Sandy, Jim and Karen work at a downtown community centre where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism (she and Jim are both white). On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?
If you answered that Sandys first move should be to talk to Karen, and ask how Jims behaviour made her feel, you are apparently a better anti-racist than me.
That, for what its worth, was the preferred solution offered by my instructor at Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism, a four-part evening workshop for community activists, presented earlier this year at the Toronto Womens Bookstore.
My own answer, announced in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discreetly, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community centre could give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a colour-blind manner, on a no-names basis.
The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian, Jim. I wasnt treating Karen like a full human being who might have thoughts and worries at variance with the superficially friendly workplace attitude.
Moreover, I was guilty of democratic racism by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as due process, constantly demanding clear evidence of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. It seems were always looking for more proof, said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist whos been teaching this course for several years. When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut.
I felt the urge to pipe up at this. Racism is either a serious charge or its not. And if it is, as everyone in this room clearly believed, then it cannot be flung around casually without giving the accused a chance to explain his actions. But I said nothing, and nodded my head along with everyone else. Id come to this class not to impose my democratic racism on people, but to observe.
Most of the other 13 students were earnest, grad-student types in their 20s too young to remember the late 1980s and early 1990s, when political correctness first took root on college campuses. The jargon I heard at the bookstore took me back to that age albeit with a few odd variations. Allyship has replaced solidarity in the anti-racist lexicon, for instance, when speaking about inter-racial activist partnerships. I also heard one student say she rejected the term gender-neutral as sexist, and instead preferred gender-fluid. One did not have a gender or sexual orientation; the operative word is perform as in, Sally performs her queerness in a very femme way.
The instructors Cold War-era Marxist jargon added to the retro intellectual vibe. Like just about everyone in the class, she took it for granted that racism is an outgrowth of capitalism, and that fighting one necessarily means fighting the other. At one point, she asked us to critique a case study about Cecilia, a community activist who spread a message of tolerance and mutual respect in her neighbourhood. Cecilias approach was incomplete, the instructor informed us, because she neglected to sound the message that classism is a form of oppression. The real problem faced by visible minorities in our capitalist society isnt a lack of understanding, its the fundamentally inequitable nature of wage labour.