Engaging in meaningful dialogue about race will prepare students to function in a society that is becoming more global and diverse. It is the instructor's duty to create a classroom atmosphere that facilitates meaningful dialogue about race. Although students claim to be open-minded, many harbor negative stereotypes about minorities, especially Blacks. Assumptions about racial inferiority often remain unchanged in the face of contradictory evidence. To engage in meaningful dialogue about race, students must first examine their own beliefs and attitudes. By implementing attentive skills and fostering positive faculty/student interactions, instructors and students can create classrooms that facilitate positive racial discourse, and provide needed productive learning growth and development opportunities for all.
As society becomes more global, American colleges and universities must embrace racial diversity. This inclusiveness requires both teaching and learning about racial issues. The sincerity with which most institutions seek to foster multicultural sensitivity is open to debate. There is, however, little doubt that engaging in meaningful dialogue about race will better prepare students to function in a society that is increasingly becoming more diverse. In order to engage in a meaningful dialogue about race, students must first examine their own beliefs and attitudes (Garrett & Thornton, 1993). According to Garcia and Melendez (1997), students “must confront their experiences, and comprehend their own ethnicity and culture” (p.23).
Many students enroll in school with negative beliefs about race. This attitude follows them into their classes. In the modern interdisciplinary classroom, this is problematic for two reasons. First, beliefs regarding racial attributes are not always sustained by evidence; and second, these beliefs are usually resistant to change. Moreover, once students form beliefs about race, they are obstinate toward new interpretations (Ross et. al., 1982). In addition, and perhaps more troubling, there is evidence that when information is presented in riposte to such racial beliefs, such information serves only to strengthen students’ cognitive convictions (Perry, 1970; Perry, 1981; Nelson, 1989; Strike and Posner, 1985). As such, instructors must overcome “student resilience” when teaching about racial issues. Student resilience refers to students’ ability to apply strategies or coping mechanisms that prevent them from accepting any positive information about racial issues that contradicts their present beliefs.
Resilient presumptions about racial inferiority reflect cognitive errors because such beliefs tend to be unsubstantiated. When discussing race in the classroom, such assumptions are detrimental because they can distort interpretation of new information (Jones & Goethals, 1971) or prevent the student from arriving at logical and meaningful conclusions (Halpern, 1984). Psychologically, race affects how students think, feel, act, and perceive the world. Negative beliefs about race can be harmful to the social and psychological well-being of students.
Instructors are hard-pressed when working with “resilient students” because the students often remain unchanged in the face of challenging or contradictory evidence (Anderson & Hovland, 1957; Danes, Hunter & Woelfel, 1984; Hovland, 1972; Ross et. al., 1975). Resilience may hinder students’ ability to accept alternative explanations (Baron, 1981). Whereas resilience has many positive attributes, it can also serve to reinforce negative stereotypes. For example, when discussing poverty in the African American community, students often blame the victim even when there is evidence of structural racism.
Although most colleges inspire tolerance, and college students like to think that they are accepting of others, contemporary race relations on most college campuses are strained. The quandaries that thwart racial discourse in the classroom can often be interpreted within a socio-legal framework. Stanfield (1992) maintains that Americans often condone “persecutions of those who dared to be different or who could not help being different due to religious affiliation, ethnic identity, impoverished socioeconomic status, political orientation, gender, sexual orientation, age, or race” (p.287).
In the United States, Blacks are the population perceived as having deviated from Eurocentric norms. As a consequence, Blacks often are prone to racism. The historical implementation of racial prejudice against African Americans by the Euro-Americans represents a systematic discrimination that manifests in the “exclusion or relegation of people of color to the margins of American civil and religious practices, social science, textbook history, literature, and other forms of print and electronic media” (Stanfield, 1992, p.287). These practices have fostered the impression that Blacks are not only different from their White counterparts, but are also inferior to them. Racial isolation accentuates an ideology of inferiority.
Blacks and Whites usually exist in racially homogenous communities. In these communities college students are exposed to values and attitudes that shape their perceptions. With their learned attitudes about Blacks, many students develop stereotypes, which are further exacerbated by the media, police brutalities, criminalizing of Blacks and others (Russell, 1998). Considering the matured nature of many students’ stereotypes, an effective and honest discussion of race must be premised in an analytical approach identifying all races as relevant and worthy of positive goodness.
It is the instructor’s duty to create a classroom atmosphere that facilitates meaningful dialogue about race. In the modern classroom, students must be prepared for the dual activity of intellectual prowess and experiential comprehension. Instructors can cultivate an open dialogue about race by engaging in a more general discussion about racial attitudes. This is accomplished by building on student competency, and at the same time encouraging them to think critically about the theoretical constructs that underpin discussion on racial matters.
For both Whites and Blacks, engaging in conversations related to race evokes negative emotions. Yet, when these students are confronted with arguments to mitigate their levels of defense mechanisms, a profound interpersonal environment of growth and learning occurs. For instructors who wish to engage in meaningful dialogue about race, there are at a minimum three elements that they should consider: (1) instructor/student interaction; (2) attentive skills; and (3) teaching modality. These conditions in the classroom are essential in promoting productive learning environments.
Developing a positive relationship with students in a course must occur on two levels. The first level is to accept the students as a group. The instructor must be aware of group conformance, and plan for those students who cannot adhere to peer pressure. The second level refers to personal interaction between the student and the instructor. Students learn best when they have a good rapport with the instructor (Banks, 1993; Hernandez, 2001; Pokewitz, 1987; Swartz, 1989). Therefore, the instructor must convey respect for the student, regardless of that student’s philosophical position. Respect does not mean that the instructor must agree with the student; rather, it means that the instructor treats the student as a valued member of the class (Benjamin & Schwartz, 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1993). When both the instructor and the student exercise mutual respect, discussions will rarely get out of control. If there is a personal attack during a classroom discussion, then the instructor should immediately take the position of the student who is being attacked. It does not matter whether the instructor agrees with the position of the person who is being personally challenged. What is important is that the instructor makes explicit efforts to encourage the free expression of ideas within the classroom. This way, all students are encouraged to participate in classroom discussion with absolute ease.
Through verbalization and body language, the skilled instructor communicates that he or she is fostering positive racial dialogue. Body language reflects rudiments of attentive skills. This includes the affective use of tone, pace, body position and even eye-contact. When conversing about race, instructors must constantly watch for nonverbal cues from students. Attentive skills are especially important because many students have little or no experience in racial discourse. It should also be noted that body language varies from culture to culture and from individual to individual (Atkinson, Morton & Sue, 1989; Sue & Sue, 1990). For example, African Americans often avoid direct eye contact when speaking to those in authority. In the classroom, instructors who are unfamiliar with this aspect of Black culture could easily surmise that the student is being disrespectful, or that the student lacks confidence. Accordingly, instructors should not assume that their attentive skills are appropriate for all students either.
Students have disparate learning styles (Cronbach, 1975; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Bloom, 1981). Some students learn best through visual presentations, while others understand by merely reading the text (Murray, 1990; Brown & DeCoster, 1991). Still, others learn most effectively by working in small groups (Meyers & McCaulley, 1985; Bloom et. al., 1981; Claxton & Ralston, 1978). Because students learn in different ways, instructors should use a variety of teaching methodologies to maximize learning (Andrews, 1981; Lyons-Lawrence, 1994). In the classroom, racial discourse usually elicits students’ personal narratives. All such dialogue should be handled meritoriously. Instructors also need to be mindful that some students feel assailable when speaking in front of a class. Activities such as personal essays, journal writings, and small group projects can be utilized in an effort to make students feel more comfortable speaking about issues of prejudice, privilege, and discrimination.
Discourse about issues of race is synonymous to diversity. Engaging students in positive dialogues broadens discussions and causes students to re-examine their beliefs. Whatever the modality, perspective sharing allows students to engage in meaningful dialogue about race (Ansley, 1991). Because racial discourse in America is underpinned by theoretical constructs, students are likely to developmentally move to the following levels:
There is little doubt that some students will be uncomfortable engaging in racial discourse no matter what the instructor does to create a supportive classroom environment. Students who are unable to handle discomfort often will displace or project their discomfort onto instructors (Gabbidon, 2002). These students find it is easier to espouse instructor incompetence rather than accept personal responsibility for their own biases. Instructors should, therefore, strive to steer discussion away from differences to decrease emotional tensions within the classroom. Stressing commonalities tends to be beneficial to discussants, especially on matters of race, culture and religion.
An analysis of the benefits of racial discourse in the classroom is beyond the scope of this paper. It is, however, clear that interracial dialogue and cross-cultural exchanges create a framework for students to acknowledge and validate diversity. Instructors must employ teaching strategies that allow students to reach their full potential. In a globalized world, educators must teach students to respect human variations. Faculty members can no longer confine racial discourse to “selected courses,” or confine racial dialogue to those classes that are factually diverse. Advanced technology in communication has made each classroom part of the global village. Hence, today’s students are not merely classroom participants but are citizens of the world.
Students in today’s classrooms need to study the issues raised by global diversity. Tolerance, co-existence and acceptance of racial diversity can be assured through sincere dialogue, awareness and sensitivity (Lowy, 1998; Banks, 1995). Students need to acquire knowledge about each aspect of diversity, including ethnicity, class, sex, gender, religion and sexual orientation. Discussing racial issues should not be limited to isolated “culture studies” courses. Instead, meaningful dialogue about race should be expanded in classrooms where students work independently and interdependently in an effort to resolve conflicts, and to build communities of care, understanding and appreciation for each other (Hogan-Garcia, 2003). Diversity in the Americas ought to be celebrated.
Students often have negative beliefs about certain racial groups, and tend to cling to these beliefs even when presented with new information. Racial discourse is powerful because it creates and shapes social relationships. To engage in meaningful dialogue about race, students must first examine their own beliefs and attitudes. Although students claim to be open-minded, many are prejudiced against Blacks. Resilience can reinforce negative stereotypes. “Resilient prejudice” against Blacks is insidious and damaging to the psychological health of both the perpetrator and victim. Engaging in positive dialogues about race causes students to re-evaluate their beliefs, and subsequently break down “resilient prejudice.” Hence, it is believed that effective racial discourse lies in an analytical approach to racial relevance. Faculty members are encouraged to design classrooms that facilitate racial discourses, and thus provide productive learning experiences, facilitative of the growth and development of all students.
Anderson, N. H., & Hovland, C. (1957). The representation of order effects in communication research. In C. Hovland (Ed.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Andrews, J. D. W. (1981). Teaching format and student’s style: Their interactive effects on learning. Research in Higher Education, 14:161-78.
Ansley, F. (1991). Race and the core curriculum in legal education. California Law Review, 1511:79.
Atkinson, D. R., Morton, G., & Sue, D. (1989). Counseling American minorities. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. Journal of Negro Education, 64: 390-400.
Baron, J. (1981). Reflective thinking as a goal of education. Intelligence, 5: 291-309.
Benjamin, S., & Schwartz, W. (1995). When less is more: A devil’s advocate position on standards. English Journal, 83: 28-30.
Bloom, B. (1981). All our children learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. G., & Hasting, J. R. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boerman-Cornell, W. (1999). The five humors. English Journal, 88: 66-69.
Brown, V. L., & DeCoster, D. A. (1991). The Myers-Briggs type indicator as a developmental measure: Implications for student learners in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 32: 378-79.
Claxton, C. S., & Ralston, I. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and administration. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30: 116-27.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington.
Danes, J. E., Hunter, J., & Woelfel, J. (1984). Belief change and accumulated information. In J. Hunter & S. Cohen (Eds.), Mathematical models of attitude change: Change in single attitudes and cognitive structure. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gabbidon, S. (2002). Exploring the role of race and course content in criminal justice course evaluations: A case study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13: 10-112.
Garcia, B., & Melendez, M. (1997). Concepts and methods in teaching oppression courses. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 8: 23-40.
Garrett, K. J., & Thornton, S. (1993). Crossing cultures with sensitivity: Teaching ethnic diversity in social work practice. Paper presented at the annual program meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, New York, March.
Halpern, D. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hernandez, H. (2001). Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to linking context, process and content. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hogan-Garcia, M. (2003). The four skills of cultural diversity competence: A process for understanding and practice (2nd ed.). CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Hovland, C. (1972). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. American Behavioral Scientist, 37: 40-53.
Jones, E., & Goethals, G. (1971). Order effect in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. In E. E. Jones, et. al. (Eds.). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Langford, G. (1986). The philosophical basis of cognition and metacognition. In L. C. Antaki & A. Lewis (Eds.), Mental mirrors: Metacognition in social knowledge and communication. London: Sage Publications.
Lowy, R. (1998). Development theory, globalism, and the new world order: The need for a postmodern antiracist and multicultural critique. Journal of Black Studies, 28: 594-615.
Lyons-Lawrence, C. L. (1994). Effect of learning style on performance in using computer- based instruction in office systems. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 36(3): 166-75.
Meyers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Murray, J. B. (1990). Review of research on the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70: 1187-1202.
Nelson, C. E. (1989). Skewered on the unicorn’s horn: The illusion of tragic tradeoff between content and critical thinking in the teaching of science. In L. W. Crow (Ed.), Enhancing critical thinking in the sciences. Washington, DC: Society for College Science Teachers.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Popkewitz, T. (1987). The formation of school subjects. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Ross, L., Lepper, M. H., & Hubbard, M. R. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 880-892.
Ross, L. &. Anderson, C. A. (1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A.Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 129-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, K. (1998). The color of crime. New York: New York University Press.
Stanfield, J. H. (1992). Ethnic pluralism and civic responsibility in post-cold war America. Journal of Negro Education, 61: 287-300.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Swartz, E. (1989). Multicultural curriculum development. Rochester, NY: City School District.
Tatum, T. (1999). Cruel and unusual punishment (LOW humor is better than NO humor). English Journal, 88: 62-68.
© Radical Pedagogy