Articles
Defending the white race: White male faculty opposition to a “white racism” course
Section snippets
Teaching about racism: Its broader social context
Teaching about racism is neither a structure nor a process that somehow miraculously begins the moment well-prepared instructors and their well-read students enter the college classroom. Indeed, the most profound teaching about racism issues reach far beyond the internal dynamics of classroom pedagogy. Such issues are as likely to involve institutional transactions (e.g., among higher education, politics, and the economy) as they are teacher-student interaction Apple and Weiss 1983, Mills 1959,
Analytical approach
Two approaches were considered for the analysis of the case study material used in this paper. One method would have entailed an exploration of the strategies and tactics used in opposing the course and those successfully employed to secure its approval. However, given that the lead author, Noel A. Cazenave, was also the author and chief proponent of the course proposal, that approach may have enhanced bias through necessary interpretations of the intentions and motives guiding the actions of
Who opposed the course?
Before focusing on statements made in opposition to the course, it is imperative to discuss the social characteristics of those who opposed the course. All of the published campus criticisms of the course came from white male faculty or students. This statement is not meant to imply that all, or even most, European American men at the University of Connecticut (UConn) opposed the course. As will become clear later, considerable support for the course came from European American males. European
Overview of case study narrative
In May 1995, the sociology department of UConn approved what faculty commonly regarded as a perfunctory, one-page course proposal form. The title of the proposed course was “White Racism.” That proposal was prepared for a course to be taught during the fall semester of 1996.4 It soon became clear, however, that the approval of the course would be anything but routine.
The opposition to the White Racism special topics course proposal first became known to its author toward the end of October,
Statements critical of the course
As Table 2 shows, there are nine categories of criticisms of the White Racism course. Criticism of the course did not necessarily mean opposition to it, however. There were, indeed, critics/supporters who made both critical statements (primarily about its title) and supportive statements about the course. The number of statements categorized in the table (N = 68) is greater than the total number of critical statements made (N = 45). This is because some statements fit more than one category of
Responses to statements critical of the course
Many of the statements made in support of the course were specifically targeted at criticisms of the course. Here, the discussion will be limited to responses to the three major, specific categories of criticisms of the course. These responses to criticisms of the White Racism course will be discussed before examining other arguments made in support of the course.
Again, the most frequently articulated criticism of the course, especially by the faculty members of the college curriculum committee
Statements supportive of the course not specific to course criticisms
Not only did the proponents of the course respond to the arguments of those who made critical statements, but as Table 3 shows, the course supporters presented an additional and much larger set of reasons for teaching the course. Overall, there are 45 documented statements critical of the course, but more than twice as many (97) statements support the course. As was true for the critical statements, many of the supportive statements fit multiple categories. Thus, there are a total of 187
Support for course more important than an exclusive focus on “arguments ” implies
We have shown that there were early waves of opposition to the course. Momentum in support of the course came more slowly. Much of that support for the course was in response to what the supporters apparently saw as the excesses of the course’s critics. Supporters of the course rejected the critics’ claims that the course was racially offensive and racially inflammatory. There was also a backlash to what many saw as personal attacks on the course’s chief proponent. Course supporters saw white
Post-conflict developments
The institutionalization of a course on White Racism at the University of Connecticut has had positive consequences. The course—one of the most ethnically diverse classes taught at UConn—provides a structured “free social space” (Boyte, 1980, pp. 36–37) where students feel secure and supported in discussing a topic they may not normally be comfortable talking about. This free space is also an organizational base from which students cannot only learn about, and discuss, but if they choose to,
Discussion
White racism exists. It is a significant social phenomenon and a major social problem that has devastating consequences for many people in modern societies. Neither the structure nor the dynamics of those societies can be understood without understanding white racism. Given these facts, why would there be opposition to the teaching of a sociology course called White Racism? The answer is, of course, complex. However, if that reply had to summed-up in a one phrase explanation, that phrase could
Conclusion
A curriculum conflict at the University of Connecticut over the permissible conceptual language and approach that could be used in teaching about white racial privilege illustrates that the microlevel phenomenon of classroom teaching cannot be separated from the macrolevel social forces in the larger society. This case study shows the influence of societal forces on what is taught in the classroom, by whom, and how.
Successful attempts to diversify college curricula should, indeed, make solid
Acknowledgements
We authors are grateful for the helpful suggestions provided by Kenneth J. Neubeck, Ronald L. Taylor, and the anonymous reviewers of Race and Society. We also express our gratitude to Deirdre A. Royster and Elizabeth Mejia for raising the questions as to the role of “race”/gender, and white racial identify, respectively, in the dispute. We would like to acknowledge the useful editorial assistance of Cherie Ann Turpin. We also thank Anita Washington Cazenave and Anika Tene Cazenave for proofing
References (66)
- Abrahamson, Mark. 1996. Letter to the Editor. The Hartford Courant March, 3, p....
- et al.
Majority and Minority Faculty Perceptions in Academe
Research in Higher Education
(1993) The Invention of the White RaceVolume I. Racial Oppression and Social Control
(1995)New Right, New RacismRace and Reaction in the United States and Britain
(1997)- et al.
Ideology and Practice in SchoolingA Political and Conceptual Introduction
Whiteness VisibleThe Meaning of Whiteness in American Literature and Culture
(1998)Racial Oppression in America
(1972)- et al.
Teaching Privileged Students About Gender, Race and Class Oppression
Teaching Sociology
(1991) Rethinking RacismToward a Structural Interpretation
American Sociological Review
(1997)- Boyle, Patricia. 1995. Letter to the Editor. The Hartford Courant December, 26, p....
The Backyard RevolutionUnderstanding the New Citizen Movement
“Color-Blind” Racism
The Politics of Curricular ChangeEstablishing a Diversity Requirement at the University of Massachusetts at Boston
Understanding Everyday RacismAn Interdisciplinary Theory
Living with RacismThe Black Middle Class Experience
White RacismThe Basics
The Transparency Phenomenon, Race-Neutral Decisionmaking, and Discriminatory Intent
A DialogueCulture, Language and Race
Harvard Educational Review
White Women, Race MattersThe Social Construction of Whiteness
RaceThe History of an Idea in America
Whiteness as Property
Cited by (19)
-
Service providers’ cultural self-awareness and responsible use of racial power when working with ethnic minority victims/survivors of child sexual abuse: Results from a program evaluation study in Australia
2020, Children and Youth Services ReviewCitation Excerpt :Social workers receive education in their curricular on social justice and therefore sociological conceptualisations of racism. Within the discipline of sociology, racism is defined as the combination of prejudice plus power (Cazenave & Maddern, 1999) and therefore does not only discuss prejudicial cognition the way the discipline of psychology does (Allport, 1979). Thus, there is a risk that psychologists miss vital education on understanding ethnic minority clients as ‘ethnic minorities’ (i.e. minoritised) in Australia.
-
Rethinking epistemology, methodology, and racism: Or, is White sociology really dead?
2002, Race and Society -
Emotions of White Racism
2020, On Whiteness -
Joe R. Feagin: The social science voice of systemic racism theory
2017, Systemic Racism: Making Liberty, Justice, and Democracy Real