The School That Tried to End Racism (Channel 4, 2020) depicts school children enacting ‘Privilege Walk’ to demonstrate the impact of racial inequalities, which reveals colour blindness. Those who are disadvantaged understood immediately the unfair implications, yet the most advantaged white male child redirected responsibility to the structural enquiry determining positioning. This child failed to comprehend how the multiple oppressions of others enable white privilege, rather than the questions. A relationship could be drawn between deflecting racism and ‘colourblind’ legislation (Bradbury 2020) – as Bradbury explains, policy structure can make inequality absent, which the child’s revisioning of questions suggests – to relieve discomfort and responsibility while maintaining “winning”. Bradbury claims that structural and systematic racism is authored by those who benefit from others’ disadvantage and the progress of minority groups is seen only when it is to the advantage of white elites. This correlates with Garrett’s article (Garett, 2024) that interviewed 22 racialised minority PhD students to reveal no one felt academically supported, yet all felt racially exploited to support institutional diversity. While many students considered academia as neurotypical spaces failing to support intersectionality, the challenge focused on the spatial relations of colonial perspectives that determine “whiteness” and did not explicitly define these spaces as masculine and heteronormative. Garrett cites Fanon (1952) and Andrews (2023) to posit race as a constructed colonial imaginary to maintain Western authority and labels whiteness as a psychosis that engenders delusions. While Garrett cites Rose’s Feminism and Geography(1993), she does not apply to “whiteness” Rose’s significant recognition of ‘multiple identities’ (class, sexuality and non-exhaustive man/woman binaries) to include academic inequalities owing to it being foundationally male and heteronormative, as are most Western authoritative forms of knowledge, which problematically situates race (whiteness) as eclipsing intersectionality (sex, gender, disability, age, faith).
As a white male English journalist reporting on diversity, James Orr (2023) exemplifies the kind of systemic blindness Bradbury’s line of questioning attempts to dismantle –how those advantaged is perpetuated, and the effects of who is speaking. Orr (2023) attacks AdvanceHE for pressuring institutions to enact systemic change through the Athena Swan and Race Equality charters. He refers to Ahmed to claim the reality of AdvanceHE abstract principles have oppressive effects and offers implicit bias training failing as an example, which Sadiq (2023) also believes fails owing to it being nonexperiential, or safe for group questions. Confusing Orr’s argument, the Cambridge students interviewed cite the training as helping them navigate and understand each other, and student protest footage demanding Cambridge decolonise contradicts Orr’s claim that students are becoming less tolerant of opposing viewpoints and controversial ideas. Ahmed stipulates that the institutional role is to remain neutral on controversial matters however this is precisely the systemic secularism that Rekis (2023) believes polices knowledge, which ultimately results in the reduced opportunity for understanding non-singular diverse experiences. Orr defers to Dr Harinam who disputes institutional racism at Cambridge based on a low reportage rate, which is a statistically reductive claim that is reflective of Bradbury’s insight on policy structuring to enable the absence of inequality. While the resources reveal inherent systematic, endemic and unrecognised racism, the Channel 4 clip does so by performing it, which does not “end racism” as the title suggests, it exposes the inability to absorb the implications of racism by those with the most to gain from it, which is also evidenced in the Telegraph online report. Where Sadiq’s presentation calls for diversifying and localising content through experiential learning that is group-led but contradictory self-led, Bradbury’s article offers practical approaches to shaping anti-racist thought that can be applied across disciplines.
I commented on Michael and Dayna‘s posts.
Reference list:
Bradbury, A. (2020) A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: the case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England, Race Ethnicity and Education, pp. 241-247.
Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg
Garrett, R. (2024). Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp.1–15.
Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU
Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account’, Cambridge University Press, Issue 38, pp. 779-800, Available at: 10.1017/hyp.2023.86
Sadiq, A. (2023) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx [Online}. Youtube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for your detailed thoughts in this blog – it was very thought-provoking.
I really liked how you connected Bradbury’s insights with Garrett’s findings on racialised minority PhD students which reveals how institutions superficially embrace diversity while maintaining inequities.I thought the point that you made about Garrett not applying the recognition of multiple identities to whiteness was really compelling because then it becomes all-consuming and doesn’t actually give space to those inequalities that are perpetually present in academic spaces, such as those spaces being traditionally male and heteronormative as you say.
Your depiction of James Orr and his positionality highlights a systemic blindness that as you say is perpetuated. I found that Orr was quick to dismiss the AdvanceHE initiatives speaks to his lack of understanding of discrimination given his positionally. I really liked the link you drew between Ahmed stating that the responsibility of the institution is to remain neutral and Rekis’ article which states that this is inherently what leads to epistemic injustices. As you say there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge systemic racism – from people who are in powerful positions which is very concerning as it doesn’t allow for the top-down structural change that is needed to counter this. I wonder if that’s the same at UAL, I think it is a far more common issue than we think.
I thought it was really funny that the students Orr interviewed didn’t give the responses he was perhaps expecting – showing the divide between his and their views was really interesting. I remember doing the implicit bias training that UAL offer and I wonder if this is something that students are also asked to do? I’m not sure. I can see both sides of the debate as to whether or not it may be useful, but I think doing it is better than simply not acknowledging that it should be a thing at all.
I liked your take on the Chanel 4 clip as ‘performance’ almost, it felt like it was a stunt by the school aimed to garner views and virality rather than effecting any sort of meaningful impact on the students. I commented this on Sid’s blog, but there’s a different way of running a privilege walk which is called ‘Step into the circle’ and at the end, the most disadvantaged step in rather than being ostracised and ‘left behind’ there’s a video example at this link: https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/step-inside-the-circle/
Best wishes,
Yasi
Thanks Yasi, especially for the link to step inside the circle. It is really powerful!! This form of recognition is moving.
I’m glad you also found the Telegraph online video amusingly contradictory – and I have thoughts on how this kind of editing is strategic incompetence. I’ve been watching a Judith Butler lecture on her new book Who’s Afraid of Gender, and she aptly emphasises how particular strategies act to confuse and manipulate without evidence or proper debate in order to undermine disadvantaged groups – in much the same way Bradbury claims policy can be structured to erase evidence of inequality. The confusion the Telegraph online used in editing mimics what Butler claims acts to make a conglomerate of multiple social fears (from race, migration, climate change, faith, sex, etc) to somehow magnetically assign them to gender (or diversity), despite there being no correlation, in order to dismiss or destroy “the threat” – which is actually the threat against the patriarchal order – the masculine heteronormative matrix. Orr’s dismissive gesture of throwing the ideology of AdvanceHE into the Cam at the end exemplified this. While AdvanceHE is not “perfect”, it does probe systemic change that is urgent. My concern with Garrett’s article was that while I agreed with much of what was written, the masculine heteronormative matrix was termed “whiteness”, and there are many of us who are “white” that are linked by our ‘struggle to overcome the power seeking to deprive us of basic conditions of livability’ (Butler, 2023, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD6UukSbAMs). I’m deeply suspicious of spatial relations and terms that attempt to categorise and divide those outside the masculine heteronormative matrix as it is a patriarchal strategy to disempower and erase others through identification.
Dear Michelle
Really enjoyed reading your Unit 3 blog post: Race. You went through all the reading material uncovering links and intersections between the articles and revealing challenging questions for us teachers to think about. I found this blog very difficult to engage with as racism raises so many questions in how we approach this difficult subject and the intersectionality it has on culture, religious faith, wealth, privilege, societies, Eurocentric ideologies; – within a student community and the impact it has on their education. The blog format did not give me the space to explore other issues concerning racism; interracial marriages /partnerships, sex /gender that could not be expressed within the limited word count; “I do find it a difficult discipline to adhere too”.
As always, your blog is a detailed summary with insightful cross referencing between all the articles. With reference to The School That Tried to End Racism (Channel 4, 2020). This You tube video was a very powerful audio-visual demonstration showing the discrepancies and disadvantages through the ‘privilege walk’ and how racism impacts not just on the student live but also their colleagues live as well. Though the questions were designed to demonstrate a specific outcome. As one white boy said, I quote: ‘Henry, how you feeling being right at the very front? Feels quite weird because if you think about it, I think all of us should be at the same point, but sadly the questions, the ways that they were put didn’t favour some people which I think is quite unfair?
I do believe this is a powerful tool to demonstrate racism and the disadvantages it causes. But we must not be heavy handed on the white boy’s experience as he may innocently be unaware of these disadvantages; this is what I read from his facial expression and body language to the experience.
Sadiq (2023) TEDx Croydon talk is a good example in how we should try to diversify our teaching approaches and try to cater for the different types of student learning.
How do we challenge James Orr article (2023) and Bradbury’s line of questioning; is Orr’s ‘blindness’ to diversity and racism- Is he really blind to the issue, ignorant to racism or just a discourse instigator?
I agree with you that Orr (2023) has an agenda
Dear Michelle,
I enjoyed reading your Blog on Racism and there are many points that you raised that I agree with with.
The School That Tried to End Racism (Channel 4, 2020) depicting school children enacting the ‘Privilege Walk’ has caused quiet a heated talking point within our blog group as some of us feel that it put the young school children in an uncomfortable positions- to confront racism in such an ‘exposed open’ demonstration in a playing field and the sudden realization hits them that they are either in an ‘advantage’ or ‘disadvantage’ due to their race/colour and status in society. some us have felt that there should have been safety measures put place to support the students feelings.
I enjoyed your summary of Garrett’s article (Garett, 2024) concerning racial minority students doing a PhD with no academic support and racially exploited in support of institutional diversity. intersectionality, colonial perspectives of “whiteness” and western authoritative forms of knowledge and elitism structured and institutionalized
in educational establishment can hove a destructive affect o a students learning.
As I have mentioned in an earlier comment raised by Sidney; that we should aim our efforts at breaking down the structural and institutional systems that maintain these harmful practices. And adjust our anti-racism training at Central Saint Martin to target these issues. so that the students learning environment is diverse and inclusive.
Kind regards
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your response and I’m glad you have highlighted how the privilege race has caused a stir within our group. I’ve been thinking further about how revealing the inequalities doesn’t necessarily resolve or heal them, and how it can also give space to consider forms of manipulation – in the way that surprisingly the white boy does by diverting to the style of questioning, which is a form of policy structuring that hides inequalities that Bradbury’s article flags, and is demonstrated by Dr Harinam’s statistical argument in the Telegraph Online clip. This connection across the resources seems lost, as this level of perpetuating inequality is at a structural level beyond our capacity of teachers, unless we confront it on a base level (the beginning / small child). While it is uncomfortable to expose children to these situations, it may be more damaging to opt always for “comfort” situations that avoids change. It has made me reflect on how I might use this form of comparison, to consider how I might use the extremes of viewpoints in my intervention for students to gain a greater understanding of their “comfort” choices and why other choices create “discomfort”.
Hi Michelle,
I learned a lot from reading your interpretation of the blog resources, particularly your analysis of Garett’s article. Moreover, I agree with your critique of Orr’s investigation for the Telegraph. It showed a lack of understanding and bias from his part and highlighted the significance of positionality.
As Michael pointed out in his comment, we all reached the same conclusion that the school’s approach to the privilege walk is exclusionary and oppressive. It is great that Yasi introduced us to the alternative approach used in “Step into the Circle.”
Best wishes,
Dayna