Black History Month is for White people

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Ismaël Traoré

As Black History Month approaches I am troubled at the lack of institutional reflexivity and the talk-and-shake-my-head event model that will mark this twenty-first year of commemorating bougie-Blackness. There will be a few panel discussions, public forums, workshops and film viewings where audience members will show shock at the following cliché messages: a) racism exists b) White privilege is real and c) [insert wise comment about] ‘incremental steps’ towards progress. If lucky, we may also learn about the three holy grails of being a White ally: shut up, listen and educate other White people.

This seasonal prepackaged mass production of BHM activities at McMaster is mainly for White people and the majority of the events are organized with the White gaze in mind.

Events tend to reflect respectability politics, an ethic of politeness that reinforces Whiteness by virtue of Whites defining the contours of a ‘polite’ racial discourse, and efforts to prevent potential backlash or ‘White fragility’. We are afraid to disturb this White-dominated institution.

Even in groups and activities created to replace racism with racial equity, Whiteness remains intact.

Here is a cursory list of the workings of Whiteness I have observed at McMaster that limits the scope and breadth of its commitment to inclusivity and diversity. Students, staff, faculty and the administration must be vigilant to not let Whiteness be the logic or reference-point guiding their racial equity work. Such is the only way to pay homage to BHM.

Here are six things to avoid when talking about racial equity during BHM:

1. Loving the word: Declarations of commitment to inclusion and diversity do not inclusion and diversity make. Being against racism does not indicate transcendence of racism. Equity is love in action. We must love to act.

2. Lack of priority and urgency: Racial equity is a peripheral concern for the stakeholders-powerbrokers at the university. Can you believe that it is only last year that the Sociology department hired its first non-white faculty? This explains the incremental, sluggish nature of racial equity. Barely any resources go to racial equity. Racial equity should be one of our top priorities.

3. Outsourcing the work and taking credit: The administration of the university has a tendency to take credit for the often unpaid antiracist labour of individuals and groups in the university that often have no real power beyond advising and awareness-rising. Administration should do the work.

4. External and downwards orientation: Racial equity work in the university often focuses on the student body, faculty, and the general Hamilton community. This is “external and downwards” in that the powerbrokers and stakeholders of the university are often not the intended target of this work and rarely do they come even when invited. Plus, the university is infrequently the subject of critique and change-making. We need an internal and upward orientation.

5. Event as opposed to project oriented: We need less emphasis on the event-based approach and more emphasis on long-term institutional change projects. Faculties should recognize social justice work in their curriculum and hiring criteria. Lakehead University and the University of Winnipeg students must now take a course in Indigenous Studies to graduate. Why not McMaster University?

6. Lack of transparency: Mainly for economic reasons, the university is invested in portraying itself as nonracist. It is hard to find documents and data about the university regarding racism, racial diversity, and racial equity. Hiding behind obscurity prevents genuine progress by creating institutional historical amnesia, fostering selective representation, and hindering grounded and levelheaded critique, assessment, and appraisal. Documents regarding these variables must be made public and user-friendly.

All in all, McMaster is at the “tolerant stage” of its development. It is “tolerant” of racial and cultural differences at the surface, such as the student body, but at the centre, the powerbrokers and stakeholders, it remains White. Though the President’s Office makes public commitment to inclusion and diversity and generously sponsors events on racial equity there needs to be a systematic assessment of its organizational culture, policies, and decision-making processes. There is an unintended paternalism in its tolerant approach that takes the form of “helping” the marginalized rather than turning the investigative gaze on McMaster’s Whiteness.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]