their response is often, "But that's just academia." "Yes, That's Right!" I answer, "that's structural racism!" Then they sometimes say, "But doesn't that stink for everyone? How can it be racist if it doesn't have origins in an attempt to keep blacks out? doesn't this also keep women and poor people out? Don't these assumptions about social life harm people who aren't black?" "Yes, that's right!" "So, how is it racist?" "Because it has the effect of keeping blacks out, making them feel uncomfortable, making them drop out, get poorer grads." (sometimes i have extremely individualist students who say, "tough luck; they should buck up and get with the program and quit whining" (then i show stats on numbers in college, on attrition rates, on extremely low numbers in grad school, etc) "But it keeps others out, too, right?" they ask. "Yep, see, here are the numbers on women and poor, working class whites" "So, how is it racist?" "Well, it's not just racist, but also sexist and classist" "Why call it racist then?" (and if you were talking to them, they'd say, so why be in favor of getting rid of whiteness, when there are also problems with maleness and classness (for lack of better word there)
((((((((((
CB: Insightlful discussion, in my opinion, Kelley. I realize that the response "it is both racist and anti-working class, or all three" probably wouldn't sink in for some reason. Working class black people have less chance than white working class people. Petit bourgeois black people have less chance than petit bourgeois white people. Working class whites have less chance than petit bourgeois whites. That would make it racist and anti-working class both. And the two are linked in a system.
(((((((
invariably someone pipes up:
"wait a minute, it's good to encourage competitiveness -- and what's wrong with individualism, anyway? are you a commie?"
:) ad nauseum.
i usually hand out Iris marion Youn'gs work on "the five faces of oppression."
kelley