Every now and then I read something on another blog that really inspires me. Lately some of my favorite blogging has come from Blackacademic. Recently, she wrote a great poem about blogging from the margins as a queer woman of color in the academy. This post is largely inspired by her follow-up to her poem where one reader questions the accuracy of her statements.?

Before I address the issues raised in her explanation of the poem, here is the poem , and here is the link to her follow-up posting . It seems that some White feminists are taking issue with the following passage in the poem,

they have co-opted, appropriated and commodified assata, angela,
audre, patricia, and nikki,
to make themselves feel a sense of an identity,
to try and displace their privilege,
waiting, hoping, wishing,
trying to save us all

Blackademic elaborates on what she means in this passage with the following quote:

?with this passage, i am specifically referring to how in THE ACADEMY, text that are about/for/written by women of color, are largely absent, except possibly, during the “multicultural” week in the feminist theory undergraduate courses. even in some graduate courses, “women of color issues” are pushed to the side, or narrowly interpreted by voices that do not come from the women of color the text speak about. unless you major in some sort of ethnic studies degree program (which even those are limiting), the voices of women of color are still marginalized–so, what i’m saying is: this idea has leaked into the blogsosphere, were feminist issues regarding women of color and issues of race are tokenized and for the most part, have been relegated to the same marginalizing positions. such as blog against racism day, or whenever the politician to hate at the moment espouses some racist rhetoric. while the rest of the days, race/racism are completely ignored and the popular idea of feminism is projected as a universal theme that can supposedly can liberate ALL women.?

In the comment section one poster argues that this is not true. The commenter Mary argues that:

?Having been through a women’s studies graduate program – whose main area of inquiry was, almost always, women of color or issues of race and other differences – and taught a woman’s studies course, I can tell you that race was *always* a central category of analysis. Furthermore, all of the undergraduate feminist theory texts I’ve seen highlight the primacy of critical race and postcolonial thought within feminist theory. It may be helpful to make specific claims about race in the academy, as opposed to generalizing about an entire field.?

Certainly, some Third Wave White feminists on occasion treat race as ?a category of analysis,? but it is rare that race is addressed on par with gender. However, this is not the primary area I want to focus on. What I would like to address is one of the primary reasons many White feminists and White academics don?t realize that they don?t substantially address the intersecting oppression of racism and sexism.

I think the problem with the vast majority of White academics (and many people of color in academia) is that they don?t understand the distinction between talking about race or people of color and talking about racism or racist oppression. Let me explain. In sociology, for example, there are numerous articles published that use race as a ?variable? or ?category of analysis.? In most of these studies researchers compare racial groups and talk about ?racial differences.? Many academics note ?racial differences,? but they don?t connect those racial differences with racism. The other problem is the racial caveat. Many White feminists and other academics do this by (and many women of color themselves) talking about people of color as a caveat. When people do this, they say things like??My sample was mostly White. This may not be true for other groups.? In other cases, scholars claiming to look at the intersections of oppression use the additive model as Bitch|Labnotes. In this way of thinking, race is tacked on to the discussion. For these feminist scholars race (not racism) is considered something that ?adds to gender oppression,? or for Marxists it is something that divides the working class.

So what is the difference between talking about ?people of color? or talking about ?race? vs. talking about racism or racist oppression. Comparing racial groups or mentioning race, and using race as a category of analysis, is not talking about racism. Racism is a system of oppression which grants Whites greater access to power, prestige, privileges, and wealth. The problem with many scholars is that they stop at ?racial differences,? or they claim that racial differences are the result of racism without ever studying racism. In order to fully understand racism scholars need to include a discussion of ?power? and ?domination,? and in order to do that academics must engage with Whiteness (and other dominant groups). For example, interviewing low income Black families is useful, and these families may be poor because of racism, but the study itself is not necessarily about racism. The interviewer may indeed address some of the respondents? experiences with racism, but for the most part, the focus is ?Black people.? What we don?t get from studies like this is a clear understanding of how White power and dominance replicates racism. It seems that people are willing to acknowledge ?women of color? or ?people of color? without acknowledging what Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton Dill call the ?relational nature of domination.? For example, the category ?Black woman? is not constructed in isolation, rather it is constructed in opposition to the category ?White woman.? Part of the problem with White racism is that it that it constructs ?Whiteness as universal, raceless, and normative.? Because of this, many White people don?t even realize when they are talking about Whiteness. Instead they think they are talking about the universal experiences of people. Additionally, studies consistently find that Whites overestimate the representation of people of color (See Charles Gallagher?s article with the title: ?White people Can?t Count?). Thus, Whites overestimate the representation of people of color, and underestimate their own representation. If people in the academy want to study racism, they also need to focus on Whiteness and racism.

My other concern about White academics who study race is that some of them make careers out of writing about race and in a few cases racism, but they live their lives in a way that is not consistent with their ideology. I often think about the White scholars who make careers out of studying race (not racism), but live their lives in isolation from people of color. For this group of scholars, racism matters at an academic level but not a personal level. Maybe if Whites in the academy had more contacts with people of color inside and outside the academy we would have a better grasp of the significance of our Whiteness. (Some racism researchers are doing this in the developing field called ?Critical White Studies.? One of my concerns about critical White studies is that it can become an excuse to continue keeping people of color at the margins. My sense is that we have to decenter Whiteness while also fighting the marginalization of people of color.)

So let me return to the larger point that Blackademic was making. What she was trying to address was the interactive nature of racism and sexism and how this serves to marginalize women of color in the feminist movement. The problem in many left wing activist groups and in the academy is that we pick our oppressions as if they are unrelated. Then, we feel that token inclusion/discussion of other marginalized groups is sufficient. Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to address all interlocking oppressions simultaneously; however, I?m not sure that when it comes to racism that we even know what it is. If we don?t know the difference between race and racism and we continue to use a model that focuses on ?differences? without addressing oppression and dominance, then progress will be limited.

This is by no means a comprehensive discussion of this, so feel free to add your critiques.

I have been hearing about the controversy surrounding the Jamie Fo Unpredictable Special. Rumor has it that NBC decided not to promote Fo’s special because Fo refused to include a White performer. I am not sure that this is true, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if it is. There is also the possibility that in the modern era of media marketing this is just a rumor, which was designed to create publicity for the show. However, I’m not convinced of that because I think that would scare away many White viewers, and I don’t think NBC would want that. The other possibility is that it is some sort of urban legend type rumor that has taken off.?

So what’s the real deal? I don’t know, but I would like to take on the racial issues that this raises. Well, when the show was announced in May of 2005. It was described in this way,

“The Jamie Fo Special” (tentative title) would be a one-hour showcase of Fo’s multiple skills and would follow the release of his first music CD release this Fall. The special will feature all original music by Fo and will include major musical guest stars.

In particular, the special will trace Fo’ musical roots back to his home town of Terrell, Texas — with an accent on his own personal musical story.

If this is description is accurate, then it really doesn’t matter if there are White people in the show. Many people create performances based on their lives, and to add White people to Jamie Fo’s semi-autobiographical performance is probably not reflective of his experiences (unless he wants to address the issue of what it is like to grow up in a predominantly White area.). I’m watching the show right now, and a significant promotion of the show focuses on his relationship with his grandmother–a Black woman. If Fo is given a show with creative control, then he can decided whoever he wants to put on the show. Nobody complains about White folks telling the stories of their lives and not including any brown and black folks. Nor do you hear people worried about the numerous shows, such as Everybody Loves Raymond, that revolve around White people and have Blacks, Latinos, and Asians nowhere to be found. Whites need to learn to “put up with” being the minority because a) we very rarely have to do it and b) we expect people of color to tolerate being absent or underrepresented. It is the one the ultimate entitlements of White privilege……..the ability to have your view represented in almost every aspect of society and to be able to navigate your world without being outnumbered.

I can’t speak for NBC or this specific case, but the general discomfort that many Whites have with being outnumbered or underrepresented is very clearly the product of racism, and I have no patience for it. White folks (and the hand full of Black and Brown folks who feel the same)—we need to get a grip.

What do you think? Am I being to hard on Whites who feel this way or is my critique on point?

PS– Bomani and Professor Kim are also talking about this.

So the blog is a little quiet because this is my first week back from vacation. Well it wasn’t really a vacation because I taught a two week winter session class. I must be a glutton for punishment or your typical “trying not to be broke” New Yorker. The first week of class is always hectic. I always get excited about my new classes and new students, especially before the monotony sets in or before I get the first examine grades back.

But I do love teaching sociology. The subjects we covered today are all interesting. In my Social Institutions class was talked about the relationship between institutions, and when I asked about the relationship between politics and religion, my students talked about President Bush wooing Christian conservatives. Then, I went on to my Black Sociology class where we had a great discussion about “who’s Black.” I have this great exercise where I list several nationalities and ask the students who is Black. The Egyptians, Americans, Canadians, seemed to spark the most debate. The whole point is that races are social not biological categories, and the fact that we don’t agree is strong evidence of this. Then in my sexuality class we talked about the relationship between sex, gender, and sexuality. I asked my students–how they assigned people to a sex category, and I told them they could use me as an example. When one of my students said, that people are assigned based on genitalia. I jokingly said, “But how did you assign a gender to me because I don’t think you saw my genitals.” I had to laugh. Even though to some extent the student was right, I was trying to get the students to think about the social ques we use assign people to sex and gender categories. All of this made me realize how much I have been influenced by the social constructionist perspective on race and gender.

I love teaching sociology–Thursday’s lessons: an overview of sociological theories, a discussion on the terms Black, African American, African, Ethncity, and Race, and a lesson on challenging biological notions of sexuality. I can’t wait.

A professor teaching at DeVry in Denver named Meg Spohn has been fired for comments she made in her blog. I’m having a hard time believing that firing someone is that easy. DeVry is a for profit college, so I would suspect their hiring and firing practices are more like those of the business world. (Thanks to C.N. Le for the heads up.)

Obviously, there is no tenure or any other protections for this professor, but this does bring up a few interesting questions about “blogging while being a professor” or “blogging while having a job in general.” I think about this frequently. Who is going to find this site? Could this hurt my career in any way? The difficulty for me is that I do not blog anonymously. My name and picture are right on my page, which makes my identity open. I have tried to set a few rules for myself.

Rachel’s Rules

1. Never saying anything bad about my employer on my blog. Never mention any student by name, and never make disparaging comments about particular incidents with students, which could make it clear who the student is (either to that student or to other students) . This is particularly important for me as I do not blog anonymously. I have read one academic’s blog who is anonymous, and this person posts several semi-insulting statements about students, which I would not do. This person doesn’t mention students by name, but since the person is anonymous it would be hard for people to find out.

2. The blog is part of my private life, and I try to talk about my private life minimally in the blog. I wish this could be part of my job, but academia doesn’t really know how to handle blogs yet. Moreover, this blog is not written for an academic audience, and the idea that an academic is writing for the general public is not accepted by many academics. For me this is public sociology or public intellectualism. I don’t mind other sociologists accessing the blog, but for now, I don’t want my blog to be considered part of my tenure and promotion review. In terms of my private life, I would like to write more, and maybe I would if I was anonymous. However, I want people who read my blog to focus on the issues I raise, not me. Plus, I’m not so sure that some of my friends and family would want their business out in the streets. LOL! I would like to add a few more personal touches, so people could get to know me a little better, but I know I have to walk an fine line in doing that.

3. Don’t trade insults with commenters and try to keep them from doing it to each other. I heard of a controversy over deleted comments in a blog. Someday, I may have to delete some comments, but for now I have a very civil house. I am a firm believer in civility. Disagreements are fine, but they need to remain focused on the issue and not the person.

4. Respect your fellow bloggers. I try my best not to launch into any tirades against what I see in other blogs. Disagreeing is fine but attacking is not. Calling people “wingnuts” and other names just isn’t useful and it doesn’t help the discussion. I also try to check out other sites and comment on them; however, I do try not to be one of those–”Hey check out my site” commenters; that can be an annoyance. I’m still trying to figure out the link etiquette and would be happy to take any suggestions on that.

What other blog rules do you think I should follow as an academic (or otherwise employed blogger)? Also, how do you think blogging is different for anonymous bloggers? (Please comment…I seriously want some input here.)

My early college years really marked a shift in my thinking about race. After teaching college students for the past several years I realize that I am certainly not alone. For many young people this is the first time they are really forced to confront racism and actually engage in conversations across race. I had purposely chosen to attend a college that was racially mixed and was in a predominantly Black neighborhood, and I thought that I would be able to learn and put much of the racism behind me. Of course, I was 18, and I was wrong. However, most young adults are different from me. My experience is that they would prefer to go on living a largely segregated life just as long as there is no one else there to remind them of it. This is the difficulty teaching about racism in the colorblind era. Many students believe racism is over, or they believe that it is confined to Neo-Nazis, the KKK, or ?Hicks.? I would say the vast majority of my White students and at least half of my students of color think racism is not a problem and it is something they have no experience with. One of the reasons they think this way is because they do not have an understanding of institutionalized racism.

One of the problems is that prior to college, students learn almost nothing about racism. Many students learn about diversity and multiculturalism, but not racism. This distinction is significant because the terms diversity and multiculturalism, have become synonymous with the notion that ?we are all a little different, but we should all like each other.? The problem with this way of teaching is that it ignores the fact that racism is not about how different we are or who we ?love or hate.? The primary manifestation of racism is structural, which means that our social and economic opportunities are profoundly connected to race. If we all love each other and know that we are different, we will still have racism. People can love people and truly be racist towards them; moreover, racism isn?t just something located in individuals. Some times the rules themselves and their outcomes are racist. Take the education system as an example. Even the most nonracist teacher must contend with the fact that school districts are generally drawn based on town lines, and towns are often racially segregated. Certainly, racial attitudes shape neighborhood segregation, but these institutional arrangements take on a life of their own. Many of my students will say they don?t have many friends from different backgrounds because there were no people from different background in their neighborhoods. When I say that racism causes this, the immediate reaction is??I?m not racist. I just didn?t have the opportunity to meet people from other races.? Whether that individual person is racist or not doesn?t matter from my way of thinking. Racism has an impact because of the structure, and the individual person doesn?t much matter regardless of whether or not he or she is racist. I know this sounds defeatist, but it doesn’t have to be.

In my own experience the hardest thing to teach students about racism is that it exists in individuals, groups, and institutions. At the individual level, racism is about a particular persons attitudes and behaviors. At the group level racism is about collective attitudes and behaviors, and at the structural level racism is about the fundamental organization of society. One very good example of structural racism would be the electoral college. Superficially, the electoral college is a raceless policy, but in the end White votes for president count more because of it (not to mention the wholesale disenfranchisement of predominantly Black Washington, DC.). Bob Wing, former editor of Colorlines magazine details a few of the ways this works. He says:

The good news is that the influence of liberal and progressive voters of color is increasingly being felt in certain states. They have become decisive in the most populous states, all of which went to Gore except Ohio, Texas, and (maybe?) Florida. In California an optimist might even envision a rebirth of Democratic liberalism a couple of elections down the road, based largely on votes of people of color.
The bad news is that the two-party, winner-take-all, Electoral College system of this country ensures, even requires, that voters of color be marginalized or totally ignored.

“The two-party, Electoral College system ensures that almost half of voters of color are marginalized or totally ignored.”

The Electoral College negates the votes of almost half of all people of color. For example, 53 percent of all blacks live in the Southern states, where this year, as usual, they voted over 90 percent Democratic. However, white Republicans out-voted them in every Southern state (and every border state except Maryland). As a result, every single Southern Electoral College vote was awarded to Bush. While nationally, whites voted 54-42 for Bush, Southern whites, as usual, gave over 70 percent of their votes to him. They thus completely erased the massive Southern black (and Latino and Native American) vote for Gore in that region.
Since Electoral College votes go entirely to whichever candidate wins the plurality in each state, whether that plurality be by one vote or one million votes, the result was the same as if blacks and other people of color in the South had not voted at all. Similarly negated were the votes of the millions of Native Americans and Latino voters who live in overwhelmingly white Republican states like Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, the Dakotas, Montana, and Texas. The tyranny of the white majority prevails.

Wing goes on to detail how racism shaped the development of the electoral college,

The Constitution provided that slaves be counted as three-fifths of a person (but given no citizenship rights) for purposes of determining how many members each state would be granted in the House of Representatives. This provision vastly increased the representation of the slave states in Congress.
At the demand of James Madison and other Virginia slaveholders, this pro-slavery allocation of Congresspersons also became the basis for allocation of votes in the Electoral College. It is a dirty little secret that the Electoral College was rigged up for the express purpose of translating the disproportionate Congressional power of the slaveholders into undue influence over the election of the presidency. Virginia slaveholders proceeded to hold the presidency for 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years.

Since slavery was abolished, the new justification for the Electoral College is that it allows smaller states to retain some impact on elections. And so it does–to the benefit of conservative white Republican states. As Harvard law professor Lani Guinier reports, in Wyoming, one Electoral College vote corresponds to 71,000 voters, while in large-population states (where the votes of people of color are more numerous) the ratio is one electoral vote to over 200,000 voters. So much for one person, one vote.

This year the Electoral College will apparently enable the winner of the conservative white states to prevail over the winner of the national popular vote–a tyranny of the minority.

This election system continues until today, in spite of how open minded modern politicians, political parties, or racial groups may or may not be.

To some extent when people learn about institutional racism, it can be very defeating because institutional racism is much more difficult to challenge. But there are also advantages. One major advantage is that it removes some of the guilt students (especially White students) have about racism. Once young people realize racism is less about blaming individuals (not that there isn’t some blame to go around) and more about strucutral organization; their defensiveness goes down a little. However, discussions of structural racism must also include examples of how strucutral racism can be challenged. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950-1960s provides such an example.

Because racism is pervasive and institutional, it needs to be attacked at the individual, group, and structural levels. I think this is highly relevant when we discuss the legacy of Martin Luther King because Dr. King always understood the institutional nature of racism, particularly at the end of his career. People often forget that when he was assassinated in Memphis, he was trying to help low income predominantly African American workers organize. Certainly, we can work on changes our individual attitudes, but in order to challenge racism today we cannot forget the important of social movements as a means of changing the social structure. A movement to end the electoral college, DC disenfranchisement, and the structure of the criminal justice system would be a few areas where we can begin a modern Civil Rights Movement.

What the hell is wrong with these kids? Here is a link to the story. They beat three homeless men–Raymond Perez, Jacques Pierre, and Norris Gaynor. Gaynor died of his injuries, and the assault on Pierre was caught on tape just so these boys could have fun. I am not sure if it is a coincidence or not, but all of the victims are Black or Latino and the perpetrators are White. Regardless of the motivation for this crime, you have to be relly sick to do something like this.