Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Loyola University Libraries]On: 28 March 2015, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Race Ethnicity and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cree20
Whitened rainbows: how white collegestudents protect whiteness throughdiversity discoursesAnnie Hikidoa & Susan B. Murrayb
a Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara,USAb Department of Sociology, San José State University, California,USAPublished online: 27 Mar 2015.
To cite this article: Annie Hikido & Susan B. Murray (2015): Whitened rainbows: how white collegestudents protect whiteness through diversity discourses, Race Ethnicity and Education, DOI:10.1080/13613324.2015.1025736
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1025736
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Whitened rainbows: how white college students protect whitenessthrough diversity discourses
Annie Hikidoa* and Susan B. Murrayb
aDepartment of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA;bDepartment of Sociology, San José State University, California, USA
This qualitative study investigates white students’ attitudes toward cam-pus diversity at a large, multiracial public university. Drawing uponfocus group data gathered from a larger campus climate study, weidentified four themes: participants voiced that: (1) racial diversity fos-ters campus tolerance; (2) diversity fragments into de facto racialsegregation; (3) institutional support of diversity undermines andexcludes whites; and (4) the university should avoid acknowledgingwhite identity. Employing critical multiculturalism as a theoretical lens,we argue that these discourses maintain white dominance within aframework that promotes inclusion. These findings suggest that withoutmore direct institutional guidance, white students will protect whitesupremacy even as they celebrate diversity in multiracial spaces.
Keywords: whiteness; white students; diversity; critical multiculturalism;higher education
Introduction
As the racial composition of the US diversifies and access to secondaryeducation for minority groups improves, more universities enroll an increas-ingly racially diverse student population. Numerous scholars havedocumented the experiences of students of color as they navigate predomi-nantly white universities, noting the challenges they face as members ofunder-represented groups (e.g. Feagin, Vera, and Imani 1996; Hurtado,Carter, and Spuler 1996; Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). The other sideof this trend that remains relatively unexplored concerns the experiencesand attitudes of white students as they observe students of color enteringtraditionally white territories.
Because whites occupy a racially dominant position and most collegesoperate as historically white spaces, white attitudes merit critical attention inthe effort to include students of color. Schools where whites constitute anumerical minority, or ‘minority–majority schools,’ are of particular interestand importance. As crucial sites for personal development, they play an
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Race Ethnicity and Education, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1025736
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
important role in establishing behavioral norms, and thus dictate andforeshadow students’ interactions in other steadily diversifying institutions(Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). The diversity ideals that these campusesoften promulgate in order to ensure inclusiveness generate further interest.Once a rarely mentioned feature, the positively charged catchword ‘diver-sity’ now peppers countless college marketing materials and mission state-ments (Aleman and Salkevar 2001; Osei-Kofi, Torres, and Lui 2013).Campuses highlight their multicultural centers and ethnic organizations,attest their commitment to students of all backgrounds and identities, andoften establish a ‘diversity’ course requirement. Thus, students encounter anorganic, compositional diversity accompanied by a commoditized andinstitutionally sanctioned diversity ideal.
This study investigates the attitudes of white students on a multiracialcampus where diversity is experienced both as a demographic feature andan idealized model. How do white students interpret and approach racialdiversity? How do they apprehend the racial dynamics of a multiracial cam-pus where ‘diversity’ is a prominent and defining theme? Using criticalmulticulturalism as a theoretical lens, this article argues that white studentscan preserve white dominance in a pro-diversity, multiracial environment bynegotiating a number of competing yet interconnected diversity discourses.The study contributes to existing literature on campus climate and CriticalWhiteness Studies in that it: (1) challenges the assumption that white supre-macy will dissipate as universities become more racially diverse; and (2)reveals the white semantics that protect white supremacy within a paradigmthat appears to promote pluralism and inclusion. These findings suggest thatmore direct curricular and institutional guidance is needed to shift the cam-pus toward greater racial cognizance and understanding (Reason and Evans2007) and by extension, a more democratic and full multiculturalism.
Critical multiculturalism
Embracing multiculturalism has become the marker and moral imperative ofso-called ‘modern’ states, institutions, and individuals (Kymlicka 2007; Voyer2011). As a result, ‘multiculturalism’ has manifested in multiple iterations.Indeed, Voyer (2011) notes that this politically loaded term defies simple def-inition since its meaning and application depend on the context in which it isrooted. Tracing the development of these variant paradigms, McLaren (1995)categorizes multiculturalisms into conservative, liberal, and critical models.All of these forms address differences, but only critical multiculturalismconsiders the complexities and inequalities inhered within them.
In conservative or ‘corporate multiculturalism’ models, members of his-torically subordinated groups are merely ‘added on’ as tokenized representa-tives in order to superficially diversify homogenous spaces. In what issometimes referred to as ‘The Benetton Model’ (Gates 1995, 211; Stam and
2 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Shohat 1995, 299) institutions actively seek to recruit individuals who, viatheir ostensible difference, foster an image of harmonious plurality whileauthority remains concentrated among dominant group members. This effec-tively keeps minorities at the periphery of influence while reinforcing hierar-chies and reproducing hegemonic norms. Liberal forms of multiculturalismcorrectly recognize inequality between groups and seek to reallocate power,but tend to emphasize cultural differences as monolithic entities and thusessentialize ‘otherness.’
In contrast, critical multiculturalism, also termed ‘resistance multicul-turalism’ (McLaren 1995), ‘insurgent multiculturalism’ (Giroux 1995), or‘polycentric multiculturalism’ (Stam and Shohat 1995), calls for a redistribu-tion of the inequitable organization of power embedded in differences.Rather than an endpoint that cheerfully glosses over distinctions in favor ofan uncritical humanism, diversity is recognized as an ongoing process thatstrives for solidarity through critical self-reflection, engaging difference andstruggle, and encouraging alliance building (Mercer 1990).
A crucial tenet of critical multiculturalism is making whiteness visibleand accountable. As long as whiteness eludes scrutiny as an invisible stan-dard, it remains the marker against which all ‘others’ are measured, thusmaintaining its centered and privileged position. Equally pertinent are propo-nents’ averments that schools, though traditionally sites of cultural assimila-tion, might now act as ‘border institutions’ where students can questionhegemonic ideologies, learn alternative discourses, create new social identi-ties and meanings, and develop a ‘critical dialogue’ between the school andgreater public (Giroux 1995). As a university that serves a multiracial studentbody and promotes pluralism quite visibly, the school featured in thisresearch has great potential to become such an institution of change. How-ever, as this article demonstrates, white students can embrace multiculturaldiscourses that conserve the legitimacy and centrality of whiteness.
Whiteness
Critical Whiteness scholars assert that in order to understand interactionaland institutionalized racism, assiduous attention must be directed not onlytoward those who are victimized by systemic processes, but also towardthose in the dominant group who benefit from the resulting inequities(Delgado and Stefancic 1997; Feagin and O’Brien 2003; Lipsitz 2006).Critical Whiteness Studies then seeks to make visible the assumptions ofwhiteness that produce and reproduce structures of domination, so thatpossible alternative realities can be collectively developed and striven for(Freire [1970] 1993).
Whiteness refers to hegemonic racial power that privileges white groupswhile subordinating racialized ‘others.’ As an identity and performance, it isa position of racial privilege, a standpoint perspective, and a set of cultural
Race Ethnicity and Education 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
practices that often remain unmarked (Frankenberg 1993). As an ideologicaland institutional structure, it is a complex web of discourses and processesthat sustain racial domination (DiAngelo and Allen 2006). Whiteness main-tains its dominance and power in large part by its perceived normality andnonexistence. When whites do not realize the privileges conferred by theirrace, they can construe many of their social, political, and economic statusesas natural and their achievements as solely the products of individual merit.However, whiteness does in fact promise a myriad of ‘hidden’ advantagesand investments while denying these privileges to people of color (Lipsitz2006; McIntosh 1988). Still, many whites remain unaware that they are ben-eficiaries in the established racial order and maintain a colorblind perspec-tive, purporting that race is ‘not an issue’ (Bonilla-Silva 2013; Frankenberg1993). Adhering to this ‘sincere fiction’ (Feagin, Vera, and Batur 2001) rei-fies racism. Denying the saliency of race denies the symbolic meaningsattached to certain phenotypes, which then permits the reproduction ofinequitable systems based on these social inscriptions (Leonardo 2002).
More recent work warns against simply positing whiteness as a mono-lithic entity and stresses its contextual dependency, multiplicity, resiliency,and instability. This body of emerging scholarship, or ‘third wave’ of white-ness studies, observes and assesses the ways in which whiteness becomeslocally situated, reconfigured, and reaffirmed (Twine and Gallagher 2008).Focusing on the regionally specific contours of whiteness affords a betterunderstanding of its ‘patterned irregularities’ across various social-geographical locations and recognizes race as a heterogeneous, fracturedconstruct (Hartigan 1997). Thinking about whiteness must then also entailconsidering multiple whitenesses that are distinctly constructed but remainlinked through their hegemonic claims.
Many of these localized studies examine white students in US educa-tional settings. Most of this research centers the development of white iden-tity in both predominantly white and multiracial schools (e.g. Bucholtz2011; Gallagher 1995; McKinney 2005; Perry 2002). While these studieshave crucially demonstrated students’ confusion, contradictions, and discom-fort in constructing their white identities, less work has scrutinized whitestudents and ideological whiteness, which Michael Dyson defines as, ‘thesystematic reproduction of conceptions of whiteness as domination’ (asquoted in Castagno 2008, 319). Further, there is limited material on whitecollege students’ responses to multiracial environments and multiculturalideals. Our study addresses both of these gaps by first gauging white stu-dents’ attitudes toward racial diversity at a minority–majority campus, andthen critically examining the discursive mechanisms they used to sustainwhite supremacy when immersed in this racially diverse, pro-diversity envi-ronment. Few studies focus specifically on white students and diversity inpostsecondary educational institutions, but some previous work on whitecollege students can be gleaned from the recent campus diversity literature.
4 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
White students and campus diversity
Numerous studies have verified the multitudinous benefits that racial diver-sity confers upon student development (e.g. Chang, Astin, and Kim 2004;Gurin 1999; Hu and Khu 2003; Hurtado 2005; Jayakumar 2008; Milem,Chang, and Antonio 2005). Yet researchers note that racial groups experi-ence diversity differently. As part of the majority, white students gain dis-proportionately from diversity compared to students of color becauseincreased structural diversity more dramatically increases their chances ofengaging in cross-racial interactions, whereas minority students regularlyinteract across race (Chang, Astin, and Kim 2004; Engberg and Hurtado2011; Saenz 2010). However, it does not follow that white students manifestpositive gains all around. Engberg and Hurtado (2011) found that whilegreater structural diversity seemed to ameliorate anxiety for students ofcolor, it increased levels of intergroup anxiety for whites. In the same study,they also reported that white students were more prone to guardedexchanges across race in more diverse settings. Antonio (2004, 465)reported that the positive effects of friendship group diversity surfaced forstudents of color only, suggesting that ‘racial diversity is not a salient envi-ronmental characteristic in academic domains for white students.’
More qualitative research is required to explain and elaborate upon thesefindings. The majority of campus climate work, while critically depictingthe disparities between racial groups on campus and drawing attention tothe lived realities of students of color, has been primarily quantitative(Harper and Hurtado 2007). Such work poses limitations in that self-administered survey responses, the primary methodology in these studies,do not always accurately capture respondents’ latent ideologies and over-looks the depth and complexity of their perspectives and experiences(Bonilla-Silva and Foreman 2000; Gallagher 2000). The handful of qualita-tive studies that capture white students’ attitudes illustrates this underlyingintricacy. In his report on campus diversity at UC Berkeley, Duster (1993)noted that though both black and white students desired interracial experi-ences, white students were less inclined to contact within designated pro-grams that promoted such interaction. Chesler, Peet, and Sevig (2003)concluded that white college students reestablish ideological whiteness bydismissing structural and historical perspectives, and Cabrera (2014)explored white male students’ minimization of race and adherence to meri-tocracy as well as their attempts to deconstruct whiteness in practice whileunwittingly reproducing it (2012). These nuanced studies prove pivotal notonly in that they more consummately represent white students’ experiences,but also lay groundwork for future diversity initiatives by highlighting thevarious processes through which white students think about racial diversity.
Campus climate work has been conducted foremost at or acrosspredominantly white institutions. Thus, in addition to supplying another
Race Ethnicity and Education 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
qualitative approach, this study also contributes a critical assessment ofwhite ideology on a multiracial campus where white students constitute aminority. While a few studies have investigated multiracial sites in highereducation (e.g. Cabrera 2012, 2014; Duster 1993; Johnson-Ahorlu 2012),more research is necessary to detail the challenges and potentials specific tothese unique environments.
Background on data
Sample and methods
This article draws upon data collected for a larger study requested by auniversity committee responsible for the ongoing assessment of the cam-pus climate. As a follow-up to previous survey-based reports, the commit-tee requested to conduct focus group interviews based on race, sexuality,gender, international, and occupational/student status. Data collectionbegan in and continued through 2009. Participants were recruited on avolunteer-basis through notification in university courses and yielded agroup of three women and two men aged 18 through 21. This sample issmall and cannot claim to be representative of the school’s white studentpopulation. Nonetheless, the group interview yielded a rich data setthat demonstrates the complexity of white student discourses regardingcampus racial diversity. As previously stated, the purpose of this article isto untangle and investigate these discourses and their ideologicalfoundations.
The white student focus group was conducted by one of the authors, awhite woman.1 While cross-racial interviews can elicit valuable data (Twine2000), racial matching between the facilitator and the participants wasemployed in order to minimize the pressure for ‘safe’ or ‘politically correct’responses that an interviewer of color might have effected (Bonilla-Silvaand Foreman 2000). The session was digitally recorded and later transcribedand coded for overarching themes (Glaser and Strauss 1967). During thisprocess, principles of discourse analysis were drawn upon. These include:(1) contextualizing language historically and socially in order to trace thecommunication of dominant ideologies; and (2) parsing meanings throughcareful attention to implications, presuppositions, word choice, and otherelements of dialogue (DiAngelo and Allen 2006; Van Dijk 1993). Previousstudies have found that whites may formally deny any racially discrimina-tory beliefs or attitudes, but attention to discourse can reveal ways in whichwhites reproduce racism and reinforce racial hierarchies when negotiatingtheir racial position (Bonilla-Silva and Foreman 2000; Van Dijk 1993).Thus, discourse analysis can explicate how whites’ everyday experiencesreinforce whiteness (DiAngelo and Allen 2006), a central concern of criticalmulticulturalism.
6 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Institutional setting
At the time of this study, the participants were students at Pinewood Univer-sity, a pseudonym for a large, public university in an urban environment inthe California Bay Area. In fall 2009, total student enrollment was 4%African American, 30% Asian American and Pacific Islander, 18%Hispanic, and 28% white (US Department of Education 2010). Theuniversity prides itself for both its compositional diversity as well as itsinstitutional support of inclusiveness. In addition to affirming a commitmentto diversity in its mission statement, Pinewood also developed a ‘DiversityMaster Plan,’ a strategy for ensuring inclusion and representation for allmembers of the campus community.2 According to this 2008 document, theplan is ‘a coordinated, integrated, campus-wide action plan that outlinesways in which an engaged, inclusive, thriving context of diversity will bedeeply embedded in the university’s infrastructure.’ It additionally states thatthere are 227 diversity-related courses in the total university curriculum, 18academic departments have a diversity-focused curriculum, 33% of allGeneral Education course offerings are diversity-related, and there are 176‘active diversity efforts’ on campus. In January 2009, the plan’s websitealso proudly stated that the ‘US News & World Report ranks the universityseventh in the nation in terms of ethnic diversity among colleges anduniversities conferring bachelor’s and master’s degrees.’ Thus, Pinewood isa multiracial campus and also might be called diversity-centric, at least inits stated efforts and reputation.
Findings
Four central themes emerged from analysis of the data. The participantsvoiced that: (1) diversity fosters tolerance on campus; (2) diversity frag-ments into segregation; (3) institutional diversity efforts undervalue andexclude whites; and (4) the university should overlook white identity.
Diversity fosters tolerance
Initially, these white students spoke favorably of campus diversity becausethey believed it naturally fostered a respectful environment. When firstasked to describe the campus racial climate, they interpreted ‘diversity’ asan abstract entity that simultaneously engenders pluralism and erases differ-ence. Though a seemingly paradoxical idea, they expressed these sentimentsas two complementary sides of the diversity coin. When asked about herexperiences as a white student on campus, Kelly3 states,
I don’t think race plays a big part in my own daily life at Pinewood. Like Idon’t even consider it. It’s really diverse here. So you can walk around andyou’re used to it. And I don’t think race plays an issue in my interactions
Race Ethnicity and Education 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
with other people on this campus. If anything, this is probably the best cam-pus I’ve been to or school situation where race definitely doesn’t come intoplay or even in my mind.
Kelly praises Pinewood largely because race doesn’t ‘play an issue in [her]interactions with other people.’ Yet she also acknowledges that the school is‘really diverse.’ She finds no ostensible contradiction here because she alter-nates between colorblindness and ‘happy talk’ (Bell and Hartmann 2007), theascendant diversity discourse, when referencing race. Regarding individualsand personal experiences, she draws upon the familiar colorblind tactic.According to this dominant discourse, noticing racial difference is indicativeof discrimination (Frankenberg 1993; Tatum 1999). Kelly thus says, ‘I don’tthink race plays a big part in my own daily life’ to indicate the absence ofracial animosity in her experiences on campus. But when she references thecampus community as a whole, racial difference becomes superficially visiblethrough the diversity discourse. ‘Happy talk’ imagines diversity as both adescriptive definition and a moral commitment to inclusion while glossingover tensions at the experiential level (Bell and Hartmann 2007). Because theschool is ‘really diverse,’ Kelly says, ‘you’re used to [race],’ suggesting thatthe school’s racial diversity naturally creates a space where racial differencesdo not elicit hostility. Her reference to race in this context is nonchalantbecause the diversity discourse ‘appears to engage and even celebrate differ-ences, yet does not grasp the social inequities that accompany them’ (Bell andHartmann 2007, 910). But in her following statement, she recounts herinteractions and claims that race ‘definitely doesn’t come into play or even mymind.’ Here, she quickly switches back to the colorblind discourse in which‘race’ once again denotes racial tensions. Thus, colorblindness and ‘happytalk’ function seamlessly. By recognizing racial difference as part of anabstract diversity but barring such distinctions from consideration in the realmof lived experiences, they function concordantly rather than contradictorily.
Jennifer also draws upon both of these ideologies and casts diversity inthe same light. In response to the same question, she states:
For me, I don’t think it’s [about] race interacting with people. Cause like Iagree with everyone, it’s been, like, a nice experience. Especially being in adiverse community.
Jennifer affirms that race is not a salient factor in her interactions, whichaffords her a ‘nice experience.’ Colorblind logic operates again here: over-looking or ‘not seeing’ race indicates the absence of racism and hostility.She asserts this while noting that the campus is a ‘diverse community’ with-out contradiction. Like Kelly, she observes the insignificance of race andcampus diversity as two corresponding factors that foster a pleasant racialclimate. Again, colorblindness and the diversity discourse render race at theexperiential level disconnected from group diversity.
8 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Mark also claims that campus diversity creates a pleasant space for all:
I think Pinewood is cool because, like, even if [professors] have an accent itis easy to connect with teachers too if they are not from here. I have anotherteacher who is full Mexican. So everyone’s kind of diverse together. So … sothere’s no big [deal] with professors or anything like that … like ‘you’rewhite’ or anything like that.
Mark’s comment that ‘everyone’s kind of diverse together’ further empha-sizes the transcendental nature of diversity. In this context, it is permissiblefor him to identify his professor as ‘full Mexican’ because her color con-tributes to his description of the diverse campus community. But he sug-gests immediately afterwards that it would be problematic if his professorsexplicitly named his white identity. Such recognition is impermissiblebecause it is an experiential interaction that violates colorblindness ratherthan a reference to the overarching mosaic ideal. Moreover, previous studieshave documented white students’ discomfort with confronting their white-ness (DiAngelo and Sensoy 2014; Gallagher 1995; McKinney 2005; Perry2002). His use of the causative agent ‘so’ after claiming that the school is‘diverse together’ indicates that he believes diversity helps occlude this kindof racial recognition, which, as informed by colorblindness, is tantamount toracial discrimination.
Ken highlights campus civility from his perspective as a white student:
Being white you are kind of the minority at Pinewood. You still get … Imean it’s not like you get treated any differently. So it’s been easy going hereand stuff, and everyone’s pretty respectful.
Because white students ‘are kind of the minority at Pinewood,’ Kensuggests that he might be ‘treated differently,’ but denies that such differen-tial treatment occurs. While he recognizes that minority students might notshare the experiences of the majority, Ken defines ‘minority’ solely bynumerical count within the university. In concert with the diversitydiscourse, structural inequalities do not factor into his perspective or reason-ing. This omission leads him to position white students as more vulnerableto such discrimination, a notable inversion of the established racialhierarchy. Ken also surmises that because white students do not get ‘treateddifferently’ as susceptible minorities, ‘everyone’s pretty respectful.’ Here heimplies that all students are treated the same, so no student need worryabout racial hostility. Harper and Hurtado (2007) found that white studentsfrequently make this universalistic conclusion, assuming that their peers ofcolor share their nice experiences on campus.
By vacillating between colorblind and ‘happy talk,’ two pillars ofconservative multiculturalism, white students can effectively obscure thesemiotic significance of racial identity and protect whiteness in a multiracial
Race Ethnicity and Education 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
community. These two discourses distinguish and disconnect racialdifference at the interactional level from diversity at the institutional level,obfuscating the students’ dominant position as whites. Colorblindness cloakswhiteness in interpersonal situations, where it frequently manifests indiscriminatory acts (Bonilla-Silva 2013), while the diversity discourseneutralizes it by propagating ‘an ideal imagined community’ (DiAngelo andSensoy 2014).
Diversity fragments into segregation
After confirming that diversity created a positive campus environment andafforded ‘nice’ and ‘easy’ experiences, the participants began movingtoward an entirely different take on diversity in specific interactive contextssuch as the classroom. In these accounts, their favorable perspectives ofdiversity frayed into feelings of anxiety and fear. Relating a class groupexercise, Candace says:
When there is that difference and diversity it is kind of hard to communicate.You know? And you kind of do have that fear, like, be careful what you say.You don’t want to hurt their feelings. At the same time, trying to do yourwork. It gets kind of difficult.
Candace claims that working with ‘difference and diversity,’ i.e. with peopleof color (Lewis 2004), is more difficult than collaborating in an all-whitegroup because a diverse group demands additional tact. But this is a one-sided burden: she and other whites must be more prudent of their actionsaround students of color so as to not ‘hurt their feelings.’ She thus framesher classmates of color as hypersensitive occlusions to group communica-tion and productivity. Mark also articulates his fear and solicitousness whenworking in a diverse group:
It’s hard in a diverse group till you kind of like almost feel each other out,like, what’s going to be alright. You know? Like, how they are and stuff, Imean you … cause usually when you get paired with white people, I mean,just saying, you kind of just start joking around with them and stuff. Butwhen you get with a person of another ethnicity, you kind of want to feelhow they are and kind of see what’s up.
Jennifer chimes in after Mark’s statement in agreement with, ‘You’re carefulof what you say.’ Candace, Mark and Jennifer conjure a ‘classic discourse’that depicts whites as inherently innocent and people of color as perpetratorsof violence (DiAngelo and Sensoy 2014; Feagin, Vera, and Batur 2001).Mark’s essentializing language, referring twice to ‘how they are,’ suggeststhat while white students are easy-going and lend themselves to open dis-cussion, students of color are naturally inclined to arbitrarily take offenseand create tensions, thus impeding interracial collaborations. White students
10 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
are then burdened by having to first ‘feel each other out’ and ‘see what’sup’ before the group can speak and work comfortably together. Candaceand Jennifer’s avowed need to be ‘careful’ further contributes to the imageof white people as tamers of unruly ‘others.’ DiAngelo and Sensoy (2014,114–5) keenly note that this discourse ‘distorts reality and perverts theactual direction of danger that has historically existed between whites andpeople of Color.’
Jennifer then elaborates on her tag comment regarding precautionsaround students of color. Her earlier acclamatory assessment of a diversecampus is, upon closer inspection, one that appreciates opportunities forinterracial collaboration during class, but criticizes her peers of color forfailing to maintain relations outside of the classroom:
Well, in groups, towards the end you end up working really well togetherwith all the different diversities. But I’ve noticed that after class is over, youdon’t really talk to them anymore. They act all kind of, like, separate.
Jennifer frames her classmates’ apparent self-segregation as a hostile barrierto continuing their friendships beyond class assignments. Antonio (2001)found that students at a racially diverse university reported much higherlevels of racial balkanization on campus than actually occurred in theirfriendships. Still, even if Jennifer exaggerates, she clearly implicates stu-dents of ‘different diversities’ as those who fortify a racial division. Onceagain, whites are innocent and students of color the antagonists. Her use of‘diversities’ as a synonym for ‘races’ or ‘ethnicities’ also reflects her beliefthat diversity mainly refers to people of color. This association surfaces fre-quently in diversity discourses and bespeaks the presumption of a whitenormative center (Bell and Hartmann 2007; Lewis 2004; Ward 2008).
The affirmations of idyllic campus diversity continued to unravel intoaccusations of unfriendliness and self-segregation aimed at students of color.The students framed whites as not only innocent but also comparativelyenlightened and open-minded. Candace laments:
I don’t feel [students of color] even want to hang out with white people. LikeI tried … like there was a girl in another class of mine, and she’s AfricanAmerican. And she was having problems with the classes and stuff, and Itried to reach out to her and help her with the class. And I tried to talk to her.And I tried like, two or three times, because I find it interesting, you know Ilike their people very much. But they don’t feel, like, really friendly or thatthey can connect with me. So I’ve never been able to make a friend or keepany that are African American.
Candace positions herself as a benefactress who deigns to aid an AfricanAmerican student in need. It is only after much persistence, which shestresses in saying ‘tried’ four times, does she give up and fatalistically con-clude that ‘their people’ do not ‘even want to hang out with white people.’
Race Ethnicity and Education 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Candace’s statement echoes a neocolonial assumption that unskilled peopleof color would necessarily benefit from the help of their more learned whitecounterparts. In addition to her emphasis on ministration, her comment that‘their people’ are ‘interesting’ further invokes the white ‘ethnographic gaze’that denies blacks (and other people of color) subjectivity (hooks 1997).Though ostensibly well intentioned, Candace unwittingly propagates theideological racism of the white man’s burden.
Kelly similarly voiced an essentialist perspective that decried students ofcolors’ self-segregation and suggested colonialist revisions:
I walk by the Philippines club twenty times and nobody’s going to give me aflyer. That’s their fault. You know? And I mean I wouldn’t mind being in thatclub because they have wonderful food. And … but I would never get it.Maybe that is something that the university may want … to send somebodyto all the clubs and maybe teach them that it is important to integrate every-body. If the club’s gonna be under the name of the school, it has to encom-pass everybody and should not be afraid to reach out to everybody and to letthem know about your club and stuff. So, to teach them.
Though she previously claimed that, ‘race doesn’t play a big part in [her]daily life,’ Kelly now expresses indignation because she believes she isdeliberately ignored as a white person. Her positive view of diversity is,upon further scrutiny, one that nods to the potential of interracial interac-tions but places the onus of realizing these possibilities upon students ofcolor. Because she is not offered a flyer, a potential cross-cultural experi-ence becomes a missed opportunity that is ultimately ‘their fault.’ Kellydoes not consider directly asking for a flyer, nor does she mention any earn-est attempt to attend a club meeting. Instead, she asks the university toaddress this apparent discrimination by suggesting that it ‘send somebody toall the clubs … to teach them that it is important to integrate everybody.’Like the other participants, she locates her experience outside of social andhistorical patterns and thus can rationally invert the racial order: students ofcolor control the reigns of inclusion while whites stand excluded at theperipheries. And like Candace, she draws upon ideology that stems fromcivilizing missions and suggests that the university ‘teach them’ otherwise.Further, Kelly’s motive for attending such a club event appears to bereduced to, or at least centered upon, enjoying Filipino food. Indeed, EvelynHu-DeHart observes that, ‘misguided multiculturalism tends to focus on thefour F’s: food, fads, fiestas, and festivals’ (as quoted in Rothenberg 2000,61). Kelly’s objection revolves less around being denied a social or educa-tional opportunity than a gustatory one.
Thus, in this interactive context, the students’ understanding of ‘diver-sity’ no longer emanated tolerant humanism, but immanently conflicted dif-ferences between racialized peoples. Unlike the white students in Cabrera’sstudy (2014) who did not take issue with racial segregation on campus,
12 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
these students did find such divisions problematic because they disrupt‘happy talk.’ But in lamenting this racial separateness, they blamed studentsof color for inhibiting cross-racial interactions and positioned whites as themore open-minded mediators who attempt to embrace such situations. AsFeagin, Vera, and Batur (2001) note, blaming people of color is a notablycommon white strategy for absolving responsibility in a wide range of situa-tions. In this interactive context, whiteness did not retreat so much intoinvisibility as into an affirmed innocence.
Diversity efforts exclude and undervalue whites
The third context in which the participants discussed diversity regarded itsinstitutional support. Though they had previously extolled campus diversity,their support of the university’s diversity efforts proved lukewarm at bestbecause they believe these initiatives cater exclusively to students of colorat the expense of whites. Here, they interpreted ‘diversity’ as the recognitionof all racial and ethnic identities except white. Candace says:
I think the university’s emphasis on diversity might create a little separationbetween white people and then, like, the rest of everyone else. Because itfeels like everyone else is like, Asians and Filipinos and everything are very… they’re all bonded together because they are a minority and they’re whatthe school is all about, it’s diversity and things like that.
Like Jennifer’s use of ‘diversities’ above, Candace understands ‘diversity’to mean ‘not white.’ Bell and Hartmann note that this common understand-ing reflects the ‘racial reality of the US, in which whites are both privilegedand seen as normal, neutral, and regular, and everyone else is definedagainst a white normative status’ (2007, 909). As such, Candace seesPinewood’s centralization of ‘diversity’ less as a paradigm for cross-racialcollaboration and inclusion than a celebration of nonwhite racial-ethnicgroups that fosters racial divisions. Students of color are ‘what the school isall about,’ while whites, who do not fall under the purview of ‘diversityand things like that,’ are less so. She elaborates on this thought elsewhere:
It’s hard to participate when they emphasize diversity so much. Like it ishighly emphasized and I think that’s really incredible that the university cando that for people. But then it does make it hard to participate in those kindsof groups. Even though they say of course anyone can go. But if you’regonna show up, some people are always like, ‘Wait you’re in the AfricanAmerican club? Like what?’ You know?
While generally supportive of the university’s efforts to ‘emphasize diver-sity,’ Candace remains ambivalent about her role as a white person withinthis framework. She feels that ‘those kind of groups’ that constitute thediversity agenda, such as ethnic-based clubs, are difficult for white students
Race Ethnicity and Education 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
to meaningfully partake in. It is unclear whether Candace actually attendedone of these club events, but she clearly believes that her participation as awhite student would be questioned. Her statement further belies an assump-tion that such groups and other institutionally supported ‘diversity’ measuresserve primarily to affirm nonwhite racial-ethnic identities.
Critical multiculturalists warn that this perception of ‘diversity’ as ‘notwhite’ can recentralize whiteness by casting ‘whiteness as a cultural markeragainst which Otherness is defined,’ thereby reinforcing its invisibility andnormality (McLaren 1995, 59). Similarly, other scholars have argued thatmulticultural programs and events that act as ‘add-ons’ to campus life rein-scribe the normality and centrality of whiteness and other dominant identi-ties (Hurd 2008; Perry 2002; Rothenberg 2000). But even at Pinewood,where ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are seen as fundamental rather thanancillary to the university, whiteness remains covertly privileged as thenorm. As in previous studies that focus on white college students (Cabrera2012, 2014; Chesler, Peet, and Sevig 2003), these students are not privy tothe ways in which whiteness is structurally embedded within institutionsand its corresponding legacy of dominance, leading them to construe the‘diversity’ agenda as white exclusion.
Jennifer and Mark also lament what they perceive to be the absence ofwhite recognition on campus:
Jennifer: All the statues or, like, monuments surrounding everything, it’salways someone of, like, there’s Cesar Chavez one, and there’sthe … the African American Olympic one. There’s not any-thing celebrating any white people.
Mark: Yeah, like they’re saying … there’s all kinds of clubs for dif-ferent cultures, but there’s nothing … it would be consideredracist if there was a club just for white people. It’s just thesame thing with our country, like we have Hispanic pride orblack history month, black pride. And if we had white pridemonth it would be considered racist. And I think that’s stupid.
Jennifer and Mark reserve approval toward these dedications becausewhites are ostensibly excluded from similar recognition. Kelly similarlysays, ‘They try, you know, really hard to give all the other minorities andother ethnic groups activism for their cultures, [but] then it’s like if weever did say anything, it’s like, ‘oh, you’re racist.’ The university’s focuson ‘diversity’ does not move these students toward appreciation or aware-ness as much as doubt and resentment. Bereft of a critical historical per-spective, they remain blind to the legacy and extensions of whiteness. Intheir conviction that the campus does not consider whites worthy ofacknowledgement, they overlook many of the buildings and plazas that arenamed after whites and the numerous portraits and plaques that featureand celebrate white people.
14 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
The students pointed to scholarships as further proof that the universityundervalues white students. Although the campus offers a variety of grantopportunities, they honed in on ethnic-based awards or those that requestracial identification, claiming that this constitutes unfair protocols thatdiscriminate against whites.
Jennifer: And with all the scholarships and everything. There are specialscholarships just for like Latin people, or like …
Ken: Being black.Kelly: Latin American. Yeah. You’re almost excluded from getting an
award if you do list yourself, as you know, Caucasian. And ifyou do that, sometimes, it like, hurts your chances of winningthat award or scholarship.
From their perspective, the university rewards students of color for passively‘being’ a certain race or ethnicity; white students are not merely ignored butconsidered less desirable recipients, as identifying as white ‘hurts yourchances of winning.’ Perceptions of white identity as a stigma and claimsof ‘reverse racism’ relentlessly reoccur in whiteness studies, especially inthe context of affirmative action and other measures that promote diversityand multiculturalism (e.g. Cabrera 2014; Feagin and O’Brien 2003;Gallagher 1997; Hochschild 1999; McKinney 2005; Perry 2002; Wellman1997). Without critical historical hindsight, whites often create ‘false paral-lels’ (Michael Schwabe as quoted in Roediger 1999) whereby the experi-ences of a less powerful group are equated with those of a more powerfulone. These students accept this premise among racial groups and concludethat ‘listing Caucasian’ invites white discrimination. Thus, though these stu-dents likely garner some positive benefits from attending a multiracial cam-pus, their gains remain ultimately limited in that their attitudes towardethnic-based scholarships and recognition matched those documented inprevious whiteness studies. That is, they perceived their whiteness to be aliability and framed themselves as ‘victims of multiculturalism’ (Cabrera2014; Feagin and O’Brien 2003).
In response to the interviewer’s prompt regarding what role theuniversity might take to ameliorate these issues, Candace suggested that itconsider ‘making whites feel more equally accepted at the school.’ Thus,these white students see a commitment to diversity as a centralization ofracial minorities while marginalizing whites, a position they are not adjustedto in a world that by and large centralizes whiteness. They crucially fail tograsp that whites have always been included and celebrated, while peopleof color have been historically barred entrance from countless spaces. Thismissed insight ironically provokes them to construe institutional attempts atracial inclusiveness as racial exclusiveness in spaces traditionally controlledby whites.
Race Ethnicity and Education 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Avoiding whiteness
Although they discredited what they perceived to be the university’s central-ization of racial and ethnic minorities, the group also conceded that explic-itly celebrating white people would be problematic. When the interviewerasked the students how the university might create a more inclusive envi-ronment for whites after their complaints of racial exclusion, they struggledto articulate an acceptable protocol. Initially, the group collectively rebuffedwhite recognition and affirmed that ‘white’ groups and activities wouldbreach an established taboo. Associations between ‘white’ and ‘racism’largely informed their position. For example, Ken says,
I don’t think they’re … before this I’ve never seen anything at Pinewood thatsaid, like, you know, like a white community type thing. Where there is, like,an Asian community club or something like that. You can’t have, like, awhite club or something like that, it’s called, like, KKK.
Ken claims that a white club is impermissible because it would evokeextremist connotations. Indeed, scholars point out that one of the fewinstances in which whiteness becomes recognizable is within the context ofthe KKK and other forms of egregious racial violence. Marked by theirindividualized acts of atrocity, they are largely regarded as fringe groupsand thus not representative of all white persons (Cabrera 2014; Feagin,Vera, and Batur 2001). Ken correctly recognizes the historic violence awhite-oriented group would suggest. But this is ostensibly the only reasonhe resists such an organization; that is, his rationale stems solely from thesymbolic significance of a ‘white club’ and fails to additionally see whycreating a white group would be unnecessary given the current ascendancyof whiteness.
The other participants agreed that establishing a white-based organizationwould not be an acceptable option. Like Ken, they did so primarily in lightof the overtly racist overtones associated with whiteness and in anticipationof others’ reception of such a group.
Kelly: In lectures there’s just no celebration of our culture. And it’salmost like you’d be scolded if you were like, ‘Oh, whitepower.’ Like that’d be so bad. You know? Like that’d be allwrong. You know? I don’t know … like, I would never evenwant to celebrate that.
Mark: If we did, I think the other racial groups would be reallyoffended by that.
Kelly rejects carving out a similar space for white identity because thiswould be tantamount to declaring ‘white power,’ a phrase associated withextreme racial hate and violence, things she would ‘never want to cele-brate.’ Mark agrees that creating a specifically white space would be laden
16 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
with racist meaning, and concludes that doing so would antagonize studentsof color. Again, associations between white collectivization and individual-ized white violence motivate their position. Because white groups that pur-posefully name their whiteness (as opposed to unnamed groups that operatevis-à-vis the normality of whiteness) have always been explicitly and vio-lently racist in nature, these white students realize that a white student groupwould not be tolerated, and thus is neither a viable nor desirable alternative.Although they reject the violence of white supremacist groups, they fail tosee how whiteness as a hegemonic social reality renders white clubs andevents not simply offensive but also unnecessary.
As noted in the previous section, the participants believe racial andethnic themes on campus serve primarily (if not only) to celebrate variouscultures and identities on campus. Where nonwhite identities can be utilizedas a source of pride, white identities, when named, can only be remindersof racial oppression and thus a source of shame. After expressing theirreservations about a white club, Jennifer summarily remarked, ‘You can’tjust say, ‘I’m proud to be white,’ which was met with a chorus of furtheragreement.
Since they surmised that establishing white-named organizations andevents would be divisive and incendiary, these white students eventuallydecided that the university should avoid considering white identity alto-gether. They advocated instead programs and protocol that minimized thesignificance of race and difference.
Candace: I think making these clubs that are only for whites possibly, orjust for people of this race or that race, well it will just bringus, you know, farther apart. You know? So I think we needmore clubs that are religion-based or based on things that arecommon like democracy, justice, and make more classes thatare geared towards communicating with each other.
Interviewer: So nothing around whiteness as an identity?Kelly: Yeah.Ken: Yeah. And that’s, like …Interviewer: So highlighting whiteness as an identity is not a goal?Ken: Yeah, I think … I agree with her kind of like more stuff so.
… Pinewood could create things that bring people togetherrather than separating by groups.
According to the participants, discussions and activities that center race fos-ter segregation, but those that focus instead on presumably more unifyingthemes, such as ‘democracy [and] justice,’ would ameliorate racial tensionsand ‘bring people together.’ Mark also comments that groups emphasizingcommonality rather than difference could improve campus dynamics. Hestates, ‘I think sports are a unique thing where a bunch of people fromdifferent backgrounds go through a lot of hard work together. They kind ofbring ‘em together. Like if you’re in the military, you go through a lot of
Race Ethnicity and Education 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
tough things and that brings you together.’ In sum, they agree that inclusionand increasing cross-racial interactions are worthy campus aims, but main-tain that the best route to these goals is through erasing difference, whichbreeds conflict, and affirming sameness through nationalistic themes. Like‘democracy’ and ‘justice,’ Mark’s comparison between sports and the mili-tary also emphasizes a common citizenship that transcends distinct identi-ties. In other words, they espouse a model of multiculturalism that allowsthem to embrace diversity superficially without critically considering theirwhiteness and power relations between groups. Their recommendations seekto reify the imaginative ideals of ‘happy talk’ but unwittingly – and danger-ously – push toward a suppressive form of pluralism in which whitenessretreats into normalized obscurity. Giroux (1992, 15) is worth quoting atlength here because he responds directly to the students’ suggestions:
[The] attempt [of liberal multiculturalism] to accommodate pluralism to a‘common culture’ rather than a shared vision grounded in a struggle to expandthe radical possibilities of democratic public life underestimates the legacy ofthe dominant culture to eliminate cultural differences, multiple literacies, anddiverse communities in the name of totalizing and one-dimensional masternarratives refigured around issues such as nationalism, citizenship, andpatriotism.
Minimizing racial difference appeals to these white students because itallows them to avoid considering their white identity, which they interpretmonolithically to indicate past oppression and current stigma. Opting forthese ‘unifying’ themes and ideals frees them from considering whitenessand also conveniently absolves them of feelings of guilt and confusion thatthis racial self-reflection often evokes (e.g. McKinney 2005). And ulti-mately, advocating this protocol allows whiteness, in its unrelenting abilityto claim legitimacy and authority, to reclaim space and voice only veryrecently won by minority groups.
Conclusion
Speaking from their experiences at a multiracial university, the white stu-dents in this study initially expressed an appreciation for campus diversity,echoing the institutional messages that celebrate plurality and promise inclu-siveness. However, when further probed, their positive affirmations frayedinto feelings of exclusion and hostility that ultimately positioned students ofcolor as self-segregating beneficiaries of diversity promotion and white stu-dents as a marginalized group within the campus community. Ultimately,these students propagated a multiculturalism that protects white superiorityin a multiracial setting by normalizing whiteness and stabilizing racialhierarchies. These white semantics demand considerable attention, not only
18 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
because they ironically erode the collaborative ideals that diversity platformsseek to accomplish, but also because they serve as a template for futurescenarios where whites live and work in multiracial environments.
Indeed, therein lies this study’s pressing contribution to campus climateliterature and Critical Whiteness Studies. While a racially diverse environ-ment and a pro-diversity ethos may open up channels for interracial collab-oration and inclusion, these factors alone do not ensure that individuals willbe able to critically think about race and their racial identities. Rather, asthe ‘third wave’ of whiteness studies warns, the white students in this studyutilized and negotiated diversity discourses to ‘recuperate, reconstitute andrestore white identities and the supremacy of whiteness in post-apartheid,post-industrial, post-imperial, post-Civil Rights’ contexts (Twine andGallagher 2008, 13).
Both institutional and pedagogical measures must include elements ofcritical multiculturalism if students are to unlearn these ideologies andengage mindfully in multiracial spaces. At the institutional level, Milem,Chang, and Antonio (2005) have outlined protocols that engage diversity asa process rather than a numerical goal. In addition to recruiting and retain-ing students, staff, and faculty of color, these include acknowledging anyhistory of campus exclusion and its present repercussions, funding andresponding to ongoing campus climate reports, and encouraging criticaldiversity discourses across disciplines rather than mandating a singular‘diversity’ course requirement. At the pedagogical level, instructors mustexplain the ubiquity and relevance of whiteness and its role in enduringinequalities. This discussion must eventually move beyond confessions ofwhite privilege toward one that interrogates the historical and structuralreaches of white supremacy (Blum 2008; Leonardo 2004; Lensmire et al.2013), as well as the intersectional complexities of white identity (Gillborn2008) and localized manifestations of whiteness (Hartigan 1997; Twine andGallagher 2008). When educators and students locate their experiences inthese racial realities, they can move towards more effective antiracist dis-courses and strategies that challenge rather than perpetuate the enduringlegacies of whiteness.
If universities are to create more inclusive environments that fosterinterracial collaboration and antiracism, elements crucial for a rapidlydiversifying country, they must implement such pedagogies and institutionalinitiatives. These measures direct the campus toward ‘a unity-in-differenceposition in which new, hybrid forms of democratic representation, participa-tion, and citizenship provide a forum for creating unity without denying theparticular, multiple, and the specific’ (Giroux 1995, 339). Without suchfacilitation, white students, regardless of their racial environment, will likelyadhere to shallow multiculturalisms that inadvertently sustain the chasms ofracial inequalities.
Race Ethnicity and Education 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Notes1. Although only this author collected data, both she and a co-author, an Asian
American woman, analyzed the data for this study. We note this collaborationnot to essentialize ourselves, but to recognize the influence of our racializedsubjectivities at all stages of this research.
2. The campus climate committee that requested the original report was born ofthis plan.
3. Pseudonyms are used to ensure participants’ privacy.
ReferencesAleman, A. M., and K. Salkevar. 2001. “Multiculturalism and the Mission of
Liberal Education.” The Journal of General Education 50 (2): 102–139.Antonio, A. L. 2001. “Diversity and the Influence of Friendship Groups in
College.” The Review of Higher Education 25 (1): 63–89.Antonio, A. L. 2004. “The Influence of Friendship Groups on Intellectual
Self-Confidence and Educational Aspirations in College.” The Journal ofHigher Education 75 (4): 446–471.
Bell, J., and D. Hartmann. 2007. “Diversity in Everyday Discourse: The CulturalAmbiguities and Consequences of ‘Happy Talk’.” American SociologicalReview 72 (6): 895–914.
Blum, L. 2008. “‘White Privilege’: A Mild Critique.” Theory and Research inEducation 6 (3): 309–321.
Bonilla-Silva, E. 2013. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persis-tence of Racial Inequality in the United States. 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowmanand Littlefield.
Bonilla-Silva, E., and T. A. Foreman. 2000. “‘I Am Not a Racist but…’: MappingWhite College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA.” Discourse & Society 11(1): 50–85.
Bucholtz, M. 2011. White Kids: Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cabrera, N. L. 2012. “Working through Whiteness: White Male College StudentsChallenging Racism.” The Review of Higher Education 35 (3): 375–401.
Cabrera, N. L. 2014. “Exposing Whiteness in Higher Education: White Male Col-lege Students Minimizing Racism, Claiming Victimization, and RecreatingWhite Supremacy.” Race Ethnicity and Education 17 (1): 30–55. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.725040.
Castagno, A. E. 2008. “‘I Don’t Want to Hear That!’: Legitimating Whitenessthrough Silence in Schools.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 39 (3):314–333.
Chang, M. J., A. W. Astin, and D. Kim. 2004. “Cross-Racial Interaction amongUndergraduates: Some Consequences, Causes, and Patterns.” Research inHigher Education 45: 529–553.
Chesler, M. A., M. Peet, and T. Sevig. 2003. “Blinded by Whiteness: TheDevelopment of White College Students’ Racial Awareness.” In White out: TheContinuing Significance of Racism, edited by A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva,215–230. New York: Routledge.
Delgado, R., and J. Stefancic, eds. 1997. Critical White Studies: Looking behindthe Mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
DiAngelo, R., and D. Allen. 2006. ‘My Feelings Are Not about You’: PersonalExperience as a Move of Whiteness.” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education
20 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
and Information Studies 2 (2). Accessed 21 August, 2014. http://repositories.cdlib.org/gseis/interactions/vol2/iss2/art2
DiAngelo, R., and Ö. Sensoy. 2014. “Getting Slammed: White Depictions of RaceDiscussions as Arenas of Violence.” Race Ethnicity and Education 17 (1):104–128. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.674023.
Duster, T. 1993. “The Diversity of the University of California, Berkeley: AnEmerging Reformulation of ‘Competence’ in an Increasingly MulticulturalWorld.” In Beyond a Dream Deferred, edited by B. Thompson and S. Tyagi,231–255. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Engberg, M. E., and S. Hurtado. 2011. “Developing Pluralistic Skills and Disposi-tions in College: Examining Racial/Ethnic Group Differences.” The Journal ofHigher Education 82 (4): 416–443.
Feagin, J., and E. O’Brien. 2003. White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and theShaping of Cultural Consciousness. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Feagin, J., H. Vera, and P. Batur. 2001. White Racism: The Basics. New York:Routledge.
Feagin, J., H. Vera, and N. Imani. 1996. The Agony of Education: Black Studentsat White Colleges and Universities. New York: Routledge.
Frankenberg, R. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction ofWhiteness. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
Freire, P. [1970] 1993. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gallagher, C. A. 1995. “White Reconstruction in the University.” Socialist Review
94: 165–188.Gallagher, C. A. 1997. “White Racial Formation: Into the Twenty-First Century.”
In Critical White Studies: Looking behind the Mirror, edited by R. Delgado andJ. Stefancic, 6–11. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Gallagher, C. A. 2000. “White like Me?” In Racing Research, Researching Race:Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies, edited by F. W. Twine andJ. W. Warren, 67–92. New York: New York University Press.
Gates Jr, H. L. 1995. “Good-Bye, Columbus? Notes on the Culture of Criticism.”In Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, edited by D. T. Goldberg, 203–217.Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Gillborn, D. 2008. Racism and Education: Coincidence or Conspiracy? New York:Routledge.
Giroux, H. 1992. “Post-Colonial Ruptures and Democratic Possibilities: Multicul-turalism as Anti-Racist Pedagogy.” Cultural Critique 21: 5–39.
Giroux, H. 1995. “Insurgent Multiculturalism and the Promise of Pedagogy.”In Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, edited by D. T. Goldberg, 325–343.Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strate-gies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gurin, P. 1999. The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education. ExpertTestimony in Gratz et al. V. Bollinger et al. Michigan Journal of Race & Law5: 363–366.
Harper, S., and S. Hurtado. 2007. “Nine Themes in Campus Racial Climates andImplications for Institutional Transformation.” New Directions for StudentServices 2007: 7–24.
Hartigan, J. 1997. “Locating White Detroit.” In Displacing Whiteness: Essays inSocial and Cultural Criticism, edited by R. Frankenberg, 180–213. Durham andLondon: Duke University Press.
Race Ethnicity and Education 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Hochschild, J. I. 1999. “Affirmative Action as Culture War.” In Cultural Territoriesof Race: Of Black and White Boundaries, edited by M. Lamont, 343–388.Chicago, IL: Chicago Press.
hooks, b. 1997. “Representing Whiteness in the Black Imagination.” In DisplacingWhiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism, edited by R. Frankenberg,165–179. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Hu, S., and G. Khu. 2003. “Diversity Experiences and College Student Learningand Personal Development.” Journal of College Student Development 44 (3):320–334.
Hurd, C. A. 2008. “Cinco De Mayo, Normative Whiteness, and the Marginalizationof Mexican-Descent Students.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 39 (3):293–313.
Hurtado, S. 2005. “The Next Generation of Diversity and Intergroup RelationsResearch.” Journal of Social Issues 61 (3): 595–610.
Hurtado, S., D. Carter, and A. Spuler. 1996. “Latino Student Transition to College:Assessing Difficulties and Factors in Successful College Adjustment.” Researchin Higher Education 37 (2): 135–157.
Jayakumar, U. M. 2008. “Can Higher Education Meet the Needs of an IncreasinglyDiverse Society and Global Marketplace?: Campus Diversity and Cross-CulturalWorkforce Competencies.” Harvard Educational Review 78 (4): 615–651.
Johnson-Ahorlu, R. 2012. “The Academic Opportunity Gap: Racism and Stereo-types Disrupt the Education of African American Undergraduates.” Race Ethnic-ity and Education 15 (5): 633–652.
Kymlicka, W. 2007. Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New InternationalPolitics of Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lensmire, T. J., S. K. McManimon, M. E. Lee-Nichols, Z. A. Casey, A. Lensmire,and B. M. Davis. 2013. “McIntosh as Synecdoche: Education’s Focus on WhitePrivilege Undermines Antiracism.” Harvard Educational Review 83 (3):410–431.
Leonardo, Z. 2002. “The Souls of White Folk: Critical Pedagogy, Whiteness Stud-ies, and Globalization Discourse.” Race Ethnicity and Education 5 (1): 29–50.
Leonardo, Z. 2004. “The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the Discourse of ‘WhitePrivilege’.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 36 (2): 137–152.
Lewis, A. E. 2004. “‘What Group?’ Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of‘Color-Blindness’.” Sociological Theory 22 (4): 623–646.
Lipsitz, G. 2006. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profitfrom Identity Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
McIntosh, P. 1988. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. In WhitePrivilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspon-dences through Work in Women’s Studies (Working Paper 189). Wellesley, MA:Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
McKinney, K. D. 2005. Being White: Stories of Race and Racism. New York:Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
McLaren, P. 1995. “White Terror and Oppositional Agency: Towards aCritical Multiculturalism.” In Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, edited byD. T. Goldberg, 45–74. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Mercer, K. 1990. “Welcome to the Jungle: Identity and Diversity in PostmodernPolitics.” In Identity: Community, Culture, and Difference, edited by J. Rutherford,43–71. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
22 A. Hikido and S.B. Murray
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
Milem, J., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. Making Diversity Work onCampus: A Research-Based Perspective. Washington, DC: The Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities.
Osei-Kofi, N., L. E. Torres, and J. Lui. 2013. “Practices of Whiteness: Racializationof College Admissions Viewbooks.” Race Ethnicity and Education 16 (3):386–405.
Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 2005. Vol. 2 of How College Affects Students:A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, P. 2002. Shades of White: White Kids and Racial Identity in High School.Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Reason, R. D., and N. J. Evans. 2007. “The Complicated Realities of Whiteness:From Color Blind to Racially Cognizant.” New Directions for Student Services120: 67–75.
Roediger, D., ed. 1999. Black on White: Black Writers on What It Means to BeWhite. New York: Schocken Books.
Rothenberg, P. 2000. “Beyond the Food Court: Goals and Strategies for TeachingMulticulturalism.” Feminist Teacher 13 (1): 61–73.
Saenz, V. B. 2010. “Breaking the Segregation Cycle: Examining Students’ Precol-lege Racial Environments and College Diversity Experiences.” Review ofHigher Education 34 (1): 1–37.
Solórzano, D. G., M. Ceja, and T. Yosso. 2000. “Critical Race Theory, RacialMicroaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of AfricanAmerican College Students.” Journal of Negro Education 69 (1–2): 60–73.
Stam, R., and E. Shohat. 1995. “Contested Histories: Eurocentrism, Multicul-turalism, and the Media.” In Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, edited byD. T. Goldberg, 296–324. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Tatum, B. D. 1999. ‘Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’and Other Conversations about Race. New York: Basic Books.
Twine, F. W. 2000. “Racial Ideologies and Racial Methodologies.” In RacingResearch, Researching Race, edited by F. W. Twine and J. W. Warren, 1–34.New York: New York University Press.
Twine, F. W., and C. A. Gallagher. 2008. “The Future of Whiteness: A Map of the‘Third Wave’.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (1): 4–24.
US Department of Education. 2010. National Center for Education Statistics, Inte-grated Postsecondary Education Data System. Washington, DC: US Departmentof Education. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/DataCenter/.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1993. “Analyzing Racism through Discourse Analysis: SomeMethodological Reflections.” In Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods, editedby J. H. Stanfield and R. M. Dennis, 92–134. London: Sage.
Voyer, A. 2011. “Disciplined to Diversity: Learning the Language of Multicul-turalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (11): 1874–1893.
Ward, J. 2008. “White Normativity: The Cultural Dimensions of Whiteness in aRacially Diverse LGBT Organization.” Sociological Perspectives 51 (3):563–586.
Wellman, D. 1997. “Marking Racial Otherness in the 1990s: Minstrel Shows,Affirmative Action Talk, and Angry White Men.” In Displacing Whiteness:Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism, edited by R. Frankenberg, 311–331.Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Race Ethnicity and Education 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Loy
ola
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
13:
56 2
8 M
arch
201
5
