Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?
A study guide of Beverly Daniel Tatum’s 2020 book ‘Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’
Summary, part 4
Part III: Understanding Whiteness in a White Context
Chapter 6: The Development of White Identity
Tatum begins Part III by discussing racial identity and its development (or lack thereof) in White people. Generally, Tatum has found that her White audiences view racial identity as something that other racial groups have, but not something that they themselves possess. Often, they do not assign any meaning to their race and therefore do not think much about it, or they feel uncomfortable when their race is brought up in conversation. However, only when this silence surrounding Whiteness is broken can White people begin to develop a racial identity.
In contrast to people of color, who must learn how to “resist negative social messages and develop an empowered sense of self in the face of a racist society”, White people must learn how to develop a healthy racial identity, not in the sense of “White pride” like that of a white supremacist, but in the sense of understanding how their race interplays with their pursuit of a more just society (p. 186). According to Janet Helms, author of Black and White Racial Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice, White people can develop this healthy racial identity through the “abandonment of individual racism and the recognition of and opposition to institutional and cultural racism” (p. 187). This process, according to Helms, involves six statuses, or states of mind, which Tatum discusses in-depth in this chapter: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion/emersion, and autonomy.
In the contact phase of White racial identity development, White people often do not think about their race or the privilege it carries. They see themselves as colorblind and free from prejudice, and they view racism as individual acts of hatred rather than as a system of oppression.
However, when their social context changes and an event or other catalyst makes them aware of systemic oppression, racism, and/or privilege, the process of disintegration can start as they begin to form their racial identity.
When these catalysts occur, such as seeing racially-motivated violence recorded on camera, the cycle of racism becomes increasingly clearer and harder to ignore. White people will begin to see it everywhere, especially in the casually racist language used by the people around them. They also begin to see how much privilege they have been afforded at the expense of people of color, and while people of color are used to being seen as group members rather than individuals, White people typically find great discomfort in being grouped in with others as a privileged group.
For these reasons, disintegration often results in dissonance and discomfort, and White people begin to realize that the myths they have been sold about American meritocracy are untrue. This dissonance combined with the newly found hostility they may experience from their peers for breaking the silence might lead them to shrink back into the comfort of collusion in active or passive racism.
Active racism consists of the flagrant acts of hatred and discrimination that most people generally associate with the word “racist.” Passive racism, on the other hand, is more subtle. Passive racism includes overlooking racist comments or discrimination and the avoidance of addressing racial issues in society and one’s inner circle. When a White person begins to collude with others in passive or active racism, they have entered a reintegration state of mind.
White people in the reintegration state of mind may also turn to victim-blaming, directing their dissonance at people of color. They often find great discomfort in the idea that their accomplishments are not solely due to their hard work and actions, but rather as the result of a system placing them at an advantage, and this can make racial identity development and awareness of systemic racism especially uncomfortable. Often, rather than acknowledging and working to abolish this privilege, White people in the reintegration phase shift blame to people of color, asserting that they must have done something to cause their oppression.
Another facet of reintegration involves White people who have other marginalized identities distancing themselves from their Whiteness and the privilege it holds. Tatum notes that, while it may be especially difficult for White men, whose identities are so heavily normative, to relinquish the idea that their accomplishments are solely due to their hard work and intellect, White women, for instance, may also have a difficult time acknowledging their Whiteness due to how little they identify with the privileged White, male, middle-class image.
Tatum notes that possessing one or more marginalized identities does not absolve White people of their privilege. Even if they do not see themselves as White, others will. They will still receive unearned privileges because of their race, and people of color will still view them with suspicion, caution, and fear due to White people’s history of racist violence.
Another common cause for reintegration is the lack of constructive actions to take. In order for antiracist consciousness-raising (CR) to be truly effective, Tatum posits that there must be constructive action steps provided that White people can take to fight racism. By finding their sphere of influence and considering how they can utilize their power to break the cycle of racism, White people can avoid sitting in their anger and eventually return to the comfort of collusion.
By taking these actions, they will also begin to gain a deeper understanding of structural racism. In this phase, called pseudo-independence, White people are less likely to turn to victim-blaming and become more likely to continue to pursue anti-racism. A common trope seen during this phase is what Tatum terms the “guilty White liberal”, or the person with somewhat of an understanding of racism but little knowledge of what to do about it (p. 199).
People in this phase often also feel guilty about their Whiteness and attempt to alleviate it by finding company with more people of color. Becoming friends with people of color will not absolve them of their Whiteness, however, and they will eventually have to acknowledge it in some manner.
Helms states that rather than relying on people of color to expunge feelings of guilt, White people should be working to develop a more positive racial identity not predicated on assumptions of superiority or inferiority.
In the immersion/emersion phase, White people should be seeking out other White people who are further along in their racial identity process, and they should be finding new ways of thinking about their Whiteness beyond taking the role of the victimizer. Instead, they should focus on becoming agents of change.
Tatum states that learning about the work of White anti-racists can show those in the immersion/emersion state of mind that they are not alone or isolated in their work. White CR groups are especially helpful for this. While CR groups composed solely of White people seem unthinkable and non-beneficial to many, these spaces can be particularly helpful for White people to have a space to express their guilt without imposing that guilt on people of color and possibly reopening wounds. This is the state of mind where White guilt and anger can begin to fade with the help of White CR groups and other White anti-racist communities.
In the autonomy status, the most developed racial identity status, a White person has developed a new attitude about their Whiteness, and the redefinition of their racial identity allows for a renewed drive to confront racism in their daily life. Racial identity development never ends, though, and part of this autonomy mindset includes constantly remaining open to new information and new ways of thinking about race, culture, and ethnicity. A White person may still slip back in and out of previous statuses occasionally, so it is more reasonable to have the goal of doing effective work as an ally rather than simply being an ally since allyship is not a goal to be achieved and since antiracism work does not have a set endpoint.
Chapter 7: White Identity, Affirmative Action, and Color-Blind Racial Ideology
“Whether we consider measures of housing, education, the labor market, the criminal justice system, the media, politics, or health care, Whites as a group fare better than just about every other racial/ethnic group in the United States on measures of access, participation, and success.” (p. 211)
Tatum begins this chapter by discussing the fundamental misunderstandings many people have about affirmative action programs and policies. When the revised edition of this work was written in 2017, many White people were beginning to claim that they experienced “reverse discrimination” due to programs like affirmative action, stating that it was as big of an issue as discrimination against people of color (p. 209).
This is factually inaccurate, however, given that, at the time the revised edition was published in 2017, White people made up the majority of the top occupational positions, comprising 93% of construction managers, 91% of chief executives, and 96% of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers (p. 212). Despite factual inaccuracies, this belief in “reverse discrimination” often stems from the idea found among many White people, particularly conservatives and those above 65, that discrimination against White people will increase as diversity increases in the U.S. (p. 213).
Belief in reverse discrimination has been utilized in the fight against affirmative action, which many believe involves meeting a quota for diversity. This fundamental misunderstanding of affirmative action is completely nonfactual, given that quotas are actually illegal except for very rare cases where blatant discrimination has been documented as a pattern at a specific company. Additionally, government contractors are expected to have goals of hiring historically targeted groups in proportion to how available they are within the workforce, but those who are not government contractors are not legally required to have affirmative action programs in place.
Once dispelling these common myths about affirmative action, Tatum then discusses the two kinds of affirmative action, one of which is far more effective in diversifying the workplace than the other. The first kind of affirmative action involves a process-oriented method. This method assumes that, if a job is advertised widely, and if the selection process is fair, the result will also be fair. This method does not account for personal unconscious biases in the hiring manager/team, though, as evidenced by numerous studies showcasing hiring discrimination.
In contrast, the goal-oriented method takes a more comprehensive approach. With this method, there are clear-cut application requirements, the diversity of the pool of applicants is considered at every stage of the process, and if the pool is not diverse enough, a wider net is cast. Once a pool of applicants who meet all requirements is determined, the people who meet the company’s diversity goals are often (but not always) favored.
Many would posit that this method allows for “under-qualified” candidates to win out over “over-qualified” candidates, but Tatum reminds readers that this would only occur in poorly-administered affirmative action programs. To learn more about the history and inner workings of affirmative action programs, refer to pages 209-220 and 228-232 of Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?
Tatum mentions that White opposition to affirmative action programs is also often tied to aversive racism. Tatum states that aversive racists will attempt to seem unprejudiced but will expose their racial biases when they are able to blame or justify their prejudices on some factor other than racism.
Color-blind racial ideologies have also become prominent among White people in the 21st century. Color-blind racism, a type of aversive racism, downplays the racial inequality faced by marginalized groups in multiple ways. One of these ways is through color evasion, where White people state that they do not see color and assume that everyone has the same experiences regardless of race. Another color-blind racial ideology is power evasion. Those perpetuating the ideology blame marginalized groups for the barriers they face in attaining upward mobility and minimize the impact racism has on who is afforded societal power. They also assume that everyone has the same opportunity for success. Finally, the belief that talking about race is racist/divisive is another example of color-blind racial ideology. This ideology states that people who play the “race card” bring up issues that would not be problems otherwise, thus attempting to silence those who bring up systemic issues (p. 227).
Since those who perpetuate color-blind racial ideology are averse to acknowledging their role in or the existence of racism/prejudice, they are also participating in aversive racism. This is why it is so important for white allies to step up and speak out when racism is present since aversive racists are less likely to do so.