The purpose of this chapter is to present part of the findings of this study in a way that is concise yet representative of the complexity of white racial identity, institutional norms, and the phenomenon of whiteness. In doing so, I introduce five composite characters that embody the approaches, moods, and styles of the ten participants as was illustrated during our interviews. This study was guided by three overarching research questions. The first asks, what role does white racial identity play in how White higher education administrators
engage in racial equity and inclusion efforts? The second question serves to delve deeper into the phenomenon of whiteness by asking, how do White higher education administrators navigate racial equity and inclusion efforts at their institution? The final research question connects theory to practice by asking, in what ways do White higher education
administrators’ approaches to racial equity and inclusion efforts offer insight into the development of institutional anti-racist policies and practices? During data collection and analysis, a major concept that continued to permeate my reflections was the notion of white scripts. Gallagher (2000) named white scripts as unquestioned assumptions that maintain white power and are constantly being rewritten and internalized. DiAngelo (2018) uses the term white scripts as a way to unpack whiteness and shed light on the cultural norms that maintain it, primarily through our socialization. DiAngelo (2018) shares:
When I talk to White people about racism, their responses are so predictable I sometimes feel as though we are all reciting lines from a shared script. And on some level, we are, because we are actors in a shared culture. A significant aspect of the white script derives from our seeing ourselves as both objective and unique (p. 9).
76
Throughout the data analysis process, I kept thinking about how we, as White people, are all actors or characters in the same story. Although we are each unique, we are all reciting lines from a shared script (DiAngelo, 2018). This racial script is the master narrative or ideological stance that creates, controls, and recreates whiteness in society and higher education. In presenting the findings of this study, I seek to unmask the dominant white scripts, reveal them as ideology, and address them head on. To do this, I represent the data in a way that is true to the participants’ experiences while recognizing the script that White people share. Using composite narratives described in Chapter 3, I aim to create stories which capture the essence of the participants’ experiences and perspectives as they relate to the phenomenon of whiteness.
As several patterns and themes emerged from the data, one thing became glaringly clear from the analysis: there was no one way or linear approach to how the participants engaged in racial equity efforts at their institutions. Some participants approached racial equity work head-on with no regrets, some carried with them self-doubt about their skills and abilities, and others were comfortable and complacent in their whiteness. The patterns that emerged from analysis guided the creation of five unique composite characters, which I refer to as White Scripts in Higher Education (see Table 4.1). These scripts represent contrasting experiences with whiteness from a personal and institutional perspective.
Table 4.1 – White Scripts in Higher Education
Name Descriptor Character Traits Rhonda
(she/her)
Risk-Taker ● Challenges and takes risks
● Actively questions policies and practices ● Recognizes power dynamics in group settings ● Pushes back against her White peers and Colleagues
77 Patty
(she/her)
Self-Proclaimed Progressive
● Sees herself as an ally to People of Color
● Carries “white progressive” label as badge of honor ● Tries to separate herself from “bad” White people ● Well educated and views herself as having “arrived” Mike
(he/him)
Maintainer ● Comfortable and complacent; does not like to “rock the boat”
● Is not motivated to critically reflect on his whiteness ● “What you see is what you get” kind of guy
● Typically remains neutral or silent in situations of racial tension
Sam (he/him)
Structuralist ● Strong understanding of systemic and institutional racism and the bureaucratic nature of higher education
● Focuses on systemic issues rather than individual people
● Feels a sense of responsibility to dismantle White supremacy but does not have the tools to engage on the individual level
Dana (they/them)
Developer ● Lacks self-confidence and courage to engage in racial equity work, but engages regardless
● Often doubts their abilities and skills to engage with other White people
● Deep commitment and responsibility to ending racism
● Tries to be a role model for other White people In the following sections, I provide the script of each character. At the beginning of each composite narrative is a brief overview of each character followed by real stories or excerpts shared by the participants. Direct quotes from participants are italicized to place emphasis on how each composite narrative came to be while also remaining authentic and true to the participants’ stories. In Chapter 5, I place these characters in dialogue with one another to further illuminate the complexity of whiteness in higher education, both on the individual and institutional levels, and to answer the second research question: How do White higher education administrators navigate racial equity and inclusion efforts at their institution?
78 Rhonda: The Risk-Taker
Rhonda is a composite of multiple participants who challenge and take risks to combat racism in higher education through their actions. In several situations, Rhonda is viewed as an outsider by her White peers because she is constantly questioning decisions and policies related to racial equity and access at her institution. She has developed a reputation among her White colleagues as being someone who asks a lot of questions that people don’t necessarily like to answer. They kind of expect that from me… I’m certainly not the only one,
but whether or not they appreciate it, it’s expected of me. When Rhonda is in settings with
other White directors and she speaks up, they typically respond with, “Oh, here we go, it’s Rhonda again. Why is nothing we do ever good enough? Isn’t it enough that we’ve started
these conversations?” Rhonda challenges the status quo, and although she may be viewed as an outsider by her White colleagues, she does not care how others view her. Rhonda shared:
I don’t care what White people think about me and my role. I mean other than hopefully that makes them feel the same level of responsibility that I feel. I feel a
higher sense of responsibility, and it’s more meaningful to me when People of Color
see that I’m an advocate or an ally.
Rhonda gets frustrated when her White peers ask her why she cares about this work and why she is the way she is. I hate that question, but I get it all the time. Hell, I don’t know. “Why aren’t you?” That’s what I want to say to them. Rhonda recognizes that advocating for racial equity also means that White people have to be willing to give something up. There are administrators who just want to check the box, and they create a goal of diversity and
inclusion without truly examining what that means. I think the responsibility of White
79
process. Rhonda thinks that a lot of White folks get stuck in their own self-pride which
reinforces whiteness in higher education. It means that when you’ve been given the space to be a voice that you share that space, if not give it up for someone else. This work requires us
to sometimes step aside and see that there might actually be somebody else, including People
of Color, better positioned to engage in this work. It’s less about structure based on position
and title and more about what’s going to be most supportive for our students.
Furthermore, Rhonda does not shy away from explicitly naming racial dynamics in conversations with colleagues. In situations where race is not being talked about or is being hidden by whiteness, Rhonda finds ways to bring race into the conversation. She might ask questions like, “Can we look at this data in a more nuanced way based on [racial]
demographics?” Or, if there is some really generalized feedback about a program and it is
assumed that it represents all students’ experience, Rhonda may push back and ask, “Can we do some focus groups with Students of Color or with other communities that may not really
be represented within this generalized data that we’re talking about?”
Perhaps most importantly, Rhonda uses her whiteness and positional power to gain access and proximity to administrators and decision-makers to create opportunities for others, yet she is critically conscious of the role her whiteness plays in advocating for People of Color:
I don’t want to be somebody else’s voice, but I want to make room for their voice to be heard. I don’t want to assume that I understand their experience and can then
advocate for them, but I want to create the opportunity for them to share what their
experience is and then for me to affirm that and continue pushing for resources or
80
Rhonda is a risk-taker, challenger, and outsider in relation to her White peers. Consequently, colleagues and Students of Color view Rhonda as an accomplice fighting alongside them towards racial equity. She believes that White people must move past being an ally to People of Color and be an accomplice with People of Color. Rhonda recognizes power dynamics of spaces and is critically conscious of her whiteness. For Rhonda, it feels like not engaging in this work is not an option. Whether she is in a role that is specifically tasked with doing diversity and inclusion work or not, she feels like, as a White person, when you come to a point where you begin to understand and see these systems of oppression, I
don’t think we have any other choice except to actively try to disrupt those systems.
Patty: The Self-Proclaimed Progressive
Patty is a composite of two participants who view themselves as self-proclaimed progressives in the fight for racial equity. DiAngelo (2018) uses the term white progressive to mean any White person who thinks they have already “arrived” and is not racist or less racist than their White peers. According to DiAngelo (2018), white progressives can be the most difficult for People of Color because they place so much emphasis on trying to
convince others that they are not racist. In doing so, they do not engage in continual learning or critical reflection about their whiteness. White progressives do in fact uphold and
perpetuate racism, but their defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain how they do so.
Patty’s intent is to challenge whiteness, yet she reinforces whiteness in her actions and impact as a white progressive. I add “self-proclaimed” in front of DiAngelo’s (2018) term because Patty eagerly embraces being a progressive, almost as if it were a badge of honor. Ironically, this action alone reinforces DiAngelo’s (2018) argument that white
81
progressives uphold and perpetuate racism because of their certitude. In interactions with other White people, Patty tries to separate herself from the “bad” White people by saying, People are crazy. That’s part of my issue now at my institution, and we are in a very conservative bubble. It is still not the most supportive place for People of Color. I wouldn’t
say I don’t belong, but there are moments where I don’t think I fit in. It always comes back
to, well, how can I separate myself? You know, there’s not a sign I can put on my forehead
that says, “Oh yeah, I’m not like that other White person that made you mad.” Patty often
tries to distance herself from her White peers by creating a dichotomy between “good” and “bad” White people. This imaginary binary places Patty safely on the “not racist” side. DiAngelo (2018) unpacks this by stating, “The simplistic idea that racism is limited to individual intentional acts committed by unkind people is at the root of virtually all white defensiveness on this topic...What further action is required of me? No action is required because I am not racist. Therefore, racism is not my problem; it doesn’t concern me and there is nothing further I need to do” (p. 73).
Furthermore, Patty feels that the disadvantage of being white is that it feels like you don’t have a culture. It’s the idea that you’re vanilla. There isn’t culture. There isn’t a richness to it, and I think that part of that comes from whiteness as a norm. If things are
normal, it’s hard for us to identify normal. I also think it’s that dynamic of how do you
identify with your culture and not be a white nationalist? I think that’s the challenge. This
further illuminates Patty’s desire to distance herself from her whiteness. She acknowledges that white culture is normalized within society, yet she immediately names and distances herself from being a white nationalist as part of her culture. In doing so, she creates a wider gap between “good” white culture and “bad” white culture. Consequently, Patty finds solace
82
in knowing that she is in community with People of Color in her personal and professional life. She finds herself more and more actually being the minority, numerically speaking, in the room. Her partner is Black, and most of her closest friends and classmates are People of
Color. She finds herself in spaces where Black folks use the language of ‘it’s for the culture. Patty takes this as a sense of pride. I’m showing pride in their culture. As a self-proclaimed progressive, Patty sees herself as an insider with People of Color and takes great pride in being embraced by a culture other than white.
Lastly, Patty has a strong sense of confidence in herself due to her level of cultural competency through educational classes and trainings. I still am very privileged. I mean, you look at me and you can assume that I’m very privileged, so I think everyone’s kind of used to
that. I have a doctorate, so I’m at a much different place than a newer professional. For me,
it’s a lot easier to be challenged. I’m a lot more open to it than others would be, and I think
some people just aren’t open to discussing whiteness. Self-proclaimed progressives try to
insulate themselves from their whiteness by stating claims of academic knowledge or rhetoric such as “I already know this” or “I’ve taken a class on race.” DiAngelo (2018) shares that all of these responses are examples of white fragility. It is clear that Patty sees herself as “having arrived” and tries to position herself as a “good” White person by separating herself from white culture. Although this is not her intent, her actions and words often do more harm than good in the fight for racial equity.
Mike: The Maintainer
Mike is a composite of two participants who consciously or subconsciously maintain whiteness in higher education. Mike is a White, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender man. He refers to himself as a “what you see is what you get kind of guy.” For
83
better or worse, it is what it is. Mike is content in his role as a White administrator and does
not actively work to question or dismantle whiteness. He buys into the idea that racial
diversity and inclusion are important in higher education but is not motivated to reflect on his own whiteness. Simply put, Mike is comfortable sitting in his whiteness and does not rock the boat because he is afraid it will negatively impact his reputation and credibility. Because whiteness is assumed as the default norm, Mike does not have to think about his racial identity. He has the ability to go through much of his life without self-reflecting and without being challenged to have any racial discomfort. He says, I can pretty easily avoid situations where I have to deal with my white fragility or any level of racial discomfort. This means that
others never question his decision-making in relation to his racial identity, and he has the ability to enter and be comfortable in spaces, whether allowed or not. I have the right to be
in there, to speak, or to make my presence known. He has been conditioned that way since
birth.
In regards to continual learning about racial equity and inclusion, Mike appears to do just enough to get by. When Mike is posed with the question: “What does it mean to be a good White person?” he is dumbfounded. He responds by saying, this is not a phrase that I’ve given a lot of thought. I feel like I’ve heard it before, and it also seems loaded in some
ways. I can’t really unpack that without knowing what’s behind it. I was taught to treat
everyone the same. It feels like a defensive phrase that I’ve heard before.
When Mike is prompted to reflect on an experience in which he remained silent or did not speak out against a racist comment or interaction with a peer, he cannot. Once again, he is perplexed by commenting, It’s a stumper. I’m sure there has. Hmm. That’s a really good question. I don’t know. I mean this is a hard question. I’m sure it probably has
84
happened. I’m very aware that there’s probably a high chance that it did happen. When Mike finally does think of an example, he provides a very sweeping and generic response as if to hide his complacent approach. He explains that during an incident that took place with a