“If I Don’t Use the Word,I Shouldn’t Have to Hear it”

Case Narrative

Truman University is located in a predominately White, Midwestern state. Closely mirroring its state’s racial make-up, of the 30,000 students attending Truman, approximately 85% are White, 7% African American, 3% Latino, 2% Asian, and 3% Other. The racial composition of the 3,000 full-time faculty members at Truman is also majority White at 80%, followed by 15% Asian, and approximately 2.5% for both African Americans and Latinos.

Truman University has a long history of racial tensions. Serving as the locus for a prominent civil rights court case in early 20th century, the university denied admission to an African American student on the basis of his race. The case was significant in terms of marking the beginning of testing the legality of segregation in public schools. The court ruled states providing a school to White students must provide in-state education to African American students as well. However, in the midst of the court battle, the student at the center of the case mysteriously disappeared and is presumed to have been murdered.

In recent years, Truman University has experienced a number of very public hate crimes against African Americans. In one incident, two students were accused of scattering cotton balls outside of the Black Cultural Center during Black History Month, invoking images of slavery. The following year, again during Black History Month, the words “Nigger Month” were spray painted across a sculpture outside of a residence hall. While neither of the incidents was violent in nature, they reflect an undeniable student culture of ignorance and intolerance that some within the university’s administration and faculty had been actively attempting to reform. To make matters worse, coming on the heels of the racial incidents, a proposal that would have required future university students to take at least one diversity-initiative intensive course during their college careers failed in a faculty election. Faculty Council had been discussing the diversity requirement for years and support was thought to have gained traction among faculty, particularly as students, administrators, and employees launched a widely publicized campaign promoting diversity on campus earlier in the same semester.

With such incidents as the contextual backdrop, Nadia Roy, an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Leadership at Truman University, felt it incumbent on the Society, Diversity, and Social Justice (SDSJ) course to realize its role as a forum at the university and within the department’s leadership preparation program where racial issues could be openly confronted. She also felt the course was critical in providing future educators with the tools necessary to lead in an increasingly diverse society. In Nadia’s opinion, it would be a challenge for SDSJ, a required course for all students enrolled in the leadership preparation program, to meet these goals. Nadia’s concerns arose from the fact that over 90% of students enrolled in the program are White, and she perceived these students as having lacked the experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives necessary to facilitate the preparation of socially just and racially aware educational leaders. The majority of SDSJ students come from racially isolated suburban neighborhoods, or are from rural regions where they have limited experiences with people outside of their racial or ethnic groups. In fact, when the previous instructor asked students to complete an informal background survey, between 50% and 75% of students indicated SDSJ provided them with their first exposure to a non-White instructor.

Previously serving as an instructor for a course similar to SDSJ at the undergraduate level, Nadia anticipated several challenges in her new role as the graduate course’s lead instructor. Nadia often found the majority of her undergraduate students to have limited life experiences, narrow perspectives, and the lack of maturity necessary to openly discuss controversial issues of race, socioeconomic status, and societal inequalities. She was also well aware of the race-related tensions brought to the surface within prior SDSJ courses. The instructor who had previously taught the course had a reputation among students as being racist and making students feel uncomfortable and guilty. Nadia was informed by former students that the instructor had a “chip on her shoulder.” Other students used the term “White guilt” to describe the instructor during a classroom discussion that focused on the cultural disconnect between students of color and White educators. Furthermore, a former SDSJ graduate teaching assistant told Nadia he once overheard a student make a racist comment about the instructor and had her removed from the program track.

Nadia was also anxious about the ways in which her own racial identity may play a role in the classroom dynamic. As a Bangladeshi American female, she expressed concerns with the program director as to how she might be received by the students due to her status as a woman of color. Some of Nadia’s colleagues of color expressed difficulty in challenging White students to think about issues of social justice, and why race and racism are real issues that continue to permeate the fabric of our society. These past experiences coupled with the course’s reputation as a forced diversity education requirement made Nadia concerned about how students might respond to the course content.

Despite the challenges she faced, Nadia was looking forward to the opportunity of assuming the role of lead instructor of the SDSJ course. She was excited to finally be able to implement the changes she believed were necessary to help prepare future leaders to successfully lead in diverse communities.

The beginning of the semester started off on a high note. Nadia found students to be receptive to her and her teaching style. Furthermore, they were inquisitive, positive, and willing to engage in class discussions. She had already recognized a handful of students who were particularly outspoken and thoughtful, several of which had met with her before and after class to discuss course content. In addition, many students expressed satisfaction with the first assignment, where they analyzed a documentary for its underlying assumptions and exposed their prejudices and evolving attitudes on the social issue addressed in the film. Nadia hoped this would provide momentum to the rest of the semester. She was also developing confidence as a classroom leader and was working well alongside her graduate teaching assistants, James Robertson and Dara Jackson, who shared her vision and enthusiasm for the course. The two were supportive in managing grades, developing lessons, and offering constructive criticisms of Nadia’s teaching style. It was important to Nadia to serve as a mentor to James and Dara, and she encouraged them to actively participate in class discussions, as they would one day step into the same role as professors at universities.

James and Dara added a unique racial dynamic to the classroom. James is a White male from a small Midwestern town and has classroom experience as a middle school English teacher. Dara, an African American female, has prior experience in early childhood education in the local community as well as experience with the education of genocidal refugees, locally and internationally. Together, the teaching team recognized that besides Nadia and Dara, there were only three other non-White individuals in the classroom: two African American female students and one Palestinian American male student. During course planning, Nadia, James, and Dara often discussed how the university’s predominately White student make-up, as well as past and ongoing struggles with racial hate crimes, may make it difficult for many students to come to grips with their own notions of racial privilege, and thus limit the students’ ability to critically discuss race-related issues. However, they had no way of knowing how those challenges would manifest throughout the semester.

The Incident

It was early spring semester, mid-February, and the current course unit focused on aspects of institutional racism. On the day of the incident, James led the class for the first time as Nadia was out of town at a conference. Dara departed class early for a meeting that day and was not present during the incident. At this point in the semester, students were feeling comfortable with one another and were engaging in difficult discussions about the complex nature of race-related issues with both instructors and classmates.

One of the more vocal students, Gabrielle, approached Nadia early in the semester to express her satisfaction of the course content. As an African American woman, Gabrielle communicated how she appreciated participating in a forum where future leaders were able to confront issues of race and inequality. Prior to the SDSJ course, Gabrielle had not engaged in open and honest conversations about race-related issues in classrooms comprised of predominately White students as such issues were considered taboo and not directly addressed by instructors or students. Throughout the semester, Gabrielle consistently participated in classroom discussions, offering her thoughts on weekly readings, giving personal accounts of her struggles as a person of color, and posing critiques of comments made by her classmates.

Much like Gabrielle, Jessica, a White female student, had increasingly asserted herself in the classroom discussions. Jessica shared with the class that one of her grandparents was integral in the desegregation efforts of her local school district during the 1960s. Jessica was raised in a conservative part of the state; however, she consistently expressed her socially liberal perspectives, posing critical questions in class that often separated her from the majority of her classmates.

Toward the end of class that evening, James began to wrap up the discussion on classroom management techniques when Jessica posed the question, “What should I do if one of my teachers is facilitating a unit focused on literature and asks me if she can use the word ‘nigger’ as it is referenced in the texts?” Students began to murmur as James addressed the question. “Are you asking if your teachers should be able to say it or not?” Jessica responded, “Yes, what are the rules pertaining to the use of offensive language when such terms are included in approved texts?” James replied, “Well, it seems as though your concern is actually about saying the word when the real issue is the discussion that surrounds the word.”

At this point, students began to stir and carry on conversations among themselves. As James explained himself further, students’ immediately raised their hands. Billy, a student who was often active in class discussions, began rehashing an episode of South Park he had seen where characters addressed offensive language during their playing of the game Wheel of Fortune. “The letters on the display board,” Billy explained, “were ‘n,’ space, ‘g,’ ‘g,’ ‘e,’ ‘r,’ ‘s’ and the clue given was ‘people who annoy you.’ Each of the game’s participants were gasping and freaking out because they thought the answer was the ‘n’-word,’ yet it turned out the word was actually ‘naggers.’” A few students snickered, making private comments to each other. Not considering Billy’s comment as a significant contribution to the discussion, James moved the discussion forward. Immediately thereafter, another student explained the importance of having discussions about the word and its historical and social meanings regardless of whether or not the teacher chooses to use it in his or her class.

Gabrielle, who had been outspoken during the conversation, stated, “It is very important to talk about these things in our classes; no one else is having these types of discussions.” James agreed, “This is why we encourage you to talk about these issues, not only in this class but also with your friends and family members. Get comfortable with these discussions. You will be a better leader and educator for it.” With this comment, James wrapped up the class discussion.

The following Saturday afternoon, Nadia received a call from James expressing a number of concerns about what had happened during class while she was out of town. One student, Gabrielle, was particularly troubled with the way the incident was handled in class.

Nadia told James she would email Gabrielle and request a face-to-face meeting to discuss the incident. The following Monday Nadia and Gabrielle met. The conversation proceeded as follows:

The following day, Nadia began class by explaining why race was the focus of the course and an important issue for aspiring leaders to address within preparatory programs. Students were offered methods for confronting conflicts surrounding race and developing a more inclusive school environment. Several students posed questions, gave examples of how problems were (mis)managed in their own schooling experiences, and shared visions of an equitable classroom environment. As planned, Gabrielle took the opportunity to discuss the importance of creating a safe learning environment for all students and how classroom interactions, language, and discipline impede and assist in developing such environments. Gabrielle also expressed how hearing individual stories from people of color and learning from the oftentimes painful experiences may help to inform and develop skills for all people on how to better dialogue about race-related issues.

Gabrielle came into the semester eager to participate in class discussions; her desire was to share her unique perspectives and experiences. Unfortunately, after the race-related incident, this eagerness was curtailed. While she spoke up occasionally, she never stayed after class to chat informally with Nadia, James, or Dara, and she stopped sharing critiques during classroom discussions.

Teaching Notes

While racism has long maintained its position as a dominant force within our public schools and broader society (Brown et al., 2003), the field of educational leadership has been slow to address the ways in which anti-racist curricula and pedagogy should be woven into the coursework of aspiring school leaders (Dantley, 2002; Hawley & James, 2010; Herrity & Glasman, 1999; López, 2003; Parker & Hood, 1995; Parker & Shapiro, 1992; Rusch, 2004; Rusch & Horsford, 2009; Tillman, 2004; Young & Laible, 2000). Yet, this case exemplifies a professional and ethical dilemma that could occur within leadership preparation courses across the nation. In instances such as the one outlined, professors, graduate teaching assistants, and students are tasked with facilitating difficult conversations related to issues of race, racism and race relations. In addition, this is confounded by the fact that professionals within educational leadership programs are oftentimes operating in an ambiguous environment void of pedagogical and professional guidance. As a result, those responsible for the delivery of race-related lessons often engage in, or retreat from, difficult or sensitive topics while concealing personal and professional concerns about the consequences associated with offending students, becoming the targets of an official grievance, and/or being evaluated poorly by students and peers. Although the facilitation of such conversations is often difficult and contested (Milner, 2010; Pollock, 2010), the rapidly shifting context of public schooling suggests education leadership professors and graduate teaching assistants must realize their roles as competent facilitators of critically oriented conversations (Carpenter & Diem, in press; Diem & Carpenter, 2013).

The reflective consideration of the following discussion items can be used to further examine the case. The items may be issued as journal prompts, or as conversation prompts for small group and/or whole group discussions. Those engaging in the reflective consideration of the items listed below should be asked to consider both the contextual complexities of the schools or settings in which they work and the research pertaining to the successful facilitation of race-related conversations.

Items for Consideration and Discussion