I want to first disclose a few of things: 1) that I am honestly confused about the terminology I should use to express myself regarding this topic. I am aware that both “cancel culture” and “wokeness” are considered to be insensitive and/or controversial terms. Likewise, you object to the use of the acronym “CRT” (I understand that these three terms are not interchangeable. Yet, I also believe the link between the three is undeniable). Could you please suggest appropriate labels that can be used to describe these ideas? 2) I did some research: The Pollyanna Institute lists Dalton School AND Grace School as its partners. I believe I have found the elusive “expensive consulting firm” you alluded to in your essay https://pollyannainc.org/school-partners/. Should an independent source assess what theoretical framework is behind the guiding the principles of this institute? 3) I can be cynical about many things, but I am not cynical about your intentions. I believe you were being kind when you mentioned my children on your replay (just as I assume that you come from a place of compassion as far as your views on this topic are concerned).
Are you familiar with Ayishat Akanbi? It is partly from her (but also from my personal experience as a mother of biracial children in a highly diverse community) that I derive my ideas regarding self-compassion and how it relates to cancel culture. If you have not heard of her, I suggest you look her up since she is far more eloquent and articulate on these topics than a person such as myself. https://youtu.be/_-WimRb2jXs
Conversations about how to grapple with America’s racist legacy are crucial, no doubt. Yet, for the purpose of such conversations, I do not think it is accurate to assume that those who feel weary or concerned about cancel culture (or the theory we believe is behind similar cultural trends) are white and/or conservative. It is also unfair—I believe— to assume that if a person harbors some doubts regarding a particular theoretical framework, this necessary means that they are uncommitted or uncaring about issues of race and justice. By the same token, is it unreasonable to suggest that dialogue regarding race and racism include the relevant the views of D’Angelo (who is, as you know, white) and Kendi, while also taking into account the perspectives of McWhorter and Laury?
I am a life long liberal with a knack, perhaps, for looking at controversial topics through different perspectives (for what is worth, you can confirm that I read the letters in Bari’s subtract, while also taking the time to visit your own subtract and read your essay). I am not immune to my own bias, and while I enjoy nuisance, I am also aware that there are dark places on the web where dangerous right-wing conspiracies fester. I do not think that “cancel culture” “wokeness” “CRT” should be dismissed as part of just another such conspiracy. If we do that, aren’t we also disregarding the many black voices who have expressed concerns surrounding such concepts?
Hi Alejandra: Thank you for your thoughts, and what I really think is that the kind of engagement you are demonstrating here is exactly what needs to happen--not rejecting the idea of diversity out of hand as an attack on white people, as both of the letters Bari printed more or less did. Keep reading!
Hi professor, I sincerely hope that you listen to Ayishat so that you understand where (at least part) of the opposition to this difficult to label phenomenon is coming from.
"But if a person cannot say they are anti-racist, then it is legitimate to assume that they do". I would like professor potter to sign a pledge that she is not a pedophile.
Claire do you seriously believe that statement you made: "But if a person cannot say they are anti-racist, then it is legitimate to assume that they do, in fact, think some aspects of racism are justified."?
Consider that the terminology may not simply mean what it says. Someone may not want to say that they are "anti-racist" because of the culture wars associations. This term may not simply mean that they believe racism is horrible and have no place in our life. This term somehow appears to came to mean that you have to believe in CRT, collective guilt of all white people, etc. Therefore not everyone is comfortable using this term - even moral people who truly hate racism.
Your statement simply reads "Those who are not with us are against us" ... So "us", the true believers ... and "them" (presumably the white people who don't want to use the term and therefore are "bad" somehow)
This appears to lump all white people - regardless of their origin, life story, etc - who are not willing to admit their supposed collective guild into the "them" category, does not it?
And when "they" get angry that the schools decide to forcefully teach certain (what the schools believe to be) truths to their kids, essentially making the kids feel guilty because of the color of their skin, which is precisely what "they" do not agree with.
As parents "they" believe they hold the ultimate choice what to teach their kids, for better or for worse.
OK, you are asking a good question here: "Consider that the terminology may not simply mean what it says. Someone may not want to say that they are "anti-racist" because of the culture wars associations." Being anti-racist exists *outside* culture wars associations--it means, simply, being against racism. And to do that, you have to admit/believe that racism exists in a way that is more significant than individual likes and dislikes, a misused or inappropriate word here or there.
I believe in critical thinking and I teach it. But imagine teaching Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" with kids in the room who fundamentally do not believe, and are supported by their parents, not just that the Holocaust is not so bad, but that it had no ramifications for the contemporary world.
Part of what you are getting at is that when we talk about structural racism, many white people say: "I am not like that." And yet racism is so pervasive that this response is not to the point, and differentiating oneself from white people who are worse does not address the questions that critical race theory actually pushes us to address: how do a set of economic issues, that are historically specific to Black people, result in a cascade of disadvantages?
Conservatives can be anti-racist. A book I would recommend to you is Leah Wright Rigeuer's "The Loneliness of the Black Conservative," in which Black Republicans fight for civil rights as conservatives.
"Us" can be a loose coalition of the willing who, whatever their differences, agree on one thing: racism is wrong, it is lethal, and it stays in place, not because of individual flaws, but because as a group, white people benefit from it. Guttman, unknowingly perhaps, points to structural racism when he says that these schools ought to put their money where their mouth is and stop admitting kids on the basis of legacy, siblinghood, and the potential for major gifts. Since the vast majority of American wealth is in white hands, that is exactly systemic racism.
Being anti-racist means listening to Black people when they are telling you something, and not telling them that they aren't trying hard enough or are being too sensitive or that to c0pmpain about racism is to be divisive.
Claire, so lets accept your argument that "us" means the "loose coalition of the willing who, whatever their differences, agree on one thing: racism is wrong, it is lethal, and it stays in place, not because of individual flaws, but because as a group, white people benefit from it".
Imagine that I am a member of "us". I am also fortunate to be able to afford to have a child in one of those schools. (By the way, the argument to put your child in public schools is a very complicated one for people living in NYC, some publics schools are really not that good - just ask the parents who live there).
One day the school tells me that I have to do and take anti-racist training. I like all this theoretically but when it comes to practical implementation I see things that make me angry and disagree with what the school is doing. I believe that the school is just virtue signaling and once again using the privilege to get out of real changes and just put a lipstick on a pig. So as a member of "us" I am outraged.
Now imagine that I am not a member of "us". I do not accept CRT and I do not believe that I have any personal responsibility for things that are happening, after all I have been a decent a moral person and "not like that" all my life. When the school starts forcibly teaching CRT to my child I am outraged because I see indoctrination not unlike Communist indoctrinations of the past and present.
This I believe answers the title of your article "Why the Howling That New York's Private Schools Have Been Taken Over By Critical Race Theory" - because it appears to be wrong for both "us" and "not us".
Dear zhora, Thanks for your engagement. First, I went to private school (decades ago, it is true), and have taught in private universities all my life, so I sympathize with the benefits they convey. That said, too often parents presume that the steep ticket they are paying entitles them to exempt themselves from school policies when they don't care for them. So that was my point about public school. I know how hard that is to navigate in NYC--and yet, wouldn't you admit that the choice to take your child out of public schools also has consequences for the vast number of children of color who are left in a deteriorating system that private school parents have washed their hands of?
I mention that, not to say that you are a bad person, but rather that our choices do have racial consequences. I believe you that you are a moral person: but that isn't the end of the story. We deepen our understanding of what it means to be ethical and moral all of our lives, and one aspect of that might be not signing on to a culture war when you could be thinking about what the Black students in your child's school are actually experiencing and why. Why, for example, are some of these children poor? Certainly not because their parents (who managed to position those kids to get into your school) made a choice to be poor, and not because they made bad choices, but because their own lack of access to what nourished you left them marginalized and disempowered.
So my answer is: you don't have to "do" anything to sustain white supremacy (which is what critical race theorists would say too) but you can do something to dismantle it. What that would be is up to you, but assuming that these anti-racist trainings have as their endgame making you feel bad about yourself once again puts the experience of white people at the center of things when listening to how Black students and their parents experience the school (including quite well-to-do students and parents) and acting on that could create change.
Answering point-by-point, thank you for the discussion.
Main ( I believe ) point:
"Assuming that these anti-racist trainings have as their endgame making you feel bad about yourself once again puts the experience of white people at the center of things when listening to how Black students and their parents experience the school (including quite well-to-do students and parents) and acting on that could create change"
>>>
Honestly it is hard to assume or make sense of what these trainings are trying to achieve. I came with the open mind but I don't believe these actually active anything except getting these structured racists institutions a way out, pay for some trainings, let go of some troublemakers, back to the business as usual.
There is a LOT of people on Bari's blog that seem to express their distain with these training with various degrees of eloquence. There were over 1000 people on Bari's Zoom with the authors of the letters, just this Wednesday.
It would be arrogant to assume that they are all "not us" and "us" know better, a little humility would serve I believe.
Calling someone a racist every time they try to raise an objection only achieves that this term loses all credibility and people stop listening and brand the discussion as "propaganda"
****
So I think that "us" need to listen to these people and not dismiss them as racists if "we" want to ever achieve a lasting change.
The alternative seems to be a divided and distrustful population and perhaps even a serious attempt to undo and break up the country.
*****
On schools:
"That said, too often parents presume that the steep ticket they are paying entitles them to exempt themselves from school policies when they don't care for them. So that was my point about public school. I know how hard that is to navigate in NYC--and yet, wouldn't you admit that the choice to take your child out of public schools also has consequences for the vast number of children of color who are left in a deteriorating system that private school parents have washed their hands of?"
>>>
This is a nice theoretical discussion but when it comes to your child you do whats best for them ... as simple as that. You do not gamble with your child's future for the sake of some abstract idea. (Unless you want to resurrect a language but these examples are exceptions that rather prove the rule)
If one believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that the public school system can not provide the education and the environment you want for your child, what does one do? One takes steps:
* Move to a neighborhood with better schools
* Put your child in expensive private school if you can afford it and if you believe this is a better place for them
* Find a religious school perhaps if suitable with one's believe system
* Put your child in a charter school if this is a choice available to you
* Home school your child if possible
* etc.
Thank you for the discussion it has been educational
My daughter goes to public school, but I can empathize with you since children in public school are also being taught similar ideas. The Pollyanna Institute (the consulting firm hired by both Dalton and Grace) bases its ideas on a particular school of thought associated with scholars such as Robin D’Angelo and Ibram Kendi. While their school of thought does bring valuable ideas to the dialogue on race and racism, it does have many limitations.
Ideas like micro aggression and unconscious bias are difficult to apply on a day-to-day basis (by virtue of the fact that they are unconscious and micro). If there is a hyper focus on this ideas, aren’t we just making people feel that we should constantly walk on eggshells around each other? I think it is helpful to present our genuine selves to the world as this is how friendships are built. Also, I think as a parent you understand that making mistakes is a crucial part of the learning process and that it is in many ways harmful to send our kids a message of virtuosity. If we recognize that the fact that we are flawed is part of what makes us human, this ultimately allows us to be more compassionate. This is what people mean by common humanity being a valid voice in the dialogue on race and racism. It think we parents should raise our voices to make sure this perspective is also recognized.
Sorry, looking after my post I realize that I wrote unconscious rather than implicit (I realize there is an important difference between the two words). I also apologize for any typos. I am really not used to social media and how thoughts cannot be edited once posted (after a week, honestly, I want out).
I DO think the message of common humanity is important and should not be dismissed. Please pass the word around to concerned parents.
Also shared this with the "Hate Free Schools Coalition--Group" of Orange County, NC.
Thanks!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Dear Professor Potter,
I want to first disclose a few of things: 1) that I am honestly confused about the terminology I should use to express myself regarding this topic. I am aware that both “cancel culture” and “wokeness” are considered to be insensitive and/or controversial terms. Likewise, you object to the use of the acronym “CRT” (I understand that these three terms are not interchangeable. Yet, I also believe the link between the three is undeniable). Could you please suggest appropriate labels that can be used to describe these ideas? 2) I did some research: The Pollyanna Institute lists Dalton School AND Grace School as its partners. I believe I have found the elusive “expensive consulting firm” you alluded to in your essay https://pollyannainc.org/school-partners/. Should an independent source assess what theoretical framework is behind the guiding the principles of this institute? 3) I can be cynical about many things, but I am not cynical about your intentions. I believe you were being kind when you mentioned my children on your replay (just as I assume that you come from a place of compassion as far as your views on this topic are concerned).
Are you familiar with Ayishat Akanbi? It is partly from her (but also from my personal experience as a mother of biracial children in a highly diverse community) that I derive my ideas regarding self-compassion and how it relates to cancel culture. If you have not heard of her, I suggest you look her up since she is far more eloquent and articulate on these topics than a person such as myself. https://youtu.be/_-WimRb2jXs
Conversations about how to grapple with America’s racist legacy are crucial, no doubt. Yet, for the purpose of such conversations, I do not think it is accurate to assume that those who feel weary or concerned about cancel culture (or the theory we believe is behind similar cultural trends) are white and/or conservative. It is also unfair—I believe— to assume that if a person harbors some doubts regarding a particular theoretical framework, this necessary means that they are uncommitted or uncaring about issues of race and justice. By the same token, is it unreasonable to suggest that dialogue regarding race and racism include the relevant the views of D’Angelo (who is, as you know, white) and Kendi, while also taking into account the perspectives of McWhorter and Laury?
I am a life long liberal with a knack, perhaps, for looking at controversial topics through different perspectives (for what is worth, you can confirm that I read the letters in Bari’s subtract, while also taking the time to visit your own subtract and read your essay). I am not immune to my own bias, and while I enjoy nuisance, I am also aware that there are dark places on the web where dangerous right-wing conspiracies fester. I do not think that “cancel culture” “wokeness” “CRT” should be dismissed as part of just another such conspiracy. If we do that, aren’t we also disregarding the many black voices who have expressed concerns surrounding such concepts?
Hi Alejandra: Thank you for your thoughts, and what I really think is that the kind of engagement you are demonstrating here is exactly what needs to happen--not rejecting the idea of diversity out of hand as an attack on white people, as both of the letters Bari printed more or less did. Keep reading!
Hi professor, I sincerely hope that you listen to Ayishat so that you understand where (at least part) of the opposition to this difficult to label phenomenon is coming from.
"But if a person cannot say they are anti-racist, then it is legitimate to assume that they do". I would like professor potter to sign a pledge that she is not a pedophile.
Claire do you seriously believe that statement you made: "But if a person cannot say they are anti-racist, then it is legitimate to assume that they do, in fact, think some aspects of racism are justified."?
Consider that the terminology may not simply mean what it says. Someone may not want to say that they are "anti-racist" because of the culture wars associations. This term may not simply mean that they believe racism is horrible and have no place in our life. This term somehow appears to came to mean that you have to believe in CRT, collective guilt of all white people, etc. Therefore not everyone is comfortable using this term - even moral people who truly hate racism.
Your statement simply reads "Those who are not with us are against us" ... So "us", the true believers ... and "them" (presumably the white people who don't want to use the term and therefore are "bad" somehow)
This appears to lump all white people - regardless of their origin, life story, etc - who are not willing to admit their supposed collective guild into the "them" category, does not it?
And when "they" get angry that the schools decide to forcefully teach certain (what the schools believe to be) truths to their kids, essentially making the kids feel guilty because of the color of their skin, which is precisely what "they" do not agree with.
As parents "they" believe they hold the ultimate choice what to teach their kids, for better or for worse.
What do you think?
OK, you are asking a good question here: "Consider that the terminology may not simply mean what it says. Someone may not want to say that they are "anti-racist" because of the culture wars associations." Being anti-racist exists *outside* culture wars associations--it means, simply, being against racism. And to do that, you have to admit/believe that racism exists in a way that is more significant than individual likes and dislikes, a misused or inappropriate word here or there.
I believe in critical thinking and I teach it. But imagine teaching Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" with kids in the room who fundamentally do not believe, and are supported by their parents, not just that the Holocaust is not so bad, but that it had no ramifications for the contemporary world.
Part of what you are getting at is that when we talk about structural racism, many white people say: "I am not like that." And yet racism is so pervasive that this response is not to the point, and differentiating oneself from white people who are worse does not address the questions that critical race theory actually pushes us to address: how do a set of economic issues, that are historically specific to Black people, result in a cascade of disadvantages?
Conservatives can be anti-racist. A book I would recommend to you is Leah Wright Rigeuer's "The Loneliness of the Black Conservative," in which Black Republicans fight for civil rights as conservatives.
"Us" can be a loose coalition of the willing who, whatever their differences, agree on one thing: racism is wrong, it is lethal, and it stays in place, not because of individual flaws, but because as a group, white people benefit from it. Guttman, unknowingly perhaps, points to structural racism when he says that these schools ought to put their money where their mouth is and stop admitting kids on the basis of legacy, siblinghood, and the potential for major gifts. Since the vast majority of American wealth is in white hands, that is exactly systemic racism.
Being anti-racist means listening to Black people when they are telling you something, and not telling them that they aren't trying hard enough or are being too sensitive or that to c0pmpain about racism is to be divisive.
Claire, so lets accept your argument that "us" means the "loose coalition of the willing who, whatever their differences, agree on one thing: racism is wrong, it is lethal, and it stays in place, not because of individual flaws, but because as a group, white people benefit from it".
Imagine that I am a member of "us". I am also fortunate to be able to afford to have a child in one of those schools. (By the way, the argument to put your child in public schools is a very complicated one for people living in NYC, some publics schools are really not that good - just ask the parents who live there).
One day the school tells me that I have to do and take anti-racist training. I like all this theoretically but when it comes to practical implementation I see things that make me angry and disagree with what the school is doing. I believe that the school is just virtue signaling and once again using the privilege to get out of real changes and just put a lipstick on a pig. So as a member of "us" I am outraged.
Now imagine that I am not a member of "us". I do not accept CRT and I do not believe that I have any personal responsibility for things that are happening, after all I have been a decent a moral person and "not like that" all my life. When the school starts forcibly teaching CRT to my child I am outraged because I see indoctrination not unlike Communist indoctrinations of the past and present.
This I believe answers the title of your article "Why the Howling That New York's Private Schools Have Been Taken Over By Critical Race Theory" - because it appears to be wrong for both "us" and "not us".
Tell me what I am missing.
Thanks
Dear zhora, Thanks for your engagement. First, I went to private school (decades ago, it is true), and have taught in private universities all my life, so I sympathize with the benefits they convey. That said, too often parents presume that the steep ticket they are paying entitles them to exempt themselves from school policies when they don't care for them. So that was my point about public school. I know how hard that is to navigate in NYC--and yet, wouldn't you admit that the choice to take your child out of public schools also has consequences for the vast number of children of color who are left in a deteriorating system that private school parents have washed their hands of?
I mention that, not to say that you are a bad person, but rather that our choices do have racial consequences. I believe you that you are a moral person: but that isn't the end of the story. We deepen our understanding of what it means to be ethical and moral all of our lives, and one aspect of that might be not signing on to a culture war when you could be thinking about what the Black students in your child's school are actually experiencing and why. Why, for example, are some of these children poor? Certainly not because their parents (who managed to position those kids to get into your school) made a choice to be poor, and not because they made bad choices, but because their own lack of access to what nourished you left them marginalized and disempowered.
So my answer is: you don't have to "do" anything to sustain white supremacy (which is what critical race theorists would say too) but you can do something to dismantle it. What that would be is up to you, but assuming that these anti-racist trainings have as their endgame making you feel bad about yourself once again puts the experience of white people at the center of things when listening to how Black students and their parents experience the school (including quite well-to-do students and parents) and acting on that could create change.
Answering point-by-point, thank you for the discussion.
Main ( I believe ) point:
"Assuming that these anti-racist trainings have as their endgame making you feel bad about yourself once again puts the experience of white people at the center of things when listening to how Black students and their parents experience the school (including quite well-to-do students and parents) and acting on that could create change"
>>>
Honestly it is hard to assume or make sense of what these trainings are trying to achieve. I came with the open mind but I don't believe these actually active anything except getting these structured racists institutions a way out, pay for some trainings, let go of some troublemakers, back to the business as usual.
There is a LOT of people on Bari's blog that seem to express their distain with these training with various degrees of eloquence. There were over 1000 people on Bari's Zoom with the authors of the letters, just this Wednesday.
It would be arrogant to assume that they are all "not us" and "us" know better, a little humility would serve I believe.
Calling someone a racist every time they try to raise an objection only achieves that this term loses all credibility and people stop listening and brand the discussion as "propaganda"
****
So I think that "us" need to listen to these people and not dismiss them as racists if "we" want to ever achieve a lasting change.
The alternative seems to be a divided and distrustful population and perhaps even a serious attempt to undo and break up the country.
*****
On schools:
"That said, too often parents presume that the steep ticket they are paying entitles them to exempt themselves from school policies when they don't care for them. So that was my point about public school. I know how hard that is to navigate in NYC--and yet, wouldn't you admit that the choice to take your child out of public schools also has consequences for the vast number of children of color who are left in a deteriorating system that private school parents have washed their hands of?"
>>>
This is a nice theoretical discussion but when it comes to your child you do whats best for them ... as simple as that. You do not gamble with your child's future for the sake of some abstract idea. (Unless you want to resurrect a language but these examples are exceptions that rather prove the rule)
If one believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that the public school system can not provide the education and the environment you want for your child, what does one do? One takes steps:
* Move to a neighborhood with better schools
* Put your child in expensive private school if you can afford it and if you believe this is a better place for them
* Find a religious school perhaps if suitable with one's believe system
* Put your child in a charter school if this is a choice available to you
* Home school your child if possible
* etc.
Thank you for the discussion it has been educational
Zhora,
My daughter goes to public school, but I can empathize with you since children in public school are also being taught similar ideas. The Pollyanna Institute (the consulting firm hired by both Dalton and Grace) bases its ideas on a particular school of thought associated with scholars such as Robin D’Angelo and Ibram Kendi. While their school of thought does bring valuable ideas to the dialogue on race and racism, it does have many limitations.
Ideas like micro aggression and unconscious bias are difficult to apply on a day-to-day basis (by virtue of the fact that they are unconscious and micro). If there is a hyper focus on this ideas, aren’t we just making people feel that we should constantly walk on eggshells around each other? I think it is helpful to present our genuine selves to the world as this is how friendships are built. Also, I think as a parent you understand that making mistakes is a crucial part of the learning process and that it is in many ways harmful to send our kids a message of virtuosity. If we recognize that the fact that we are flawed is part of what makes us human, this ultimately allows us to be more compassionate. This is what people mean by common humanity being a valid voice in the dialogue on race and racism. It think we parents should raise our voices to make sure this perspective is also recognized.
Sorry, looking after my post I realize that I wrote unconscious rather than implicit (I realize there is an important difference between the two words). I also apologize for any typos. I am really not used to social media and how thoughts cannot be edited once posted (after a week, honestly, I want out).
I DO think the message of common humanity is important and should not be dismissed. Please pass the word around to concerned parents.
This is such an important essay. It may amuse you to know that I am having a similar conversation with some writers in Mexico at this very moment.
So glad you like it!
Hi Alejandra, I did not see typos in your original post--but thank you for bothering to comment, and give your children a hug for me.