Race and Racism: A Critical Dialogue
Elizabeth A. Peterson & Stephen D. Brookfield
Their paper came out of conversations between the two of them for several years, they thought this was a problem that this has not been done in some time. There is a real need in this country for a dialogue, such as with Michael Richards and his tirade and then with Don Imus and his comments and firing. ONce that flurry comes, then it will die out. They then wanted to have a one on one discussion. It is difficult for two people, one black and one white to have this dialioge (she is black and he is white). When whites think about racism, they are thinking about overtly racist act. Comments Imus made were socially unaccessptible. Thus, since whites find those things unacceptable, and those acts were rascist, thus whites do not see other evidence of racism
Thus, there is a disconnect and inability to come to an understanding of racism.
First positioned seld in critical race theory and then critical theory, and then they moved within their own narratives and their childhood experiences.
She recalled the first time she was called the N word, when she was in 9 in fourth grade. Then, in the school, the boys were told to apologize, but due to a subsequent color-blind policy that is put into place, overt racism was stopped, but there was still a lot of more quiet / subtle ones were still experienced.
Critical race theory - with Brookfield - he is English, so does not have a personal life. In CRT, there is often a personal story that is described. He recounted a story when he got into a fight when he was 17, When a black service man came and acted as a peacemaker and told them to break up the fight, Brookfield recounted how the black man as a peacemaker. This disrupted how he saw blacks as violent and whites as supremicists and peacemakers. HIs other counter-story against white supremacy was when he went to hear Malcolm X.
Brookfield is seen as a gatekeeper within the academy, and he has benefited from white supremacy. He does not prefer to use the term white privilege, which he sees as too benign. He then recounted a story when he was approached by the Harvard Educational Review to write a paper. They wanted him to write a central paper and then have his colleagues write responses, as they did not want a special issue. At first, there seemed to be a lot of energy with the editors who seemed exciting about the project and the value of that kind of project. The irony is that the white man (stephen) would write and then the others (all black) would then be invited to respond to his paper on racial issues in adult education.
ELizabeth commented how the room was packed because they wanted to see Stephen, and not particularly since they were interested in their research.
There then were some questions
Whites constantly moves the goalposts, so race is something that white people do not need to deal with, so even on some campuses the only black person on campus may be the officer of diversity.
One question was about how some white people really do not get critical white studies or critical queer studies comes from CRT and its guidance.
Elizabeth stated that whites are a race.
There was a question to Stephen about how white folks need to speak about race as white folks.
He spoke about how, when a black student speaks in class, he sometimes is hesitant to offer any criticism, to most allow for that voice to come out in its fullness, as if he offered some criticism it would be seen as how his voice is so full of authority that obviously nobody would disagree. Elizabeth thought that this was good that he brings this out into the light and discusses it, so it shows how he gets this, even though he has suffered through these issues as well.
There were some good questions and discussions about how the Harvard Education Review and their board no longer
Technorati Tags: AERC2007, live blogging, liveblogging, live-blogging, aerc, Stephen Brookfield