It’s been awhile since I’ve opened this blog. Part of the reason is because I was afraid of what I’d write; part of the reason is because I couldn’t get my head around exactly WHAT I wanted to share. My classroom tables have been replaced by chairs to facilitate better classroom management; the curriculum continues to be a thorn in my side; and the days continue to run one into the next, with the biggest premium being that of time. With all that said, what made me finally return here? And what is it I am feeling the need to share? Before I actually broach the subject, please know that I am bracing for the firestorm this post may cause. I am fully aware that the entire topic is a hotbed for misunderstandings and miscommunication. So without further hesitation, here we go…
Last Tuesday and Wednesday, I was asked to attend a two day seminar being hosted by our District. There were seven or eight teachers from my building who were also asked to attend, and a total of 100 or so attendees from various District schools and administrative offices. I went in with no preconceived notions of what to expect. The title of the workshop was “Courageous Conversations” and was run by the Pacific Education Group (a misnomer I’ll address later in this post). Our hostess for the day was Terrlyn Currey Avery, the single most hostile, divisive African American woman I have ever met. And so the stage was set for what was to be a disturbing, disheartening and, for me, disgusting two days of racially charged and hate filled messages delivered under the guise of bridging the achievement gap between the races.
The first day began with the data–our “black/brown students” (read: shades of black) were performing far below our white and Asian students. For the purposes of this exercise, “white” encompassed everyone other than Asian and black (a fact that immediately caused what Avery called “push back” from Arabic, Indian and other middle-eastern attendees: pushback that was summarily dismissed and ignored) . In fact, said the data, our poorest whites were outperforming our most wealthy blacks. This, said Dr. Avery, took socio-economics out of the equation. This, said Dr. Avery, pointed to the racial inequities brought about by what she called “white privilege”. The Asian data was higher than the white data, a fact that Avery attributed to family influence, but when that same argument was applied to the lower black scores, Avery balked and insisted that simply wasn’t the case. If you’re confused, join the club–so were many of the white folks sitting in the audience.
The conversation then turned to the tests themselves–”white norm-referenced tests” that were created and scored in Iowa (“And we,” offered Dr. Avery, “know who lives in Iowa!”). So the cultural bias of the tests was called on the carpet. Dr. Avery referred to the “BITCH” test for blacks, and challenged whites to pass THAT test (which, incidentally, I did that evening), and moved on to her next racially charged topic. This time she took a swipe at special education, saying that an inordinate number of black males were being identified as special education (again, due to the racial bias of the tests themselves). She said that those boys were given “A”s in special education, and she offered “We all know what those A’s mean in special education!” The inference was clear–and disturbing.
One of the most troubling exercises of the day occurred near the end of day one. We were asked to take a “white privilege” survey where we rated ourselves, based solely on race (either black or white) on a number of statements. Example: based solely on my race, I can pick up a magazine and see others of my race. There were 20 or so questions, each scored on a 1-5 scale (1 being “never”; 5 being “always”). We were then asked to take the survey home and give it to someone of a different race. When questioned about where we were to find someone of a different race if we didn’t live with such, we were told to “go to a grocery store and approach a stranger.”
The end of the first eight hour day was supposed to be at 3 pm. Of the hundred or so in attendance, about 20 of us had arranged late child-care (we are usually dismissed from our buildings between 2:30 and 2:45 pm). At 3 pm, we excused ourselves, only to be met with harsh words from our presenter. “I’m SURE you don’t leave your schools before this time.” We assured her that we did, at which time we were called “rude”. Frankly, I thought it was rude that she was the guest and assumed her time schedule was more important than ours. Those of us who needed to leave did so, but we were met with much hostility the next day (something I’ll discuss further later in this post).
Day two began with a short introduction from a District administrator, reiterating the reason behind asking Pacific Education Group to address us. When someone asked about the 3 pm end time, the administrator assured the group that we were, indeed, to be done at 3 pm. The presenter at that point interrupted and said that if SHE was expected to finish on time, that the group was expected to be back from breaks and lunch on time (a fact that, in the end, was quite ironic based on her closing commentary–something I will get to shortly). At that time, Avery again took the stage. She started by asking who did NOT do the homework. As I had other commitments and wasn’t comfortable approaching a stranger, I had not done the work and raised my hand. So did about 30 other folks. She asked one man why he hadn’t done the work, and his reasons were much the same as mine. Avery chastised the man and blamed his lack of racial understanding. She told him that he was basically racist in his views and needed to invest what was needed to challenge his “whiteness”. She then lined everyone up according to their scores, and made a long and tedious point of showing us that the darker the skin of our black peers, the further down the line they stood. A few of the darker Italian attendees who ended up very close to the front of the line challenged her on this, but she attributed it to their whiteness. In fact, she said that she often heard the argument that many white immigrants were “down trodden” when they came to the States. She said that they still had their “whiteness”, a comment she also attributed to Jews who were persecuted. When she had apparently made her point, she broke the group down into smaller groups based on their places in line. This was where things truly fell apart, as all the black attendees (at least 90 percent of them) ended up at the same table. This will become an important factor in a moment. At our tables, we were asked to “define” white culture. Avery then offered what was perhaps the most inflammatory and surely the most disgusting example she had proffered in the entire two days. “Here’s an example,” said Avery. “When our black folks get old, we take them into our homes and take care of them. You whites, when your people get old, you put them in a nursing home and wash your hands of them.” I was shocked and truly wanted to throw up. I wanted to share with her the story of my grandfather wasting away as my 5′ aunt struggled to get his 6’2″ frame to and from the bathroom. I kept my mouth shut, and things just went from bad to worse.
Our table was having a very difficult time identifying “white” culture. We could identify what in our lives represented the ethnic cultures we were from–Italian traditions; Irish customs; etc. One of the younger teachers at a table turned to the table of black attendees and asked them what THEY thought was “white culture”. The table erupted. People who had formerly been colleagues were now pitted against one another. One of the black attendees at the table accused the all white table of being “deflective” and not taking responsibility for their “white privilege.” A woman at the white table turned and asked why the group wasn’t differentiating between “Jamaican” and “African” culture when talking about “black” culture, at which point another black attendee accused her of “biting” and using an accusatory tone. Another woman at the black table said that the white woman didn’t “know her” well enough to ask those questions. The tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Eventually, Avery brought us all back together, and we shared our responses. The white culture ended up being defined as one of a patriarchal heirarchy, one of privilege and racial blindness. The table that offered Nascar as a light-hearted addition was ignored and ridiculed. The conversation then quickly turned to “black culture”, at which time Avery brought to light cultural things that we, as white educators, needed to address. The first was that of time. She insisted that black culture didn’t respect time in the same way that whites do. For this reason, she said, we need to reexamine our tardy policies. (I found this comment to be quite ironic in light of the fact that she had railed on about many being late back from lunch, but I suppose she was talking about the whites who were late). She went on to offer examples from her own life and told about inviting blacks and whites to the same party, always telling the whites a much later time than she would tell the blacks. She called it our “whiteness” and said we needed to challenge that attribute. She went on to address the number of blacks who failed phys ed because they wouldn’t swim. She said that many of the girls spent $55 a shot to get their hair done, and that they shouldn’t be expected to get their hair wet the next day. From there, she talked about head gear, and the fact that many schools banned hats, scarves, etc. She said that the black culture, especially for girls, meant that they NEEDED to wear that gear after gym and that we needed to reexamine that rule. Finally, she called on teachers to understand the need to have lotion in their classrooms for the blacks who had “ashy” skin and needed it. I was left simply shaking my head.
At the end of the day we were all asked to write about how WE would challenge our whiteness. Avery offered her own example. She said that she lives in a predominately white neighborhood where she can be sure her daughters will receive all of the best that is denied those in black neighborhoods. She said she usually shopped at a mostly white Walmart, but at one point a few weeks earlier had found herself in a Walmart with a lot of black patrons. She turned to her friend to remark about that fact, at which point her friend told her that her “whiteness” was showing. Without fully understanding the point of Avery’s example, I did know this–she talked about her “whiteness” as if it were a thing to be squashed and dismissed. When we were finally told the seminar was over, it was accompanied by Avery’s biting comments that she would love to continue, but that she was obviously under the time constraints set up by those who had complained about the late finish the day before.
And so I return from whence I started–the group who put together Courageous Conversations was Pacific Education Group. Where, I ask, is the “education”? As of Friday, I still couldn’t look at the black woman from our building who verbally attacked the white woman sitting next to her without thinking that SHE (the black woman) was the racist. She commented to someone else in our building that it was about time that whites were made to face their privilege. I am appalled. Further, I am appalled that not once in the entire presentation did Avery offer any hard data about bridging the achievement gap. Not once.
I suppose that what else appalls me is the fact that my own family comes from such a diverse and wholly “unprivileged” background. My father grew up in a primarily black town and was the minority in almost all situations. He worked as a blue collar laborer and never rose about 40k in salary, despite his long hours. Our home was open to all races, and we celebrated our differences by attending our Italian neighbors’ holiday dinners (7 fish for Christmas) and our black neighbors’ church (Baptist, loud and lovely). To be now told that I am of white privilege and need to feel guilty about that just doesn’t wash–it’s completely divisive and has done more harm, in my case, than good.
The District plans to do follow up to this work, eventually incorporating into curriculum. I fail to see how labeling our white students as being of “privilege” when many can’t afford to even eat three meals a day is productive. I want to stand up against this initiative and scream at the top of my lungs about the “wrongness” of the approach, but I fear for my job. It’s a sad, sad commentary, and one about which I feel completely helpless. Comments??