but more people of color live in big cities and we all know more crimes are committed in big cities so I am leery of those people.” 121 Aversions to contact outside one’s own racial group also included situations where the student felt like they were the minority. Madeline talked about being at work in a store and said: Just a few weeks ago we had a lot of Black people in the store. It made it kind of weird and they looked at you funny and they watched what you did. I felt kind of like a minority in my own store. . .I think it is better when there is a better mix of people including more White people... When challenged to think about how she was dichotomizing race she said, “Well I think it is that way with any colored person. You know when there are a lot of Indian people or Asian people I am scared of them as well.” Noah also talked about being a minority and his comfort level in that situation. He said: There was some African Americans [in the store] and they did not look at us firnny even though we were the only White people in the store. . .I was uncomfortable and they were not. I think staying in my own area with White people is safer sometimes... When asked if he thought the African Americans in the store were uncomfortable being around White people, he said, “They really cannot because they have to do it everyday. It is hard to avoid White people because there are more of us in the US.” Noah, Madeline, and Boats were selected to be interview subjects because they scored higher in the earlier statuses of the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) theory that includes contact, disintegration, and reintegration. The earlier statuses in the theory represent individuals whom: are oblivious to racial factors, tend to suppress racial tensions, and exhibit intolerance for other racial groups. The other students interviewed did not stress 122 such strong desires to be among individuals from their own racial group and the comfort in being with like people. Differentiating Privilege and Power “Differentiating Privilege and Power” as a subtheme emerged at all three interviews with many of the interviewees. The students had a difficult time differentiating between racial and other privileges. Students were most challenged by racial privilege and class privilege. At many times this became uncomfortable for the interviewees because, as Tatiana reported, “feeling like this makes me feel like a bad person and my skin color is out of my control.” The findings in this subtheme are similar to those reported in chapter four, with issues of power and privilege, and the students’ inability to accept the notion that race causes differential treatment of some individuals. Noah said: ...The example our teacher had was how the poor White woman and the well- dressed Black man would go into a job and the White woman would get the job over the Black guy. I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it’s totally bogus. It’s just my opinion. Nobody has more power than anyone else just because of color of skin. Plus the most qualified person would get the job, not the White person necessarily. Referring to the same class about power and who has the power, Boats said: I just do not believe in the whole [Whites] having more power. . .Come on. . .I may have more power when I am with all White people because my group is bigger, not that we are White. I think you can have power with lots of people of your same color, just go find them. I know I much prefer to have the so-called power of being in a White group of friends but why is that such a bad thing? 123 6 ...has. When Boats was asked if he was talking about class privileges or racial privileges, he said, “What is the difference. . .race privilege —class privilege neither really exist, unless you are born into tons of money.” Similarly, Madeline was talking about being a minority and she said, “. . .who cares who the minority is and who is not if neither has any money or education. I am not sure it makes any difference.” Both students were challenged to think about a time when they had to worry about the color of their skin being a factor in a job interview. Madeline responded, “I know there are jobs 1 did not get because I was White and they needed a non-White person. That is really unfair.” She was firrther challenged to think about the value of working in a diverse work environment. “I think colored people have lots of cool things they have experienced because they are different, but I am not sure what that has to do with White people have privilege.” The conversation turned to a discussion of Affirmative Action and the value of having such a law. At the conclusion, Madeline said, “I guess I have some privilege because my skin color but I do not think I have it all the time because I am not rich and I am a woman.” The relationship between being rich and being White was a common thread among many of the interviewees as it was among the members of the class not being interviewed. The students had an incredibly difficult time differentiating the amount of money one has with racial identity. Similarly, Boats had an incredibly difficult time thinking about the relationship between class privilege and racial privilege. In one interview he became quite upset and said: ...I argued from the beginning and the professor says you know you have White privilege as a White man. I totally disagree with that. ...Statistically she might be 124 right but me personally I think it’s a bunch of shit and to this day I still swear that maybe it’s not right but I don’t feel it is that way. I’ve got my promotion because of my hard work and dedication. I was not given anything I have; I have earned it based on merit not color... When asked who else was a candidate for the latest promotion he earned, he said two other White men. When asked if any of the individuals of color in his shop were considered for the job and he said, . .maybe I guess I have not thought about it before...” The students were also very specific when talking about what they have earned through hard work versus White privilege. Madeline said: I would say being White other cultures view us you know. . .African Americans view us as evil and I do not think that is fair. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth just because I am White. Similarly Noah talked about class and race and said: You [a White person] go down to [a car wash] or something and if you drive up in a Ford Focus you are different. You may not have as much money so you do not have any White privilege. But if you are a football player and famous everyone will know who you are and you are treated well wherever you go. It does not matter what color you are; it depends more on the amount of money you have, the car you drive, and the clothes you wear. A considerable amount of time was spent asking questions that challenged their notions of privilege. The students had an extremely difficult time differentiating one privilege from another and accepting that by virtue of self-identifying as White they are 125 privileged. With regards to the issue of privilege and power, by the end of the semester five of the six students interviewed showed a lot of growth and a willingness to let go of the notion that one can have racial privilege without necessarily having class privilege. How Language Choice and Use Impacted Racial Identity Development The final subtheme under “Student perspective on difference,” is “How Language Choice and Use Impacted Racial Identity Development.” This subtheme was realized throughout the semester in all three of the interviews conducted with the students. There was one common thread in this subtheme that paralleled the findings in chapter four. The data in this section that overlapped with chapter four were the choices of words students used to over-generalize groups of people. The students appeared to understand how the words they were choosing impacted their message, even if the intent was not malicious. During one-on-one interviews it was easier to challenge the students to clarify whom they were talking about and what they meant by their choice of words. During our first and only interview before she dropped the class, Angel was talking about being with a group of diverse individuals and said: I try to listen to what colored people have to say and not make them feel uncomfortable. It’s hard. . .I think if I talk too much they think I’m trying to overdo them and if I don’t talk enough maybe I’m intimidated by them. [I]. . .try to work on my communication skills. I have to watch what I say sometimes, that is nerve-racking. .. When Angel was asked whom she was referring to when she said “they,” she said, “Colored people.” She was further challenged to think about the term “colored” and the appropriateness of that term. She replied, “Anyone who is not White...” Noah said 126 something similar when he talked about issues of diversity. He said, “I’ve always been brought up to the fact that they’re the same as we are. One of my best friends in [another state] is Black.” When I asked him if “they” referred to all people of color or just Black people and he said just Black. He went on to say, “I do not say ‘they’ to be mean, it is just easy. . .I guess I did not think of it as being bad or anything like that...” During our conversations, both Angel and Noah tended to dichotomize race and in their references to individuals of color. When asked about this, both said they did not mean to make it a Black and White issue, but that is really the only race they come into contact with outside of White. Madeline and Tatiana also both used terms like “they” and “them” when talking about people of color. Chloe used the term “they” in our first interview at mid semester and actually caught herself saying it. “I realize that I just stereotyped a whole group and did not intend to.” She seemed aware of how using the terms “they” and “them” groups people into one and that was not her intent. Boats also worked hard on his language as the semester progressed. He pointed out to me in a written journal assignment how he addressed the issue of language and how he has not only become more aware of the words he uses, but also how his colleagues talk. He said in our final interview: I know I’m not always totally correct but when one of the guys comes in and says that stupid Nigger screwed up or whatever I correct them. ...I say are you referring to [a person] and second he is not a Nigger. . .then I say you broke the machine before and nobody called you a stupid White person... He became very aware of how his words were heard and interpreted by others whether 127 malice was intended or not. Boats said his awareness came from a conversation he had with a Black co-worker about the class he was taking. He said, “My co-worker thought it was great that White people were being encouraged to look at their racial identity, but also notions of language use and how we sound like idiots sometimes.” Boats also said he has spent “. . .significant amounts of time outside of class trying to maximize what I am learning in this class because it has been so good for me.” Tatiana also became very aware of the impact of her words as the semester progressed and started using terms that referred to a situation or individual when she was telling a story or laying out a scenario. Similarly, Madeline said: I feel bad for grouping people together. I did not mean to group people together it just seems so easy. I have also realized that many times when I talk about diverse people I am talking about Black people and that is not always what I mean. I am not sure why I do that... The students exemplified in this subtheme represented the broadest scores on the WRIAS (Helms, 1990). Students with more complex attitudes about racial identity were challenged by language choice. In addition, these same students were chosen to be included in the interview process because they exhibited a more advanced understanding of racial identity from the onset. The voices of the students above suggest that language choice and impact was one of the most challenging constructs for students to tackle on a daily basis. The Developmental Levels Students Reached Toward Intemalizing White Privilege The final theme, “The Developmental Levels Students Reached Toward Intemalizing White Privilege,” addresses the levels to which students were able to 128 internalize and personalize the concept of White privilege. The main theme includes three subthemes that represent the progress students made toward internalizing the concept of White privilege. The subthemes are awareness, acknowledgement, and ownership. The three subthemes show a developmental progression. The levels of acceptance of White privilege depended on the students’ own racial identities, so it varied greatly between the six students interviewed. The students that were at the contact, disintegration, and reintegration statuses of the Helms (1990) racial identity theory are represented more in awareness and only slightly in acknowledgment. The students that were selected based on immersion/emersion, pseudoautonomy, and autonomy are represented more in the acknowledgment and ownership subthemes. Awareness “Awareness” was a subtheme of the developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege. It included students who were aware that the notion of privilege based on race existed, but who were not able to admit that they had this privilege as a White person. The theme emerged as the students talked about White privilege as something other White individuals had. But they did not necessarily include themselves in this group. Lucy talked about White privilege as “something that I know exists but since my family is Native American and I am related to them by blood, I do not have White privilege.” Lucy also noted that she knows she does not have to worry about “. . .Being discriminated against for being White. . .but I am not sure I always have the privilege.” When challenged on how she can self-identify as White but then talk about her Native American heritage as the reason she does not have White privilege, she said: 129 I guess this class has made me think more about my racial identity and the fact that I cannot pretend like 1 am not Native American and only White. I guess having privilege is scary to me because I am a really nice person. She then went on to say, “I just think I work hard for what Ihave. ..So I do not get pulled over and my car searched for doing nothing. . .I am not always privileged but lots of other White people do have that privilege. . Boats recently earned a promotion at work and said his promotion was based on his work ethic and he was unwilling to think that possibly it was based on his race as well. He said, “I worked long and hard to get to where I am and the fact that I have White skin really makes no difference. . Interestingly, Boats does admit that: I think the B1ack[s] still feel that they have to trust the Whites before they can get to know them or be comfortable around them. They feel they have to be overqualified to get a less qualified job and improve themselves or have to get in the one door, get established, get credentials and then have to move on because of glass walls, glass ceilings, that kind of stuff. I am not sure why this is still true but it is in some instances. When the students were asked about the changing face of the American racial landscape, Madeline said: Through all the different ways of doing things, I’m open to new ideas, new things. I’m not like this is how you have to do it and it has to be done this way. I think it may bring this country closer. I don’t ever look at someone who’s different from me and think, ‘They’re wrong.’ Everyone has [his or her] own views and opinions, I have always been taught to respect that. I also realize as a part of the 130 majority it is easier for me. Madeline was asked if she thought it was easier because of the color of her skin and she said, “. . .Yes sometimes, but not all the time. . The students had a difficult time thinking about White privilege as something that always exists. It does not come and go with different situations. Tatiana said: I think [White] privilege exists in situations where White people are the majority and in power. If you are not in power or the majority then you cannot have privilege. So it depends on the situation and what is going on around you... The students in this subtheme exemplified the situational nature of White privilege. Many of the students were willing to admit that race-based privilege exists but not willing to internalize the concept. Some of the students also talked about how other racial groups view White individuals and the privilege associated with being White. Chloe said: I didn’t realize that other ethnic groups viewed White people ”the way that they do and how they’re cautious and many times scared of White people. I think that is sad. That was my ignorance. But it is good to know... Madeline said “I am more open to how people view me as a White person and I am not sure I like it...” Similarly Angel said: I see a Black person walking to a gas station and every White person turns around and starts whispering. A colored person and everyone just goes nuts. That means everyone is just judging by the color of the skin. I know this does not happen to me because I am White and it makes me very angry. . .But I am not sure what to do... 131 Angel also talked about being with her other White friends and how she feels when they talk about other races in a negative way. I tell them it makes me feel uncomfortable and to not say things like that. It’s kind of weird I’m ashamed. I feel sometimes I am accepted just because I am White and that is not right. But this really is not part of my everyday life so I guess as bad as it is I can live with it... While this subtheme, “awareness,” discussed the students being aware of White privilege, they were not able to internalize and own the privilege. When the students were able to talk about White privilege, it was something that other White people have and not necessarily themselves as White people. Acknowledgment The subtheme “acknowledgment” represented the interviewed students who were not only aware that White privilege was something they possessed as a self-identified White person, but who were able to begin to internalize the concept. The students represented in this subtheme signified a willingness to own the concept of White privilege and to begin to address what the privilege has meant in their lives. This subtheme arose most often during the final interview when the students were reflecting on the class. Chloe said: This class has had a huge influence on my life and my identity. Many times there was ignorance in the classroom. I kind of think that’s sad, that there are quite a few ignorant people in general. I think everybody who wants a job should take this class, not just for the grade but I think anybody who wants [to work] in the public [sector]. I think they should take a class like this. I especially [think] White 132 people should take this class. We have it pretty easy and I guess I always knew that, but now 1 really know I have to own up to that... Similarly, Tatiana said: This class has made me very aware of my White privilege and also able to own this privilege. I do not think that makes me a bad person, but now I need to do something to make some of the wrongs and injustices that occur because of race right. What can a middle-aged woman do? I know you do not have the answer, but I am now on a quest to find that answer. I think even the small things make a difference after taking this class... Boats also acknowledged his White privilege: Ok, this is very difficult for me to admit, but maybe I do have White privilege. I want to think that I have earned everything I have but maybe the color of my skin has given me some advantage over others... I feel like it takes away some of what I have accomplished in my life by saying that... C When the issue of guilt over admission of having White privilege was brought up, most of the students made statements similar to Boats: “It takes away some of what I have accomplished in my life.” The guilt the students experienced by acknowledging their White privilege was a common thread among all the students represented in this subtheme. Noah talked about his experiences working with diverse others and said: You need to be open-minded ...and consider that they may have come from different religions or grown up a different way than you have. Therefore if they say something and you think it’s wrong, you’ll have to go along with them and try 133 to ...make them understand how they feel. . .I think that is easy for me to realize as a White person because usually what I say is alright and my whole race is not on the line... Tatiana also reflected on the skills and tools she needs to thrive in the diverse world she lives: I think you need experience and exposure to [diverse] others. I think the experience with different people in [small town] is difficult because it is so White, but why not get out and experience the world around. Even traveling to a larger, more diverse city and spending some time [would help]. I loved the minority experience because it forced me to see what it was like to not be part of the majority. It made me grow as a person and see the privilege I have. “Acknowledgment” reflected the students who were not only willing to acknowledge they had White privilege, but also to begin to internalize the concept. The subtheme was created to reflect the layers of their understanding of White privilege. and the levels to which they were willing to own the privilege. The final subtheme is ownership and it goes one step further in the student’s realization that White privilege needs to be addressed on an individual level and a societal level. Ownership “Ownership,” as a subtheme of “the developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege,” represented the students who were developmentally able to internalize and question their privilege based on race. Some of the students represented here also cognitively were able to think about how historically Whiteness has been normed into American society. The students were beginning to 134 understand that White privilege could be difficult to see, as a White person, because it is part of our normal daily life. While the students were able to internalize White privilege, it did not mean they knew how to stand up and fight for justice and equality. The students represented here were willing to give up some of the White privilege they felt they had, which developmentally was a big step. Madeline talked about the customers in her store and the way she treats them and said: I think it is negative to be part of another racial group because they are treated differently. A lot of times they are treated badly because of the way they look. I don’t think it’s fair. I try not to make fun of them when people come into my store. I have to admit that sometimes I treat and watch colored people more because of their color. That is wrong and I have learned that is part of me being White, but not right. I guess 1 was never aware that I did that before this class. The sad part is, I think I was acting like this in the store and hurting others, because I was taught that and it is just part of my life. I can say that I know lots of others who think this way and I want to challenge them to think and act differently. Why are we hurting people because of the color of their skin? It is not fair. Madeline said she was hurt by the fact that she has done this for so long and not even realized she was doing it. She also said, “Just because I did not know I was doing this does not make it right or an excuse to keep doing it...” Similar to Madeline’s comments, Noah talked about how people in society get treated and said: I guess sometimes I do get special treatment because people look at me differently 135 because I’m huge and much larger than the normal White male. So when I walk in a place I’m usually the tallest White man in the place. I think I have learned that I should not be taking advantage of the fact that I am a very tall White man. 1 know I have used this to my advantage on more than one occasion. Noah’s comment reflected a pattern of advancement that materialized throughout the semester. At the time of the first interview, developmentally he was unwilling and unable to address notions of White privilege. As the semester progressed both in the interviews and in written work Noah began to not only acknowledge White privilege, but also address ways in which he can give up some privilege. He said, “I know I can be more inclusive in who I hang out with, but also I need to begin broadening my horizons in terms of education and where I chose to take my classes.” Similarly Tatiana talked about being a middle-aged White woman and said: White privilege makes me sad because I have to wonder how many things have been given to me just because of the color of my skin. Not because I was so worthy of them, but because I am White. It makes me very sad. . .I wish I could do more but I am just not sure what to do and if one White woman would really make a difference. Tatiana was willing and able to acknowledge her White privilege, but she was also willing to think about ways of reshaping her White identity. The complex level to which she was thinking about White privilege and her willingness to relinquish the privileges was directly related to the class and the incorporation of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). In the final interview she said, “I guess I was unaware that I could become so close to self-actualization in terms of racial identity. I always thought of myself as a 136 higher level thinker, but now I believe I truly am because of this class.” Tatiana also talked about wanting to “become an activist for racial and cultural change.” When asked to think about how cultural norms change, she replied, “Through rallies and other big events but it takes a very long time. . .I am not sure I have the energy or time to make that commitment...” She did say that she would be getting more involved with groups that represent people who have been historically discriminated against and said, “Hopefully I can make some good connections to people who are well connected.” In a conversation during our final interview, Boats reflected on the way Arab Americans were treated after September 11, 2001 and said: ...They [Arab Americans] have actually gotten a bum rap lately you know with terrorism and stuff... I can honestly say that I don’t see an Arab and think terrorist. . .I think how come when the people of Oklahoma [were bombed] people could have said all Michiganders are evil because of TimothyMcVeigh. . .It just does not happen to White people like that. . .I think that is so wrong and did not realize how it is such a part of our lives it is hard to see. I mean the media is White and really addresses White issues way more than other issues. I used to think they [the media] make too much out of racial stuff but I am not sure that is true anymore. It is not getting any better [race relations] and maybe it is getting worse but it’s no longer a Black and White issue... Boats’ comments exemplified the theme because he was able to talk about White privilege and own the privilege, but when challenged on his role in addressing the problems he had a difficult time seeing how he could make any difference. He said, . .I 137 am just one person and since I live in such a small town I am not sure how I can be of great help in changing this problem...” Many of the students felt that same way. They were able to acknowledge and own White privilege, but were unable to think about ways in which they could actively work toward racial justice. During one of the final class sessions, the instructor cited ways in which individuals can work toward racial justice. Some of the interviewees internalized these ideas and talked about getting involved with the groups and organizations that had been discussed in class. said: Chloe, like Tatiana, was able to think about ways to address the situation. She I make myself a little bit more open and try harder to get involved with different cultural groups. I grew up around a ton of diversity, in general a bunch of different culture groups. I’m fortunate that I have that because living in [a small town] there isn’t any [diversity]. So I think that because I was so comfortable, I should try a little harder to get involved. I need to challenge people more and try to expose them to different individuals from diverse groups. I think one person can begin to make a difference. . .eventually others will get the picture and join... She was asked if she felt she could make a difference because of this class, or has she always felt this way. She responded: I have always been open-minded, but this class has definitely opened my eyes to how bad race relations in this country really are. White people are in a position of power and take advantage of that power all the time. [White people] who feel they did not earn this power need to stand up and give some back. I do not think that makes us a racially weak group, as many of my classmates believes, but it is the 138 right thing to do... The ability of the students to be able to own White privilege and begin to question how it became such a normal part of our American society developmentally showed growth in the area of racial identity formation. Developmentally the interviewees conceptualized their identity and the impact of knowing their identity in a variety of ways. The next section presents a developmental analysis of each interviewee. Developmental Analysis of Individual Interviewees Developmentally the students began this journey at different levels of understanding of racial identity and its importance. The students that began with the notion that being White had little or no significance in their lives made significant progress in their ability to understand the importance of racial identity. These students struggled along the way and were challenged by both the classroom environment and the interview questions. The students that began with a more complex understanding of the importance of racial identity were able to move to a position where they not only understand White privilege, but also want to become active in the struggle to combat racial injustices. The following section gives a brief analysis of the developmental journey the interviewees took in this study. Boats When the class began Boats was convinced he treated all people the same and the he was “very tolerant of people who are different than me.” Any discussion of White privilege or any suggestion that he may have been afforded opportunities because of the color of his skin easily angered him. He was willing to acknowledge that the Black men who work at his shop are sometimes treated differently and that he may even be “guilty 139 of telling a few racist jokes.” As the semester progressed, Boats moved from total denial of White privilege to a willingness to think about the treatment of White people versus individuals of color. He acknowledged that White people may have more privileges and opportunities than individuals of color. He was even willing to accept and admit to having privileges as a White male. When the course ended, Boats was left with some unresolved issues about his own identity and the impact his identity has in his life. He was not sure if he was willing to give up some of the privilege he owned as a White man. He said, “I am not sure it has hurt pe0ple. I do want to help less fortunate but what does that mean for me?” Madeline Madeline began the semester with a strong conviction that race was a major factor for many individuals, but not for anyone she knew because many were White. She was willing to acknowledge the fact that individuals of color have been treated differently and even unfairly, but she could do nothing about this treatment and therefore should not worry about. “I live in such a small town and not very many colored people live here so I guess I never think about how they are treated or how I should treat them.” Madeline was also confused about her own racial identity and why anyone should even worry about their racial identity if they are White. She indicated that too much time is spent worrying about the color of skin and not enough time on treating each other fairly. She said; “In the end does in really matter that I am White and someone else is not?” As the semester progressed she became angry at times that she was being challenged to think about her own racial identity and others. She moved toward an understanding of the impact of being White and how ubiquitous Whiteness is in the United States. 140 Noah Noah began the semester angry that he was required to take this course and his attitude toward diversity reflected that anger. He was not willing to acknowledge that everyone who self-identifies as White has privilege and rejected any notion that individuals of color have been treated unfairly throughout history. His attitudes in class and the interviews reflected these themes and changed gradually throughout the semester. He was more than willing to admit he has lived a financially privileged life, from the beginning of the semester, and that being White and wealthy may have afforded him opportunities that others have not been able to take advantage of. Noah concluded the semester with a clearer sense of what being White means and “how living in the US. as a White person definitely has some advantages over others.” Lucy Lucy was a passionate, champion for diversity issues but displayed much anger toward some groups of individuals. She disliked some racial groups and was able to justify to herself that that was all right because of an incidence or incidences. As a self- identified White woman, with a Native American father, she was more than willing to admit that people of color are treated differently and many times unfairly. Early in the semester she was not willing to admit that she treated people differently because of racial identity, but later was willing to critically examine her treatment of others. She talked about how to become an advocate for diversity issues and the values she wanted to instill in her children. Chloe Chloe was a champion for diversity issues at the outset of the semester and her 141 commitment strengthened throughout the semester. In class Chloe was a vocal challenger of her fellow classmates and was able to critically examine her own behaviors toward individuals of color. Chloe also went through a period in the class where she struggled with her own racial identity development and what that meant in her life. She questioned the importance of understanding the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness and the impact of that understanding. Chloe showed depth and complexity at the conclusion of the course in both her understanding of her identity and the impact that has in society. Tatiana Tatiana began the semester with a higher level of understanding than many of her classmates of her racial identity and the impact of being White in the United States. She was willing to admit that being a White woman has afforded her opportunities that may not have existed for others. Tatiana also grappled with aspects of her racial identity during the semester. She became angry and confused about the importance of understanding her racial identity and lashed out during a couple of class sessions. She also had a difficult time understanding how some of her classmates could have such strong opinions about minorities and spent some time trying to challenge their thinking. At the conclusion of the class, Tatiana was seeking out ways to become more of a diversity advocate and how to begin to give up some of her White privilege. Developmentally these six individuals came to different conclusions about their own racial identity and the impact of understanding their identity. Anger and confusion were common themes that many of the interviewees felt and expressed throughout the semester. Some of the interviewees (Lucy, Madeline, Tatiana, and Chloe) were able to resolve their issues and move toward an action plan for multicultural awareness. Boats 142 and Noah made many advances toward developing a strong sense of their own racial identity; both began the process at a lower developmental level so the complexity of their awareness achieved was not as advanced. In the final chapter, the themes will be woven into the major findings and conclusions of the study. The effectiveness of the framework used as the theoretical foundation of the study will also be discussed. The White racial identity theory (1990) will be woven back into the findings and discussed in the implications of this study. Finally, firture studies involving White racial identity development and ways in which higher education could benefit from these studies will be addressed. 143 Chapter Six Interpretations, Discussion, and Implications Introduction Racial identity development is an extremely complex and individual road for students to travel. It is a lifelong journey that includes introspectively developing one’s own identity, while in relationship with other’ identity. College students address issues of identity in a multitude of ways and come to different conclusions about how they self- identify. Beverly Tatum (1997) defines the process of racial identity development as circular. “It’s like moving up a spiral staircase: As you proceed up each level, you have a sense that you have passed this way before.” (Tatum, 1997, p.83). The process can be painful, confusing, and even scary as students face new issues and challenge long held assumptions about themselves and others. This chapter will weave the themes from the findings chapters into three major interpretations made about the data collected over sixteen weeks. In addition, the chapter will discuss the interpretations as they relate to higher education and how they can be implemented into educational practice. Finally, I will discuss the limitations of this study and look at the future research subjects that have been generated as a result of this study. The research questions that guided the data collection and the interpretation of the data were: How does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course? a. What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts? 144 b. What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development? c. How effective are the activities generated by the framework? These questions guided the development of the interview protocol used during the three sets of interviews conducted during the semester, as well as the coding and analysis of the data collected. The themes presented in the last two chapters, Who am I? The search for racial identity; student perspectives on difference, and the developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege; represent the voices of the students and how they grappled with the issues presented in the diversity course. As the researcher, I have taken those three themes and the research questions to present the major interpretations that evolved from this study. The major interpretations are: 0 Racial identity development is a complex social construct, that’s process is developed on an individual level and is based on exposure and experiences. 0 Participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addresses White racial identity and White privilege increased student’s awareness of their own privilege. o Multicultural education and understanding must be embedded in an understanding of one’s own culture and also how one’s own culture relates to others. These major interpretations, the supporting data, and how the literature presented in chapter two relates to these findings will be discussed in this chapter. The study conducted set out to address one major research question and three sub-questions. The research questions guided the interpretations and analysis provided in this chapter. The main question, how does racial identity change for students over a sixteen-week diversity course, has been addressed in multiple chapters. To summarize, racial identity changes as 145 students become more aware of their own identity. Being challenged to think critically about what it means to be a racial being radically changed how the students thought about how they answered questions about being White. The process was conceptualized individually and depended on past experiences and exposure to others, namely other people of color. The sub questions that are addressed in the following interpretations are in quotes following the main heading. Racial identity development is a complex social construct, that’s process is developed on an individual level and is based on exposure and experiences. (What capacity do students have to understand concepts such as an enlarged view of both culture and White privilege? Furthermore, what relationship do the students develop concerning these concepts?) The social construction of race is a modern expression used to define race and the place race has in modern society. Race as a social construct does not mean race is not real or that we can “just stop doing it” (Mahoney, 1997, p. 305). Constructing race socially individualizes the process of racial identification. In this research study, social construction was defined, based on students’ experiences, exposure, and personal knowledge of race. This was constantly challenged throughout the course through the activities and discussions generated by the curriculum. The students in the managing diversity class defined race individually, and in their definitions, race meant diverse things to different students. Age did not play as much a role in their racial identity development as did experiences and exposure to a variety of situations. Students who had experienced more interactions with individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds were able to think more deeply about their own racial identity and how that 146 affected their lives. One female student said, “I see more clearly how I view my race in relation to others. I also understand that not all White people view being White in the same way...” The ability to understand that events are meaningful to individuals was a construct that this student was able to grasp through participation in this course. Manning (1999) says that using social constructivism to define an event or phenomenon means that the explanation or outcome will be different depending upon who is telling the story or giving the account. The class was designed using a framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) in which the major theoretical underpinnings are embedded in the social construction of race literature. The activities and assignments generated during the class allowed students the opportunity to interpret and internalize the information on an individual level. Race, mainly the White race, was a social construct that was deconstructed throughout the course. The goal was to help students understand the impact of their own experiences and interpretations, and the importance of understanding those ideas as related to racial identity. The students who could see that race was constructed solely in social contexts and not as a biological category (Roediger, 1991) were better able to understand the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness and the notions of White privilege. At the beginning of the semester, the students struggled with the concepts of culture as a dynamic entity and race as a social evolution rather than a biological construct. A female student said, “I was born with White skin and have grown up White and it has not changed in my life. . The instructor asked her to “. . .think about how culture has been created for you and your role in the creation of that culture. What does it mean to be White? Think about where you learned to be White...” The student 147 responded: ...My parents created my culture through the way we celebrated holidays, had family gatherings, religion, dress ...but I have never thought about being White until this class. I guess I just thought I was White no big deal, but I realize it is a big deal and how much of what I do and hear is part of [being White]... This student affirms one of Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) major theoretical assumptions guiding the creation of the framework. Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) assert, “Students in general and White students in particular have a difficult time identifying their own cultural connections” (p.84 - 85). This student had a difficult time talking about her racial identity until challenged by the professor. Later in the semester, after engaging in an experience where she was the minority this student had an even stronger notion of culture and her understanding of culture. She attended a church service in a religion very different from her own. She described being a minority both racially and religiously. She reported: I ...I felt stupid not knowing what to do at certain times during the service and everyone else seemed to understand what was going on and what to do. I felt like people were staring at me and knew that I did not belong. I really think I view some of my cultural [attributes] differently having experienced this. I see that I am just as big a part of the creation of my culture as my parents and family are in dictating to me what we will do at certain events. When [the professor] talked about weddings and the rituals of introducing the bride and groom for the first time. I realized that yes, White people may look the same but are all very different, but nobody really has to learn how to be White it is just ingrained in us 148 socially. . .very interesting. This student clearly was beginning to understand the complex social construct of racial identity development. For her, to identify as White changed over the semester and she began to understand that it was based on social interactions with her outside world. This student validated the writings of Clifford Geertz (1973) when he referred to social construction as the meanings of events and actions as defined in the eyes of the actor and depending on social position, vantage point, and life experiences. The class discussions that gave students the opportunity to share their experiences and life stories embodied the notions that race is defined on an individual level and depended on the individual. A male student was talking about serving in the military and how he had not thought about all the racial tensions that are part of military service. He said: Once we had a drill and four men did not finish because they were tired. I was one of the four. Another guy was a Black man who did not finish. Well, when we got into trouble by the drill sergeant the Black man acted like it was a big deal and that he was being singled out because he was Black. Well at the time I thought, ‘get over it, we all got into trouble.’ Well now 10 years later as I think about that event, it was about being Black, at least for him. I made a judgment as a White man and did not even think that his [interpretation] was about being Black and that I could not understand that. It is like being followed in a store. I can be followed and it would not be a big deal but it may be if I were looking at the situation from a different color lens. Another male student responded by saying “. . .it is like a fight with your sister and when 149 telling the story again it is different from her eyes even though it was the same fight...” The students were clearly internalizing the notions of culture and racial identity as a social construct. The first step in the framework, Understanding Culture, was used to elicit much of these responses (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). When students were challenged to observe and analyze everyday events they began to see how socially constructed our society is as it relates to race and culture. Participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addressed White racial identity and White privilege increases students ' awareness of their own privilege. (How effective are the activities generated by the framework?) The instructor teaching this course has taught it for five years and had a great many historical notes on other classes to be able to compare to this particular class. Not only was the curriculum redesigned from previous semesters but also included the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework. The revelation that participation in a course-containing curriculum that intentionally addressed White racial identity and White privilege increases students’ awareness of their own privilege evolved in a follow-up interview with the instructor seven weeks after the class commenced. The students’ growth and development over the semester also gave me much data to make the conclusion just presented. The organization of the syllabus combined all five elements of the framework and also included management practices that were mandatory for the class as defined by the college. The instructor and I continually evaluated the class and revisited steps in the framework, as we deemed necessary. The first step, understanding culture, was revisited throughout the course. When the notion of culture as a dynamic entity was presented to 150 the students, many had an extremely difficult time grasping the concept. They also had a difficult time talking about their own culture. The first time culture was presented and the students were encouraged to think about aspects of their culture, they asked questions like “I do not understand what you mean?” “This is strange, I have never thought about my culture. . and “I am not sure I have a culture, I guess I do not know...” The instructor used examples like wedding rituals, religious ceremonies, holidays, and family gatherings to encourage the students to think about culture. As the semester progressed and the students began to learn about other cultures and how White culture has become the norm in society, the emergence of an understanding of their own racial identity and privilege began to become apparent. In the “developmental levels students reached toward internalizing White privilege” theme chapters four and five: students had the capacity to become more aware of their own privilege, though this did not always imply that they internalized and felt ownership of the privilege. It was situational for some students, and’comments like, “I think just rich White people have privilege; it does not include all White people” validated the lack of ownership and awareness of the full scope of what White privilege entailed. Another student made the comment, “I think White privilege only belongs to the White people who take advantage of it. Like people who are racist and are mean to others. Since I am not like that I do not have White privilege.” To be able to challenge these students’ assumptions about White privilege and to whom it belongs, the instructor spent some time deconstructing White culture. Step three of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000), used an activity of writing on a piece of paper ten characteristics or adjectives that describe White racial identity or White culture. The students had an 151 extremely difficult time; they asked questions like “What do you mean?” “I do not understand...” The questions mirrored the ones asked at the beginning of the semester when asked about culture and how you define culture. Because these questions were again being asked much later in the semester, it validated much of the previous research done on White privilege and the invisibility of White privilege (F eagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Frankenberg, 1997; Helms, 1990 & 1992; Kendall & Wickham, 2001; Lipsitz, 1998; Mahoney, 1995; McIntosh, 1989; Omi & Winant, 1994; Roediger, 1991). The instructor changed the activity a bit and had the students write on their paper a racial group other than own. Students used groups like Afiican American, Asian American, Native American, Japanese, Chinese, and one group had Hispanic. They were then asked to write characteristics or adjectives that describe the racial group on their paper. The students seemed to do this with relative ease. The instructor made the comment to really think about fact versus fiction. She said, “If you write something down you need to know that this is true and not just a stereotype. You need to be able to talk about how you know this or where you experienced it.” When the exercise was being processed as a large group a male student said: I think it is interesting that we can came up with tons of items for groups that we do not belong to but could not come up with anything for our own race. Maybe we could not think of anything because it is all around us... This student was beginning to see how Whiteness has been universalized in society. Step three of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) and the activities generated as part of this were instrumental in eliciting responses like those listed above and getting students to think about White privilege and the norming of it. 152 The ubiquitous nature of White privilege and the norming of White privilege into society did not become clear to many students until the end of the semester. Much time was spent discussing these notions and the role of the individual in challenging these notions. In her final exam 3 female student said, “I am so happy to have taken this class just to know that I do have privilege but that does not make me an evil person...” Another female said in her minority report, “I will never know what it feels like to not be White, but after spending some time as the minority 1 can say that I understand the privileges I have because I am White.” In F eagin, Vera, and Imani’s (1996) study of Black students on predominately White campuses they talk about the campus “reeking of Whiteness” (p. 16) and the overall tone of the campus being oriented primarily toward White students. Boats seemed to understand this concept as he said in his final interview: I understand how White privilege is all around us. I would have never thought about it until I had taken this class and seen it for myself. I know I still have a long way to go but getting to know how [being White] affects others has made me see work and situations differently. . .I also understand more how important it is to know who you are and to help my children understand who they are and what that means in society... In my follow-up interview with the professor, she compared this class to others and said: ...The students seemed more willing to challenge and eventually accept the notions of White privilege more than any other class. I think part of that is because the curriculum intentionally prepared them to challenge assumptions of Whiteness and its place in society. I also think that this class was one of the more 153 challenging in terms of addressing past stereotypes and long held assumptions about other cultures, but I also have noticed the most growth out of this class and much of that can be attributed to the incorporation of the framework and intentionally looking at White racial identity and White culture. Multicultural education and understanding must be embedded in an understanding of one 's own culture and also how one ’s own culture relates to others. (What are the developmental issues related to racial identity development?) This conclusion about the study emerged as I analyzed and reviewed the final examinations of the students. The final exam was an open-ended questionnaire asking the students to reflect on what they learned in the class and how they planned to utilize what they learned in this class to their lives. The students seemed to be extremely honest and frank about this class and some even shared their anger with the curriculum in the class. One female student wrote: I understand that diversity awareness is important but it is also very painful to learn about. I spent many nights not sleeping after this class. Sometimes because I was mad at how evil some people are but other times because I was trying to think of ways that 1 could help make the world a better place for others. I know that is not my job, but I care very much about people and think that as a [White] person I may have more opportunities to help. I also understand what it means to be White in America in 2002. I would have never had this opportunity had I not taken this class. Everyone should have a class like this... The student was clearly grappling with her place in society as White person, possibly because of the privilege associated with being White, or possibly because she felt that 154 having some racial privilege would help her to make a difference. She was communicating the need for people to have a multicultural perspective but unclear as to how to achieve that goal. She also seemed to understand that knowing her own culture was important in how she relates to others. 1 Janet Helms (1992) contends that being a member of the White race means having society constructed around them, enabling the individual not to view race as part of the process because it is normal and universalized in everyday interactions with the society at large. Using Helms’ (1992) notion about being White, the curriculum in this course was designed intentionally to have students look at their White racial identity and that relationship to other races. Many times diversity courses and diversity awareness seminars are designed to look at other races and rarely take time to examine students’ own racial identity and especially that of White students (Helms, 1992). Race becomes something that is everyone else’s issue, which perpetuates the notion of White privilege (Helms, 1992). Upon completion of this study, the data clearly demonstrated that the students in this class would not have been able to see their White privilege without first deconstructing their own race. The students struggled the most with steps three, “recognizing and deconstructing White culture,” and step four, “recognizing the legitimacy of other cultures” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p.85). Step three is the deconstruction of White culture and challenging the normalization and generalization of Whiteness (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). This was complicated for the students, because many had a difficult time thinking about being White and having culture. It was not until they looked at other races and cultures were they able to see their own culture. A female student said, “I am not sure I will ever think 155 about myself as White in the ways you are asking us to, but I can talk about being in White in relation to others who are not White.” Theoretical Implications Helms (1990 & 1992) has written many articles and books about White racial identity and developing a healthy White racial identity. Helms (1992) contends that individuals who develop a healthy White racial identity can know that they were chosen for promotions and jobs based on qualifications and not on skin color. Individuals can look in the mirror and feel no guilt or confusion because of the color of their skin, and finally, the person can accept the notions of privilege and strive toward a more just and equal society for all. Another study out of the University of Oklahoma (Leach, Behrens, & LaFleur, 2002) on White consciousness addresses and challenges Helms (1990 & 1992) White racial identity theory. The theories are similar in that both attempt to explain the general phenomenon of racial outlook and identity development. They differ in that Helms’ theory is the development of a non-racist outlook and the White consciousness theory describes attitudes White people commonly project toward individuals of color. The White consciousness theory is a descriptive theory, rather than an explanatory theory. White consciousness theory has no relationship to racial identity, but simply describes attitudes commonly held by White people (Leach, Behrens, & LaFleur, 2002). The students in this class talked about being White and the fact that as a result of this class they had a better understanding of what it means to be White. The students could only talk about being White in relation to individuals who were not White. A female student said: I am not sure I would ever think about being White if I were in a room full of 156 White people, but I understand being White when I am with other people who are not White. I guess it does not matter if you are White if you are always around White people. But when you are with people who are not White you need to think about the situation for those people and that I am something they are not... Similar to the WRIAS, the Oklahoma Racial Attitudes Scale (ORAS) was designed to measure the White racial consciousness attitudes outlined in the theory (Leach, Behrens, & LaFleur, 2002). Since this study did not employ this scale or this theory it will not be given an in-depth analysis, but will be discussed in the firture research section of this chapter. The White racial consciousness theory brings new light to the theories about racial identity development and attitudes toward individuals of color. Both of these theories validate the assertion made earlier that students must examine their own culture before attempting to understand and relate to another person’s culture. The White racial consciousness theory attempts to help people understand their attitudes about being White. Helms’ theory addresses attitudes White people posses toward others, and provides activities to help White people develop a non-racist, healthy White racial identity (Helms, 1994). The next section of this chapter will look at the implications this study has on higher education with a particular focus on curriculum development and multicultural education. Implications for Higher Education This study has a number of practical implications for higher education, namely curriculum development. As educators working in an environment that is becoming increasingly diverse, student affairs professionals and faculty need tools and strategies to 157 address the complex issues they are facing. This study thus far has provided evidence that the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) Framework of Multicultural Education is a valuable tool for working with White racial identity development and the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness. In predominately White settings, many diversity workshops and courses address racial identity and diversity as something individuals of color posses, but do not often include White individuals (Helms, 1992). This is a problem, since issues of racism have evolved and are further exacerbated by White people. This section describes four implications for higher education that have evolved as a result of this study. The implications are: faculty should organize courses and coursework that challenge White culture-based curriculum; diversity courses and workshops should be conducted to examine White racial identity development, as well as the experiences of other groups; higher education should organize conversations around racialization and White colonialism; and faculty and course providers should design courses and curriculum to empower and educate students to think critically about issues of racial injustice. The following section will describe in detail these implications for higher education. Organize courses and coursework that challenge White culture-based curriculum Many textbooks and other educational tools are written using examples that are based on the works of White inventors, theorists, and philosophers. Educators need to intentionally challenge themselves to introduce individuals of color into their courses. In this study, the students could not imagine that an alternate theory to Newton’s Laws of Physics could exist. In science and math, alternatives should be presented that challenge the laws and theories as absolute and open up the possibility that an individual of color 158 may have been working on the same theory in another part of the world, multiple discoveries are possible. This also opens up a discussion about who had access to patents and copyrights throughout history. If educators would take responsibility for suggesting that another theory by an individual of color could exist, students will begin to think more broadly about people of color. The instructor constantly challenged students to think that there may be another way to explain a well-held theory or law. A female student said, “. .. Well, if someone else really did work in this area how come I never learned that in school?” It is our responsibility as educators in a multicultural society to expose our students to many theories and theorists. While designed for courses that have an implicit diversity component embedded in them, the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) intentionally has a student look at other racial and cultural groups. Incorporation of that can be implemented into any course regardless of subject content. Diversity courses and workshops should be conducted to look at White racial identity, in addition to the experiences of other groups Courses in diversity and diversity management oftentimes examine groups of people of color with little or no regard to studying groups of White individuals. The post interview with the instructor of this class revealed that incorporation of the framework (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) increased the students’ own awareness and willingness to address their White racial identity. The instructor said: I feel like this class more than any other class I have taught gets the concept that as a White person they have a racial identity. I am not sure that all the students understand their identity at the same level but at least they have some understanding that it is something they possess as well as people of color. 159 The instructor also noted that she felt . .these students were more challenged with the opportunity to intentionally look at the pervasive nature of Whiteness and addressing this made conversations about institutional racism more concrete for them.” The incorporation of curriculum that looks at White racial identity can be done through a variety of ways, but the conscious effort to integrate is essential to understanding the larger picture of a multicultural society. Integration into the curriculum should be intentional and incorporated to fully explore multiculturalism and diversity issues. Faculty should either be well read in issues of diversity or look to outside experts for guidance and support in incorporating into courses. Incorporating a framework for multicultural education is one approach for curriculum restructuring. The model used in this study (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) is one way to formally address issues of White racial identity in the context of diversity. The steps are designed to be developmental in nature and progress toward issues that are more challenging for students. The framework can be used in its entirety or in parts depending on the goals of the course or workshop and the cognitive level at which students are operating. Organize conversations around racialization and White colonialism This idea can be implemented in many formal or informal ways on college campuses across the country. Providing opportunities for students to take a historical look at immigration and racialization patterns can be a powerful way to understanding how the White race has been normed into everyday life. Inforrnally, this task can be accomplished through campus-wide speakers who engage students in conversations. Another method that can be used on campus is fireside chats with individuals who are well educated in 160 these theories. In addition, student groups that organize themselves around issues of diversity can provoke rich conversations among the student body. There are many campuses that already have student organizations whose primary goals are to engage students in conversations about diversity. I am proposing that those conversations be more historical in nature and include an in-depth analysis of the literature and theories available. Formally, this idea can be implemented in many different disciplinary venues. With relative ease the traditional social science courses can incorporate an in-depth historical analysis of both White colonization and racialization. Faculty, well trained in this area, can provide students the resources to educate themselves about these important topics and the classroom time for conversations to better understand the roles diverse groups played in this process. Two good resources to facilitate these conversations are the 1994 book Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960 ’s to the 1990 ’s by Michael Omi and Howard Winant and the 1993 book A different mirror: A history of multicultural America by Ronald Takaki. Design courses and curriculum to educate and empower students to think critically about issues of racial injustice This idea is probably the most difficult to implement, because in order to achieve this, students must be willing to talk about issues of racial injustice and willing to take ownership to make the world a more just place. In addition, students must have undergone an in-depth look at their own racial identity and the willingness to embrace races and cultures other than their own. Using the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework, faculty could design curriculum and courses to help students, specifically White students, 161 to better understand racial privilege and power and address issues of racial injustice. Using a framework, like the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000), deliberately addresses notions of Whiteness and White racial identity, which is an extremely important step in working toward racial equality and an appreciation for diversity and multicultural education. Curriculum and courses can be revised to include many aspects of diversity and working toward an appreciation of diversity. Without an understanding of one’s own racial identity and that relationship to others, many of these ideas would be challenging to implement. The Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework can be used in its entirety as a five- step process or the steps can be used as individual modules. Incorporation of parts of the framework or the entire theory will help with implementation of the ideas presented above. Evaluation of the Framework Using the Framework of Multicultural Education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000) as the theoretical framework for both the design of the study and the construction of the curriculum and activities throughout the course revealed both strengths and areas of needed improvement in the framework. The major theoretical underpinning to deconstruct notions of Whiteness in the reconstruction of a multicultural outlook was extremely effective. Specifically challenging the ubiquitous nature of Whiteness in the context of a racially homogenous community college diversity course was difficult but revealed an important developmental construct to racial identity development. The students who scored into higher statuses on the WRIAS (Helms, 1990) had some of the same difficulties in accepting White privilege and the issues associated with developing their identity as the students who scored lower. Therefore it can be concluded that 162 attitudes toward racial identity development are not a significant factor in determining ability to deconstruct Whiteness and own White privilege. The framework guided the developmental process through specific activities designed to challenge both White culture and Whiteness. ’An area that could be examined and reviewed in the construction of the five steps is the placement of step one, Understanding Culture. Beginning the framework with this step presented many challenges for the students. It was observed that the students had an extremely difficult time, not only addressing the dynamic nature of culture, but also the notion that they had a culture unique to them. It could be argued that if students were able to explore other cultures, step two, and begin to see what defines and describes a culture they might be better able to address their own culture and their role in shaping it. Developmentally the other steps presented challenges for the students, but many of those challenges were associated with an unwillingness to accept the notions of privilege and White privilege. Conducting the study at a community college course presented challenges unique to the population. The students who enrolled in the course had vastly different expectations and goals for their educational journey from students enrolled at a four-year institution. Students enrolled at a four-year institution are oftentimes looking for a collegiate experience both in the classroom and in extracurricular activities. The identity themselves is first and foremost as college students. On the contrary, at a community college, and especially in this course, the students’ identities are multifaceted and can include working full time and family commitments, school becomes a part time endeavor. Additionally, students at a community college may differ from students at four-year institutions in their educational preparation (Kim, 2002). This is not a wide-scale 163 generalization, but much research has been conducted showing community college students tend to need more remedial course preparation than four year college students (Kim, 2002). Limitations of the Study As with any qualitative study, there were a number of limitations that were inherent in the design of the study. First, time and location bound the study. The course that was studied was a semester long, and at the conclusion of the sixteen-week course the students moved onto new courses and college work. Having the opportunity to follow the students beyond the course into their everyday lives would have allowed for a more in-depth analysis of how the students were internalizing what they were learning in the classroom and how what they learned affected their work and personal relationships. Racial identity development and engaging in multicultural education are two constructs that are ever changing and individual in nature; therefore this study is not widely generalizable. The growth and development that students experienced as a result of participation in this class cannot be generalized to other students taking similar diversity courses. The small number of participants in the study also limits generalizability about White racial identity development. Another potential limitation of the study also lies in the cultural bias of the researcher. As an individual with strong feelings about racial identity development and the importance of this development, my interpretations of experiences are influenced by my bias. I employed a number of member checks and professional checks throughout the research process. The interviewees were asked probing questions when their replies were unclear. I also worked closely with the instructor to make sure that special care and 164 attention was paid to the incorporation of the framework. In addition, as a part of construction of the curriculum for the course, my input into the activities affected the outcomes of the class. The curriculum was constantly reviewed and revised to make sure that each step was thoroughly covered and understood by the students in the course. Suggestions for future research The review of the literature in chapter two clearly identifies the scarcity of studies regarding White racial identity and White privilege among college students. There are many studies and theories that look at racial identity development, but very few that focus in on White racial identity development of college students. Future studies should look specifically at White racial identity development in the context of multicultural education. More studies will help validate the findings of this study and generate conversations about White racial identity development. I also suggest that cognitive development and self-authorship be incorporated into future studies on White racial identity development. Understanding the students’ cognitive level at the outset may have assisted in interpreting their level of understanding. Students who are capable of understanding and processing information at a higher cognitive level tend to challenge themselves with greater depth (Baxter Magolda, 2001). In addition, these students tend to process challenging subjects internally, rather than relying on external information. Self-authorship requires a complex, cognitive way of processing information and a complex definition of self (Baxter Magolda, 2001). It was difficult at times to deem what were appropriate activities for the class as cognitive development, and their understanding of those activities was unknown. I believe a greater understanding of how the students are internalizing their racial development journey 165 would be enhanced through an understanding of cognitive level. Finally, I suggest additional studies are needed to address the impact of environment on racial identity development. The students often used growing up in a rural White community as a scapegoat to excuse their feelings about individuals of color. A research study on the impact of being raised in a homogenous community could enhance the literature that is already available on White flight and community impact. Conclusions The Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) framework used to frame this study revealed aspects of racial identity development in a diversity class that otherwise may have never been uncovered. Intentionally challenging notions of White prevalence and White privilege provided opportunities to students that they otherwise would not have engaged in. Based on final conversations with both the instructor and the interviewees it can be concluded that the framework is extremely effective. The ability to provide the context for students to reconstruct their identities and create new meanings about racial identity is a powerful tool. The framework allows for these opportunities through the activities generated. As Clifford Geertz (1973) suggests, culture is the web of meanings that [humankind] has spun. 166 Literature Cited Alba, R. D. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of white America. Yale University Press: New Haven. Allen, T. (1994). The invention of the White race. New York: Verso. Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. babb, v. (1998). Whiteness visible: The meaning of whiteness in American literature and culture. New York University Press: New York, New York. Barger, R. N. (1991). Evaluating multicultural education. Charleston, IL: Eastern Illinois University. Barrett, J. R. & Roediger, D. (1997). How White people became White. In R. Delgado & J. Stephanie. (1997). Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Bowser, B. P. & Hunt, R. G. (1996). Impacts of racism on White Americans. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Campbell, A. (1971). White attitudes toward Black people. Unpublished dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), p.2-l4. Creswell, J .W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 167 D’Angelo, A.M., & Dixey, RP. (2001). Using multicultural resources for teachers to combat racial prejudice in the classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, p. 83-87. Delgado, R. & Stefanie, J. (1997). Critical White Studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Faulkner, V. (2001, October 1). Making multicultural education ‘real’. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 473-485. Feagin, J.R., Vera, H., & Imani, N. (1996). The agony of education: Black students at White colleges and universities. New York: Routledge. Feagin, J. R., Vera, H. & Batur, P. (2001). White racism: The basics. New York: Routledge. Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. F rankenburg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Frankenburg, R. (1997). Displacing Whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. Fritzsche, P. K. (1990). Prejudice and underlying assumptions. Proceedings of the Educational Research Workshop on History and Social Studies. Braunschweig, West Germany. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, Inc.: New York. Gergen, K. J. & Davis, K. E. (1985). The social construction of the person. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Glazer, N. & Moynihan, D. (1963). Beyond the melting pot. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press. Gonzales, M. R. (1995). Multicultural education in practice: Teachers’ social constructions and classroom enactments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. April 1995. 168 Green, M., Blakley, J ., Scott, 8., Stuart, D., Shin, G.T., & Gorski, P. (2000). Resources for a multicultural classroom: The multicultural response, volume 2, US. District of Columbia. p. 277. Hardiman, R. (1992). Racial identity development. New directions for teaching and learning, 52, p. 21-37. ' Hartigan, J. (1999). Racial situations: Class predicaments of Whiteness in Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity attitudes: Theory, research and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Helms, J .E. (1992). A Race is a Nice Thing to Have. Content Communications: Topeka, Kansas. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s White and people of color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponerotto, J. Manuel Casas, L. S. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander. Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Helms, J. E. (1997). Implications of Behrens (1997) for the validity of the White racial identity attitude scale. Journal of counseling and development, v. 44, p. 13-16. Hirshman, C., Kasinitz, P., & DeWind, J. (1999). The handbook of international migration: The American experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Ignatiev, N. & Garvey, J. (1996). Race traitor. New York, NY: Routledge. Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jones, D. M. (1997). Darkness made visible: Law, metaphor, and the racial self. In R. Delgado & J. Stefanic. (1997). Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Katz, J. H. (1950). White awareness: Handbook for anti-racism training. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 169 Kendall, G. & Wickham, G. (2001). Understanding culture: Cultural studies, order, ordering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kim, K. A. (2002). Exploring the meaning of “nontraditional” at the community college. Community College Review, 30, l, p.74-89. Kincheloe, J. L. & McLaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. King, P. M. & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of college student development, 40, p. 599-609. Kivel, P. (1996). Uprooting racism: How white people can work for social justice. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Leach, M. M., Behrens, J. T., & LaFleur, N. K. (2002). White racial identity and White racial consciousness: Similarities, differences, and recommendations. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, n. 2, p. 66-80. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia; PA: Temple University Press. Mahoney, M. R. (1995). Segregation, Whiteness, and transformation. The University of ' Pennsylvania Law Review, 143, p. 1659-1660. Mahoney, M. R. (1997). Racial construction and women as differentiated actors. In R. Delgado & J. Stephanic (1997). Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Manning, K. (1999). Giving voice to critical campus issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Marrow, A. J. (1967). Events leading to the establishment of the national training laboratories. Journal of applied behavioral science, 3, p. 144-50. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Massey, D. S. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. New York, NY: Clarendon Press. McIntosh, P. ( 1989, July/August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom. P.10-12. 170 Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Obear, K., Dalpes, P., & Scott, J. (1990). The human advantage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. - Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the 1990’s. New York, NY: Routledge. Ortiz, A.M., & Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Deconstructing whiteness as part of a multicultural educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 81-93. Peacock, J. L. (1986). The anthropological lens: Harsh lights, soft focus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, v.7, n.2, p.156-l76. Ponterotto, J .G., Baluch, S., Greig, T., Rivera, L. (1998). Development and initial score validation of the teacher multicultural attitude survey. Educational and psychological measurement, v.58, n.6. p. 1002-1016. Pope, R.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2000). Development and initial validation of the multicultural competence in student affairs-preliminary 2 scale. Journal of college student development, v. 41. n.6. p.599-608. Roediger, DR. (1991). The Wages of Whiteness. New York: Verso. Rudestam, K. E. & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sowell, T. (1978). American ethnic groups. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press. Strange, C., & Alston, L. (1998). Voicing differences: Encouraging multicultural learning. Journal of College Student Development, v.39. n.1, p.87-99. Takaki, R. T. (1994). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company. 171 Theel, R. K. (1990). Planning for multicultural education at the elementary and middle school levels. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse City School District. Themstrom, S. & Themstrom, A. (1997). America in black and white: One nation, indivisible. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY. Training Trends Newsletter. (1993). Copy Editor, 30, 7-8. Waters, M. (1999). Black Identities: West Indian immigrants dreams and American realities. New York: Harvard University Press. Williams, F. (1992). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Winter, S. K. (1971). Black man’s bluff. Psychology Today, 5, p. 39-43. Wright, L. (1995). “Soulmaning”: Using race for political and economic gain. In R. Delgado & J. Stefanie (1997). Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 172 Appendix A Interview Protocol for the first interview that will be conducted at the outset of the course. 1. Tell me about your racial background. What does your racial identity mean to you? Do you feel race affects you? If so how? If not, why not? Are you ever aware of yourself as being white? If so, when? OR Are you ever aware of yourself as being nonwhite? If so, when? How do you feel about being white? What feels good? What feels painful? In 2050 whites will be a minority in this country. What do you feel about that? (If interviewee has children - Do you see your children as dealing with that? How, how not?) Are there positive or negative aspects of being a member of your racial group? Are there positive or negative aspects of being a member of other racial groups? What is it like to be a member of your racial group on this campus? 173 Appendix B Interview protocol for the interviews that will be conducted in the middle of the semester. 1. 2. Tell me about your experience(s) in this class so far... Do you feel that what we are doing in this class has impacted how you think about race? How? Has this class changed how you look at or interact with diverse others? What class session thus far has had the most impact on how you think about your race and identity? 174 Appendix C Interview protocol for the follow up interviews that will be conducted after the course is finished. 1. Tell me about your racial background. Has this changed since the beginning of the diversity course? If yes, how? Do you feel race affects you? If so, how? If not, why not? Are you aware of yourself being white? If so, when? Has this changed or become more important as a result of this course? How do you feel about being white? What feels good? What feels painfirl? Has your view of race changed? If so, how, when and why? In the year 2050, white people will be a minority in the US. Do you feel comfortable living and working with non-white individuals? Are there positive or negative aspects of being a member of your racial group? Are there positive or negative aspects of being a member of other racial groups? What kinds of skills or tools do you think you need to interact with non-white individuals and groups? 175 Appendix D — Consent Form This study is intended to look at and identify multicultural identity development and multicultural education. It is performed as a partial firlfillment of the requirements for the researcher’s Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. There are no foreseeable risks with this research. The potential benefit is in contributing to the body of literature on racial identity development and multiculturalism. No costs or payment are associated with participating in the study. At any time during the semester, you may cease participation in this study. I agree to participate in this research project: 1. The time required for this study is the 15-week Diversity in the Workplace-A Domestic and Global Perspective course Management 234 that I am currently enrolled in for fall semester 2002. 2. A researcher will be present in the class each week, taking notes, observing classroom interactions, and reading class assignments. 3. I may be selected to participate in three one-hour individual interviews with the researcher. 4. My participation is entirely voluntary. 5. All research data will be destroyed within five years after completion of the study. All data will be kept in a locked file cabinet with the researcher. 6. All data are for research purposes only and will not affect my course grade. 7. Names and identities will be kept confidential during the data collection process and in the final project report. If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator: Anne M. Homak, Doctoral Student, by phone: (517) 694-3943, email: Hornakan@egr.msu.edu, or regular mail: 1607 Huntshire Drive, Holt, MI 48842. You may also contact the faculty advisor, Dr. Anna Ortiz, Assistant Professor, by phone at (517) 355-6617, or email: Ortizam@msu.edu, or regular mail: 426 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: UCRIHS@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. Signed Date (Participant) Signed Date (Researcher) 176 Appendix E — WRIAS Consent Form This study is intended to look at and identify multicultural identity development and multicultural education. It is performed as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the researcher’s Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. - There are no foreseeable risks with this research. The potential benefit is in contributing to the body of literature on racial identity development and multiculturalism. No costs or payment are associated with participating in the study. You may cease participation at any time during this study. I agree to participate in this research project: 1. The time required for this study is taking this inventory at the beginning of the course; Diversity in the Workplace-A Domestic and Global Perspective course Management 234 that I am currently enrolled in for fall semester 2002 and again at the conclusion of this course. 2. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. 3. All research data will be destroyed within five years after completion of the study. All data will be kept in a locked file cabinet with the researcher. 4. All data are for research purposes only and will not affect my course grade. All names and identities will be confidential in the final research paper. .V‘ If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator: Anne M. Homak, Doctoral Student, by phone: (517) 694-3943, email: Homakan@egr.msu.edu, or regular mail: 1607 Huntshire Drive, Holt, MI 48842. You may also contact the faculty advisor, Dr. Anna Ortiz, Assistant Professor, by phone at (517) 355-6617, or email: Ortizam@msu.edu, or regular mail: 426 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: UCRIHS@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. Signed Date (Participant) Signed Date (Researcher) 177 Appendix F Syllabus for Fall 2002 Semester MGMT XXX: Diversity in the Workplace Instructor: Office Hours: . by appointment Office: Fax: Phone: E-mail: I. Course Code : MGMT XXX Course Title: Diversity in the Workplace: A Domestic and Global PerSpective Credit: Three Lecture: Forty-eight Lab: none Other: none III. Qgrse Description: This course explores cultural, gender/sexual, physical, and other minority experiences in the work place and in the world. The management of human resources will be examined from a domestic and global perSpective. Emphasis is on helping the majority group and the minority group become aware of the other's opinions, feelings, and persPective. Instruction takes an experiential, awareness training approach. IV. Instructiongl Mgterial_s A. Textbooks Required: 1. Carr-Ruffino, N. (1998) Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Malt/cultural Workplace. 4th ed. Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing: Needham Heights, MA. 2. Stalvey, L. (1989) The Education of a Wasp. The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI. 3. Optional: Furberg and Hopkins. (1996) College Style Sheet. 2"“. Ed. Bendall Books, Point Roberts, WA. 178 B. Other Materials/Resources: 1. Additional material/ handouts provided by instructor and students. 2. Three-ring notebook for handouts. C. Tools, Equipment or Apparel (to be provided by the student): None V. weflearninq Outcomes: Course Objectives: The participant will 1. Identify opinions, feelings, and effects of majority and minority groups' view of life and their impact on other groups. 2. Share opinions, perceptions, ideas, and reflections through writings, discussion, and class participation. 3. Explore personal perceptions through self—exploration and self- assessment tools used inside and outside the class. 4. Identify Specific cultural differences and their impact in the domestic workplace and in global business interactions. Practice presentation skills before a group of listeners. Practice effective writing skills with a research paper. 7. Identify specific tools/skills useful in working with diversity in the job setting. ' .0‘9‘ VII. Methods of Evaluating Student Achievement/Progress A. The following methods are used in this class. Methods and weights in Bold are common to all sections of this course. Method: 7:: of Fingl Grade: _X_Class Attendance Combined with participation _X_Class Participation 25% _X_Paper(s) 25% Portfolio(s) Assignments _Projects _X_Reports/Presentations Report & Presentation combine for 20% _ Worksite Experience _ Quizzes _X_ Exams or Tests 20% 179 _X_ Final Exam 10% Additional Information: A learning contract will be provided for students to track Specific weights for individual assignments. B. Grading Scale The grading scale used in this course is as follows: 91-10070 .....................Excellent...........................4.0 81 - 85% Good30 71-75% .....................$atisfactory.......................2.0 60-65% ........................... poorlO O-59°/o failureOO VIII. Mse Practices: College-wide policies are stated in the college catalog and include those on attendance, withdrawals, and incomplete grades. The college catalog is available on the Internet Additional course practices in this class are: 1. You are expected to take responsibility for your own learning experiences in this class. . You are expected to communicate with the instructor in a timely manner regarding any extenuating circumstances that will interfere with your participation in and/or the completion of your assignments for this class. . You are expected to come to class prepared by completing the reading assignments and being able to discuss them. You are expected to use correct grammar, vocabulary, spelling punctuation, and sentence structure in all written assignments. Errors may be penalized in grading. You are expected to complete the assignments required in the class by the dates on which they are due as outlined by instructor, the syllabus, and the class schedule. 180 IX. 6. Late assignments may be penalized up to and including non- acceptance, which would result in a grade of 0% for that particular assignment. 7. You are reSponsible for initiating a course withdrawal or request for an incomplete grade. Persons who have not done so and have not completed assignments as indicated in Section VII of this syllabus, and whose total percentage as a result is less than 60%, will receive a 0.0 for the final course grade. 8. Unless previously arranged with the instructor, there will be no make—up tests/exams nor any make-up for in class assignments missed. Make-up activities must be prearranged with the instructor (BEFORE you are absent). 9. Requirements for particular assignments will be explained by the instructor and outlined in a separate document. 10. Extra credit (optional) may be used to enhance your grade up to one—half step(5%). Arrangements must be negotiated with the instructor by class #11. Detailed Ogtline of Cgrse Content and Sequencing: In general, the course will cover topics regarding: 1. Introduction to the United States and the global workplace. 2. Facts, realities, and trends in the US. and the world regarding workforce shifts. 3. Differences in the United States workplace, including: a. Male/female perceptions and experience Persons with disabilities and their experience African American experience Latino American experience Asian American experience Native American experience Experience of persons with different sexual orientations .Euro- American Experience F‘PTDS‘P-PF’" 4. Differences In the international workplace, including: a. Pacific Rim countries European countries African countries Middle Eastern countries Latin American countries 9.9-9.3 181 _ "...a-III" 5. Skills required to be successful in a diverse workplace X. Student Academic Integrity and Classroom Behavior: The very nature of higher education requires that students adhere to accepted standards of academic integrity. Therefore, Lansing Community College has adopted a Code of Academic Conduct and a Statement of Student Academic Integrity. These may be found in the College Catalog. The violations of academic integrity listed and defined are cheating and plagiarism. It is the student's responsibility to be aware of behaviors that constitute academic dishonesty. XI. Other Course Information: Grading: Your grade will be dependent upon completing course requirements: Preparation/Participation 25% 10 personal reaction papers 25% Research Paper 10% Presentation 10% Exam #1 Mid Term 10% Field Assignment 10% Exam #2 Final (required) 10% Total 100% The final exam is required to pass the course. Students who do not take the final exam will receive a 0.0 for a final grade. , Students must complete each assignment. If an assignment is not attempted the student will drop down one half point. For example if the minority experience assignment is not handed in and the student currently has a 3.0 with all other assignments, the student will receive a 2.5 for the class. I Extra credit (optional) may be used to enhance your grade up to one-half- step (5%). Arrangements must be negotiated with the instructor by class #11. Extra-Credit is a privilege and not a right. Required Assignments: 182 1. Preparation/Participation: Attendance will be taken as well as documentation of preparation for and participation in the class. You will not earn full credit if you come late or leave early. Since the course design relies heavily on experiential learning, repeated absence from classroom activities will adversely affect your grade. Extenuating circumstances must be discussed with the instructor. 2. 10 Personal Reaction papers: These papers are just what they are called - a personal reaction to the class and what went on. They help digest the information presented in the class, and there are 10 required for this 16 session course. These papers are to your reactions — thoughts, feelings, reflections- to whatever went on in class. Pure description of the content of the session is to be avoided, as well as critiques of the speaker's presentation skills. The requirement is yo_ur thinking about the content of the class, how does it related to your present circumstances, and what past experiences do you think shape your attitude today about the subject. There are no "right" or "wrong" reactions. What is desired is honesty, openness, and sincerity — a willingness to look at oneself in the "mirror" even if the writing might be unpleasant for you or the instructor. PRPs should be typed, double-spaced, no less than 1 page and no more than two pages with your name in the upper right hand corner. Below your name should be the class session number your are reacting to (see class schedule), and the current date. (Please talk to the instructor if you do not have access to a typewriter or a computer.) PRPs are not returnable. If you wish to keep a copy, make one for yourself before your turn it in. Papers are to be turned in to the instructor prior to Noon of the next class session. Late papers will be accepted, but at a lesser point value (see point system for grading). These papers are required and will be recorded as having been turned in. You will receive credit if you complete at least 1 full page in a thoughtful and reflective manner. You will not receive credit if the paper is less than 1 full page or if it is merely a summary of what happened in class. At the beginning of most classes, (20 minutes) time will be devoted to reading from PRPs. The identity of the writers is not revealed. Reading in class helps everyone in the classroom learn 183 "where students are“ and facilitates the process of change without threat of embarrassment. If you do not wish your paper to be read, please write "DO NOT READ" at the top of the PRP. You may choose to identify certain parts of your paper not to be read. I would encourage you not to have all of your PRPs as a "Do not Read". . Research Paper and presentation: A research paper and a class presentation on the workplace implications of international and global business interactions are required. See the handout, Student Research Paper and Presen ta tion, for more detailed information. . Field Assignment - Minority Experience Assignment: An out of class opportunity to experience being a minority. See the hand out, Minority Experience Assignment, for more detailed information. . Exams: Two exams will be given. Further details will be given during the semester. Keep track of readings, activities, panels, and class discussions In your notes. These will be of help to you when preparing for the exams. . Extra Credit (Optional): Extra Credit may be earned through special projects arranged with the instructor. If you are interested in pursuing extra credit, you must discuss this with the instructor by class #11. Extra credit is for those' students who have completed all of the assignments and are still receiving a grade less than what they would like. Extra Credit will not be given in place of assignments not turned in. Extra Credit will not be given to make up for late assignments. 184 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Date 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/19 9/ 26 10/ 3 10/ 10 10/ 17 10/24 10/ 31 11/7 11/14 11/28 12/5 12/12 Syllabus for Fall 2002 Semester Topics/Discussion Overview of Diversity The American Workplace d: The Role of Management Understanding Cultures Diversity Skills éHandling Personal Prejudices Communication and Diversity Women and the Workplace African Americans Asian Americans Latino Americans Gay/Lesbian/Bi/TranSgendered Mid Term Due - Education of a Wasp Native Americans Persons with Disabilities Arabs/Middle Eastern Minority Experience Assignment Due White Privilege Presentations ThankSgiving Coming Back to Business Final MGMT XXX: Diversity in the Workplace: A Domestic and Global Perspective Readings/ Assignments Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings Assigned readings This is a tentative schedule for the semester. Changes may be made by the instructor, if needed, throughout the semester. You will be notified of any changes at least one week in advance. 185 >253? o mNmmAun-s d—L-l—L-L-Ld-fi-t-i OGNOO’IIth-‘OO 9m 9A Nu PM mu Na Na Nu ab PA PA Nb ab w; Na Na WM Disint. Nu 9m No NA w.A 9m #0 Nu NA Nu Nu Nb Na Na Na Reint. A; Nm 9m NA Nm m.._ NM N; NA Nu Nu NA Nb NM Nu NA Nu Psyd. Ind A.A w.._ 9w mo Na Nu Pm 9m arm A; A; A; Pm 9A Nu Na Autonomy Ab Pm w.» Pm Ab Pm No Wm arm Pm 9A A.A Ab ab 9A ub arm Nb $33.62 35.9 Student mNmfi§QNi d-l-l-l-L-L-l-t-b—L @ONOGhUN-bcw Contact arm “A NN 9N Wm Nm mm Nu ab PA 9A No 90 a; Na Nb m.» Nu Pm Nb ma. PA ...a #0 Nu NA Nu Nu Nb Na Na Na Reint. A; Nw arm NA mm w; mm Nd NA Na Na NA Nb N.» Nb NA Nw Psyd. Ind A.A w; ab was Nb my ab Pm arm A; A... A; Pm 9A Nu Nm Autonomy A.w 9m 9N Pm A.w Wm No Wm Pm 9m PA A.A A.w wb w.A ab a.» No 186 >263? I t d y t d y .n. m m m m m m m m m m m m m m e m H... m m m m S C P M S C P M ._ Mb Mb b; Mb Mb A Mb Mb b; Mb Mb M b b MA A A.M M b b MA A AM u Mb Mb b.._ b.M MM b Mb Mb b... b.M M..\ A MN Mb b Mb Mb A MN Mb b Mb Mb m M.M M... Mb Mb M... b M.M M; Mb Mb M..— b b.M Mb Mb Mb Mb b b.M Mb Mb Mb Mb N b.A M M.A A bb N b.A M M.A A bb b bb b.M bb b.M b.M b bb b.M bb b.M b.M b MM Mb Mb M.M Mb b MN Mb Mb M.M Mb So b MM b; bb A go bN Mb b; bb AA 3 Mb MM Mb b.M b... .3 Mb M9 Mb b.M b.._ ofl ..M b Mb Mb b; Mb dM b Mb Mb b... Mb 1 .3 Mb Mb M.M MN Mb db Mb Mb M.M MM Mb ..A b Mb b; ._b b ..A. b Mb b.._ db b .3 Mb Mb Mb Mb MQ ab Mb Mb Mb Mb MN .3 Mb M.M M... Mb Mb ..b Mb M.M M; Mb Mb .3 bb 4b M bb bb ..N bb ..b M bb bb ..b b b M.A Mb bb ab b b M.A Mb bb ..b b; Mb b.._ b b ..b b... Mb b... b b MO b Mb Mb b.._ b.M Mo b Mb Mb b; b.M