The “Not-So-Final Remark”

Abstract

This project examines white student learning in the Intergroup People of Color-White People Dialogues (POC-WHITE) and Intragroup White Racial Identity Dialogues (IWRID) at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast. Specifically, in this article, we explore the following research question: At the conclusion of the dialogues, how do white students conceptualize their white racial identity in relation to ally development and motivation to engage in antiracist action? Through content analyses of student papers, this study advances our understanding of how white students make sense of alliance building in an effort to create social change; it also extends national efforts to conduct research on inter/intragroup dialogues and their impact on white students.

Keywords

intergroup dialogue intragroup dialogue whiteness white racial identity ally development

The title of this essay is “not-so-final remark” because this will not be the last time I talk about race, racism, triggers, color-blindness, and all of the other issues we dialogued about. Because of this course, my facilitators, the nine other members, and my ability to care, I pledge to work in favor of the struggle to end racism. (Zoe)

Brunsma and Brown (2012:2) begin with the premise that many white students enter historically white institutions (HWIs) unknowingly engulfed within “walls of whiteness” that are difficult to penetrate and are often reinforced by the curricular and co-curricular opportunities within U.S. colleges and universities. These authors, as well as others (e.g., Bush 2011; Chaisson 2004; Ford 2012), cite the importance of semester-long classes utilizing creative pedagogies to engage with racialized content and process-related goals in an attempt to dismantle these walls. Inter- and intragroup dialogue courses on race are potential interventions that have recently gained increased national attention in the relevant literature for their emphasis on social justice education as a means of promoting personal and interpersonal change among their participants (for more, see recent publications, including Ford 2012; Ford and Malaney 2012; Nagda et al. 2009; Sorensen et al. 2009).

Inter- and Intragroup Dialogue Pedagogy¹

Zúñiga et al. (2007) define intergroup dialogue as a facilitated, face-to-face encounter that aims to cultivate meaningful engagement between members of two or more social identity groups that have a history of conflict. Its objective is to provide a space for students to explore commonalities and differences, examine structures of power and privilege, and work toward equality and social justice. While socially constructed and historically contingent (Tatum 2003), a race dialogue would bring together students who self-identify as people of color with students who self-identify as white (POC-WHITE). The pedagogical components that distinguish semester-long intergroup dialogue courses from more traditional courses include establishing: (1) structured interaction, (2) active and engaged learning that balances both content and process knowledge, and (3) facilitated learning environment led by two trained peer-leaders (Nagda et al. 2009; Zúñiga et al. 2007).

Although intergroup dialogue is one of the most common social justice education practices, increasingly dialogue practitioners are offering intragroup dialogue courses to support the exploration of a single group identity, like whiteness, through the White Racial Identity Dialogue (IWRID) (Adams, Bell, and Griffin 2007; Tatum 2003). Structurally and pedagogically similar to POC-WHITE, in the IWRID, white students meet together to explore common experiences, issues of power and privilege, and the meaning of whiteness in relation to their multiple group identities.

In a previous paper, Ford (2012) documents the pre- and posttest outcomes for white students enrolled in the intergroup POC-WHITE and the intragroup IWRID at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast. This article expands on this research by focusing on one of the posttest learning outcomes: white students’ willingness to assume personal responsibility for creating social change by becoming white allies. Specifically, in this article, we explore the following research question:

Research Question: At the conclusion of the inter- and intragroup dialogues, how do white students conceptualize their white racial identity in relation to ally development and motivation to engage in antiracist action?

By understanding if, and how, inter/intragroup dialogues facilitate a willingness to engage in allying actions, it becomes possible to further our understanding of social justice pedagogies and their implications for campus climate at HWIs.

Conceptual Framework

Tatum (2003:108) argues that “there is a history of whites who have resisted the roles of oppressor and who have been allies to people of color. Unfortunately these whites are often invisible to us.” In this article, we hope to make the voices of emerging white allies more visible through the narratives of white college students. According to Kivel (1996:86), “Being an ally to people of color is an ongoing strategic process in which we look at our personal and social resources, evaluate the environment we have helped to create and decide what needs to be done.” Furthermore, he argues that a strong white ally must possess certain characteristics, including: respecting others, fully engaging without co-opting the process, taking risks, listening actively, and the ability to continue speaking up (Kivel 1996:102). Likewise, Kendall (2006) contends that there is a difference between being supportive and being an ally. The latter involves actively choosing to become an agent of change rather than entering into a hierarchical relationship to “help” someone else or “take care of the other.” Extrapolating from these definitions, for this project, we define a white ally as a person who consciously commits, attitudinally and behaviorally, to an ongoing, purposeful engagement with and active challenging of white privilege, overt and subtle racism, and systemic racial inequalities for the purpose of becoming an agent of change in collaboration with, not for, people of color.

To explore the outcomes related to the POC-WHITE and IWRID dialogues, this article begins by providing an overview of relevant literature on whiteness and white ally development. It also considers critiques of whiteness studies and identifies gaps in the relevant literature, with a particular focus on white ally research within inter/intragroup dialogue courses. Next, it explains the research methodology and presents four central themes, as well as many subthemes, that highlight white students’ ally-related learning in the dialogues. Finally, it concludes with a discussion of the implications of racial ally work and the support needed for white students to continue to engage with social justice issues in college and beyond.

Literature Review

Whiteness Studies

According to Hardiman and Keehn (2012:122), whiteness, depending on the disciplinary perspective, may be defined as a “position,” an “identity,” or a “discourse.” Moreover, recent conceptualizations of whiteness incorporate the concept of “subjectivities.” Kellington (2002:157), for instance, argues: “An exploration of white subjectivities allows for the examination of whiteness, as a set of evolving, multiply layered and potentially contradictory discourses rather than as a set of attitudes towards a unified, stable ‘thing’ called whiteness.” Although whiteness studies is not a new area of exploration (see Roediger 1991), recent iterations of research on whiteness tend to focus on the extent to which white people in the United States understand their racial identities and related privileges within racialized power structures (Hardiman and Keehn 2012; Hartmann, Gerteis, and Croll 2009).

As noted by Ford (2012), much of the relevant literature on whiteness focuses on three areas: (1) longitudinal studies documenting white attitudinal changes (Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Kinder and Sanders 1996; Sniderman and Piazza 1993; Schumann et al. 1997), (2) theoretical models of white racial identity development (Hardiman 1994; Hardiman and Jackson 1992; Helms 1990, 1995, 2008; Rowe, Bennett, and Atkinson 1994; Tatum 2003), and (3) empirical examinations of the differing experiences of white people in the United States (Hartigan 1997, 1999, 2001; Johnson 2006; Kendall 2006; McDermott and Samson 2005; Rothenberg 2002). First, while many of these quantitative studies reveal changes in the racial attitudes of white people over time, it is unclear if this research reflects substantive behavioral change (Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Bonilla-Silva 2014; Schumann et al. 1997). In particular, these scholars note a potential disconnect between presenting racially just beliefs and taking racially just actions. In his research on white people’s “race talk,” Bonilla-Silva (2014:102–05), for instance, finds that behavioral questions often yield standard answers (e.g., “some of my best friends are black”) that do not align with actual lived experience or meaningful commitments to anti-racism work.

The second area of research highlights racial identity development frameworks. Helms (1990, 1995, 2008) identifies six stages of white identity development; the final stage is “autonomy,” which signifies a self-actualized anti-racist understanding of whiteness, its implications, and its related responsibilities. Rowe et al. (1994), in contrast, focus on white racial consciousness, ranging from “unachieved” to “achieved” racial attitudes. These frameworks, as well as others, strive to theoretically understand the stages in a white person’s racial identity development that signify shifts in racial knowledge and awareness.

The third scholarly approach to the topic is in response to critiques that emerged in relation to previous iterations of whiteness studies; it will be elaborated on in the following section.

Critiques of Whiteness Studies

Third wave whiteness scholars challenge whiteness studies to move away from essentialist notions of white racial identity and to instead focus on white identity as fluid, dependent on the socio-historical context, and complicated by various intersectional identities (Bonnett 1996, 1997; Eichstedt 2001; Ford 2012; Frankenberg 1993; Hartigan 1997, 1999, 2001; Hartmann et al. 2009; Hughey 2012; McDermott and Samson 2005; McKinney 2005). For instance, in White Bound, Hughey (2012) studies the similarities and differences between white anti-racist activists and white nationalists. He advocates for rethinking racial dichotomies that depict white people as either “good” or “bad,” as both groups, according to him, are in search of idealized forms of white racial identities. Instead, whiteness should be viewed as an ongoing, multidimensional process that varies by location, historical era, culture, and intersecting identities (Hughey 2012).

Additionally, scholars like Hartmann et al. (2009) and McDermott and Samson (2005) note that much of the empirical research, with the exception of the attitudinal studies, on whiteness in the United States, has been qualitative, rather than quantitative, in nature; consequently, the absence of standard measurements of whiteness: (1) further marginalizes the field among skeptics and (2) inhibits theoretical development. Lastly, Lewis (2004:624) states,

Because of the increasing prevalence of color-blind ideology, the very nature of ‘white experience’ today makes it difficult to study. However, research on whiteness must not fall prey to focusing on whites only when they are claiming white identities most loudly or explicitly.

This is especially important given that many white people do not consider themselves members of a racial group (Lewis 2004).

White Ally Studies

In addition, recent research on whiteness has started to identify conceptual models of ally development (Bishop 1994; Broido 2000; Broido and Reason 2005; Cabrera 2012; Case 2012; Edwards 2006; Eichstedt 2001; Kendall 2006; Reason 2007; Reason, Millar, and Scales 2005; Roosa, Scares, and Reason 2005; Smith and Redington 2010). Bishop (1994:13), for instance, highlights six fundamental steps related to ally work: (1) understanding oppression, (2) understanding the varying forms of oppression, (3) consciousness and healing, (4) working for self-liberation, (5) developing as an ally, and (6) maintaining hope. Further, Edwards (2006) builds off of previous theoretical models, including Helms (1990, 2005, 2008) and others, and outlines three stages of ally development: (1) ally for self-interest works on individual interventions rather than acknowledging how he or she is implicated with the larger structural system of racism, (2) ally for altruism works for members of target groups who he or she sees as victims in a (sometimes) patronizing effort to do the “right” thing, and (3) ally for social justice works with members of oppressed groups, acknowledges his or her role in the racist system, and connects with other agent group members.

In order to negotiate this “problematic identity,” Eichstedt (2001:449) cites Alcoff (1998) who argues that white people must develop their own “double consciousness” wherein they acknowledge the historical and structural advantages but also are aware of the many “white traitors to white privilege” who have worked toward racial equality. In Eichstedt’s (2001) exploratory interviews with white allies, the interviewees emphasize the importance of first claiming their white racial identities and acknowledging their white privilege before being able to move forward as allies. Furthermore, she examines the ways that white allies must navigate the negative and oppressive aspects of whiteness while simultaneously coping with white guilt and empowering themselves to create change.

In another study of white social justice allies, Broido (2000) outlines a model of college student ally development based on the experiences of six white college students. She documents white students’ transition from precollege beliefs in meritocracy to a critical understanding of institutional oppression through academic courses, personal readings, interactions with members of both agent and target groups, and international travel. Moreover, active engagement with this newfound information resulted in an increased sense of confidence in themselves and their ability to speak about social justice issues. Then, Broido and Reason (2005) examine the factors that influence and support ally behavior among white college students, arguing that precollege involvement in social justice work, institutional structures at the college, diversity-related coursework and co-curricular activities, and interactions with diverse peers all contribute to the development of social justice allies.

Finally, Kendall (2006) explores the costs, limitations, and sacrifices white allies must make to fully embrace an antiracist identity; consequently, some scholars (Reason et al. 2005; Roosa et al. 2005; Smith and Redington 2010) emphasize the need for like-minded role models to provide ongoing support in this journey.

Critiques of White Ally Studies

While a central framework for understanding white antiracism work, white ally studies can also be potentially fraught in how they are conceptualized and/or applied. One critique of the ally development model is that social norms dictate when and how allies choose to intervene. Accordingly, Edwards (2006:42), citing Berkowitz (2003), argues that allyship should not be dependent on peer approval.

The “guilty White liberal” (Tatum 2003:106) who seeks to “help” people of color can also be intrinsically linked to the white ally development model in problematic ways. As Edwards (2006:45) explains, “A White student may vilify other White people’s racism as a way of establishing his/her own credibility as a racial ally.” This resistance leads some white people to intellectualize concepts of socialization and domination without ever meaningfully engaging with the ways he or she benefits from the oppression of others. In sum, claiming the ally identity can serve as a defense mechanism and allow for continued oppressive behavior without ever fully embodying or understanding true allyship.

White Ally and Dialogue Studies

Although intergroup dialogue emerged at the University of Michigan in 1988, literature on the topic represents a small but growing field within academia. In particular, a multi-university study across nine different colleges/universities reflects one of the most systematic research projects that quantitatively and qualitatively document the attitudinal and behavioral changes in both white students and students of color, including: (1) increased self-reflexivity about issues of power and privilege, (2) heightened awareness of the institutionalization of race and racism in the United States, (3) improved cross-racial interaction, (4) diminished fear about race-related conflict, and (5) increased participation in social change actions (Ford 2012). According to Nagda et al. (2009), students who participate in intergroup dialogues experience these outcomes to a more significant extent than students in a control group or students enrolled in social science courses, due to the intentional combination of content and process learning (Ford 2012).

While recent research does explore the relationship between whiteness and ally development, less is empirically and qualitatively understood about if and how inter- or intragroup dialogues might contribute to white college students’ understanding of how to become an effective white anti-racist ally. Alimo (2012) explicitly engages with intergroup dialogue pedagogy and its potential benefits. In the aforementioned multi-university study across nine institutions, Alimo (2012) reveals that of the two measures important to the development of social justice allies, confidence in taking action and frequency of taking action, only the latter produced statistically significant results in comparison to the control group. In other words, participants in the POC-WHITE dialogues reported higher levels of engaging in anti-racist action than the control group but did not differ in terms of levels of confidence in taking action.

Gurin-Sands and Gurin (2012:60) also examine the effects of intergroup dialogues, like the POC-WHITE, on undergraduate students by testing a theoretical model “of how intergroup dialogue is expected to encourage frequency of acting to educate others and to collaborate with others.” Through a multi-university study of 52 intergroup dialogues and 52 control groups, the authors find that dialogue pedagogy, developed communication processes, and engagement with emotions all influenced the amount that students wrote about educating others and taking action in their final papers. Awareness of the factors that contribute to greatest student engagement with the topic can help instructors to structure their dialogues in a way that fosters students’ drive to take action and become allies.

While the work of Alimo (2012) and Gurin-Sands and Gurin (2012) is valuable, scholarship in the field is limited; as such, the research needs to be expanded so that we can better understand how the POC-WHITE and the IWRID courses contribute to white students’ enhanced attitudinal and/or behavioral commitment to white ally work and antiracist action.

Methodology²

This research takes place at a small private liberal arts college in the Northeast. In accordance with national trends within higher education, women outnumber men on campus, 60% and 40%, respectively. In terms of racial demographics, approximately 25% of students self-identify as people of color and 75% identify as white.

Within this context, a content analysis (Berg 2007) was used to qualitatively explore white students’ learning in the inter/intragroup dialogues from the 2009–2012 academic years. White students interested in participating in a two-credit, peer-facilitated race dialogue were either enrolled in the POC-WHITE or IWRID.

At this particular college, the courses were offered as 200-level, interdisciplinary, elective, letter-graded courses on race. Within a 10-person dialogue led by two trained peer-facilitators,³ the inter/intragroup dialogues merged theoretical knowledge on race and racism with affective learning and communication skills. The primary distinction between the courses was the emphasis on learning about race (generally) and whiteness (specifically) across or within participants’ racial identity group.

The students are selected for the dialogues through an application process in which they are asked to self-identify their race and gender, rank order their topical preferences, and answer a few questions regarding their hopes for the dialogue process. In total, the sample consisted of 58 white students enrolled in the POC-WHITE (n = 38) and IWRID (n = 20) dialogues. Based on Ford’s (2012) work, we expected to find differences between the POC-WHITE and IWRID outcomes. Though there were no significant differences across the dialogues, we included findings from both sections in order to maintain a larger sample size. Additionally, we differentiate between them throughout the article in order to highlight, and provide exemplars of, when and how white students experience similar outcomes in both dialogue settings.

Forty-six of the participants self-identified as women, nine as men, one as a transgendered man, one as a fluid man, and one as a fluid woman. These traditional college-aged students represented a range of other group and social identities, including differing class years, nationalities, religious affiliations, sexualities, and social classes.

As this work is an extension of Ford’s (2012) research, the limitations are comparable: first, this small, non-random sample does not allow us to generalize across other contexts or subpopulations; second, due to the voluntary nature of the courses, the sample represents a self-selected group of students who might be predisposed to engaging with race and social justice issues; and, finally, this cross-sectional analysis does not allow us to discern trends in white students’ ally development over time. Despite these shortcomings, this research provides an in-depth look at how white students engage with the concept white allyship.

An inductively derived qualitative analysis of an eight-page final paper allowed for a nuanced exploration of white students’ articulation of race, racial identity, and racism after completing the POC-WHITE or IWRID dialogues. While the dialogue curriculum requires both preliminary and final papers from each student, this study focuses solely on analysis of the final papers due to students’ lack of reference to notions of white ally development in the preliminary papers. The final paper required students to critically reflect on their experiences with and understandings of race by addressing three topical areas: (1) social identities, (2) social structures, and (3) dialogue experiences. Specifically, the papers explored questions such as: What does it mean to you to be a white person? What, if any, has been the impact of this dialogue on your knowledge about being a white person in the United States? How, if at all, do you expect to use what you have learned in the future?

Upon completion of the dialogue, the final papers of consenting students were assigned a number and cleaned of any personally identifiable information; pseudonyms were also used to protect the identities of the participants. To address issues of trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Shenton 2004), papers were coded by the two authors, an African American woman and a biracial Hispanic and white woman, as well as five former peer-facilitators of differing racial identities who were trained as research assistants. To account for researcher positionality in the use of the established research protocol, each paper was reviewed by at least three members of the team. In addition, reflexivity, or systematically reflecting on the research process through researcher memoing and debriefing, was used to remain attuned to potential subjectivities and biases in the collection and interpretation of the data (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Shenton 2004).

While the diversity of the research team was strategically employed to allow for various perspectives to surface, the principle researcher nonetheless recognizes that the identities of the research team ultimately influenced the ways in which the team co-created meaning in the analysis of the collected data. This meaning-making process first involved reading each paper several times and engaging in line-by-line hand-coding to identify any sociological phenomena that emerged in the data. Through open coding, the identified words or phrases were categorized into a running list of themes and subthemes. This enabled the research team to develop a coding scheme that was subsequently organized and applied to all of the papers using the QSR N-Vivo software program. Then, keyword and thematic searches allowed the researchers to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the data, reconsider or refine previous schemas, and focus on core emergent themes. Finally, by developing conceptual and theoretical memos themes from the final papers were compared to discern common patterns across the students’ narratives (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 1995).

Results

Throughout the 58 final papers, most of the students grappled with how to develop an affirmative relationship with their white racial identity (Hardiman 1994; Hardiman and Jackson 1992; Helms 1990, 1995, 2008). Megan, a white woman from an upper-middle-class background, for instance, notes, “By working toward social justice and refusing to use my whiteness to subjugate others, I can at least reinvent my white racial identity in positive terms for myself.” Like Megan, many of the students in this sample worked to develop stronger and more nuanced connections to their whiteness in hopes of fostering productive growth and development.

What follows is a more extensive account of the four major themes and related subthemes that inductively emerged in the data across the POC-WHITE and IWRID sections as the students worked to dismantle the “walls of whiteness” (Brunsma and Brown 2012; Bush 2011); it also includes representative examples from each. Many of these themes extend the findings in Ford’s (2012) article and underscore the students’ posttest relationship between understanding whiteness and ally development. The first theme highlights the defining characteristics of white allies. More concretely, as the students worked to develop a positive racial identity by becoming white allies, recurrent patterns across the POC-WHITE and IWRID included: (1) developing an increased awareness of their white racial identity, (2) recognizing the invisibility of whiteness, (3) acknowledging the privileges inherent in whiteness, (4) identifying their own racial biases, and (5) taking responsibility for creating social change. The second theme highlights the differing approaches to becoming white allies. In particular, the data revealed a distinction between students who conceptualized white ally work using a “helping” versus “collaborating” narrative. The former reflected a more self-serving mentality of being a “good white person” while the latter reflected a more critical understanding of how to work “with,” not “for,” people of color. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges of becoming white allies and the support systems needed for white allies (themes three and four, respectively). The themes outlined previously and in Table 1 will be elaborated on in the following subsections.

Table 1.

Themes.

(1) Defining Characteristics of White Allies

• Developing awareness of white racial identity and learning about oneself

• Recognizing the invisibility of one’s white racial identity

• Acknowledging privileges inherent in whiteness

• Identifying racism in oneself

• Taking responsibility for creating social change

○ Move beyond guilt

○ Break the silence

(2) Approaches to Becoming White Allies

• Helping narrative

○ “Good white person”

• Collaborating narrative

○ “Working with, not for, people of color”

(3) Challenges of Becoming White Allies

• “Traitor” status

• Emotional burnout

(4) Support Systems Needed for White Allies

• White role models

Defining Characteristics of White Allies

Developing Awareness of White Racial Identity and Learning about Oneself

A prominent theme that emerged in students’ final papers was a shared need to continue investigating and deconstructing the nuances of their white identities (see e.g., Ford 2012). Doane (1997:379) cites Terry’s (1981) observation, “to be white in America is not to have to think about it”; however, the dialogue pedagogy helped many of these students become more conscious of their whiteness. For example, Mason writes, “I hope to continue educating myself about my identity as a white heterosexual male and just what [that] means in today’s society.” Additionally, Taylor notes, “My own white racial identity is continuing to develop, and I will push myself as far as I can along this continuum towards anti-racism with the help of other white allies and the guidance of writings on race.” By acknowledging that their white racial identity development work is an ongoing process, these students leave room for self-improvement and growth.

Many students also expressed that the dialogues had prompted a journey of critical self-reflection and yet stated the need to further explore their whiteness, specifically as a means of becoming more effective white allies. For example, Madison asserts:

Before I focus on making changes in society at large, I think it is important to educate myself on race issues and discover ways in which race has played a role in my own life. Although IGR has begun this process for me, I still need to do more searching and discovering within myself before I can really figure out ways to combat racism.

Students also discussed a newfound interconnectedness between their white racial identities and the process of becoming white allies; in some cases, the two identities are synonymous: “After being in this dialogue being white also means being a white ally” (Elizabeth).

Recognizing the Invisibility of One’s White Racial Identity

Related to the previous theme, students wrote about the invisibility of whiteness and the feeling of racelessness that many white people experience (Frankenberg 1993, 2001; Lewis 2004; McKinney 2005). Furthermore, the students recognize that acknowledging their “invisible” white identities is a crucial step toward becoming white allies. Frankenberg (1993:135) writes, “Race privilege is a lived but not seen aspect of white experience, given the socially segregated material environments that militate against conscious attention to racism.” In a later work, Frankenberg (2001:77) poses the question: “to whom is whiteness invisible?” and argues that even though whiteness may go unnoticed among the dominant racial group, it remains prevalent to men and women of color. The racial identities of white people are less salient, in part, because they are never expected to act as a representative of their race. Similarly, Doane (1997:390) argues that the “hidden” nature of white ethnic identity has served as a powerful mechanism for perpetuating the group’s dominant position. In their papers, the POC-WHITE and IWRID students discuss ways to challenge this invisibility in order to become allies. Courtney affirms, “White people do not identify with having a race, and it is imperative that they do so in order to make a difference for the justice of race.” Similarly, Julia reflects on the course readings on how to become an effective ally and writes, “I hope to constantly be aware of how race affects every aspect of my life and that it is a privilege of being white to be blind to this.”

Acknowledging Privileges Inherent in Whiteness

Another aspect of being a white ally that emerged in the data is the need to acknowledge unearned white privileges and use those privileges to challenge racism. Accordingly, Nicole reflects, “I am certainly bothered by my own privilege, one that I did not ask for nor choose to be given. Yet, since I have privilege, it is my duty to use it for the greater good.” And, Alexis notes: “This ‘normal,’ privileged white experience feels difficult to escape. However, escape is not the goal; change is the intention. I want to be part of the change away from these arbitrary benefits and fight against oppression.” Through “privilege-cognizant” rather than “privilege-evasive” white scripts (Frankenberg 1993:137–91), these students work toward becoming effective white allies. Kendall (2006) affirms this premise and highlights how white people can more clearly understand their white privilege and then act on this newfound knowledge.

Identifying Racism in Oneself

Many of the students also came to understand raced socialization patterns that often shielded them from recognizing their whiteness, white privileges, or the potential race-related biases that they have unknowingly internalized (Bonilla-Silva and Forman 2000; Ford 2012⁴; Harro 2000; Tatum 2003). Through the dialogue experience, some of these issues became more transparent as the students engaged in self-exploration of their own prejudices and racist beliefs. Jessica, for instance, openly discusses her assumptions about black people:

When I think about the other racist beliefs I hold towards black people (i.e., “they” are inherently more violent than white people) I am reminded that I have a lot of work to do before I can say that I have divested myself of racist beliefs.

Likewise, Alison argues, “In order to eliminate racism from our society we must first acknowledge that it inevitably exists within ourselves. Until we do that we can never truly change the racial climate in the U.S.,” and Lauren concedes,

“I look at many of those close to me who are white, and can now see how we are all racist . . . I hate the fact that I harbor racist tendencies because of my own race, but nothing will change if I myself do not do something about it.”

While difficult, admitting and grappling with their biases was a crucial step in their journey to becoming white allies: “I feel as though I have transformed into a better human being and I want to continue the process of becoming a better white ally by continuing to challenge my own racial biases and other people’s racial biases as well” (Megan). According to Kendall (2006), this step, articulated by Megan, is crucial to becoming an effective white ally and relates to the next theme, taking responsibility for creating change.

Taking Responsibility for Creating Social Change

Not only did students come to intellectually and emotionally better understand the meaning and implications of whiteness, but many also expressed a sense of responsibility to work for social justice on both individual and structural levels. For instance, Victoria writes, “Through this class I have realized that it is not my fault that I am white, I did not choose my skin color; however, I am responsible for how I choose to act in the circumstances of having my skin color.” Additionally, Avery acknowledges his whiteness and the ways that he perpetuates and benefits from systematic racism while simultaneously identifying as a white ally:

Now my race means I have two choices. I can decide to continue ignoring my race, which is unlikely and almost impossible due to my experiences in the racial dialogues, or to confront my white racial identity and fulfill my obligation to reconcile my privilege and become a white ally . . . I now know that identifying as a white person is important for confronting this institution of oppression.

Likewise, many scholars in the field emphasize the importance of white accountability (Alcoff 1998; Brandyberry 1999; Eichstedt 2001; Goodman 2001; Kivel 1996). Brandyberry (1999:9), for instance, notes: “Those of us committed to being allies must be willing to persevere in this struggle. People of color do not have the option of ignoring racism and its effects; therefore, we must not ignore it either.”

In addition, a number of students discussed ways in which they intended to cope with their white guilt in order to effectively work for social change. Brittany shares her transition from feelings of guilt to feelings of responsibility:

In general, being white has never made me feel proud or special, and at times it has led me to feel extremely guilty. But now I realize that it has to mean more than that, because it has to lead me to a sense of responsibility. I am working to understand what my white privilege has given me and must work harder to ensure that I don’t contribute to further social inequities, intentionally or unintentionally.

Megan also grapples with overcoming her guilt and utilizing her white privilege for social justice work:

It has been hard to look back at the history of my racial group and at the same time, accept that it has played such a major part in my achievements. Accepting this fact however, has allowed me to let go of this guilt by trying to use my white privilege as a tool to be a white ally and to eradicate the dominance and bigotry associated with my racial group.

Another way that students planned to take responsibility for creating social change was through “breaking the silence” surrounding race and racism (Tatum 2003). Mason points out that unless he is vocal about race issues he only helps to perpetuate the system of racism:

I have no intentions to act in any way to continue racism but my silence acts to keep racism a part of our day to day. By not speaking up and enabling a conversation when people are speaking or acting in a way that I think is harmful, I allow racism to continue and be acceptable.

Additionally, Brandon expresses how his experience in the dialogue has helped him to find his voice on social justice issues: “I have realized that the importance of my voice and newfound education on social issues is critical in the continual fight against oppression and misunderstanding.”

In sum, the students identified five defining characteristics of white allies; in the next section we elaborate the two distinct practices they used (or intended to use) to achieve this goal.

Approaches to Becoming White Allies

Within the papers, two prominent approaches to becoming white allies emerged—the notion of: (1) “helping” people of color and (2) working “with” not “for” people of color. While the former can be seen as admirable, on some level, it reinforces the racial power structure through hegemonic discourse (e.g., the “savior” or “good white person” narrative) (Edwards 2006; Frankenberg 1993; Hughey 2010; Kendall 2006; Michael and Conger 2009; Srivastava 2005). In her book, Kendall (2006:96–97) discusses the implications of white people claiming the “well-meaning” label—it effectively resolves them from taking responsibility for their actions. Nonetheless, we find examples through the white student papers of this helper mentality. Tracy, for instance, candidly reflects on her stage of white racial identity development and acknowledges that she is a work in progress: “I acknowledge my whiteness and take responsibility for racism. I confront the fact that I have intentionally and unintentionally benefited from being white. I want to help people of color rather than to systemically change the dynamics of dominance (emphasis added).” Moreover, Kyle comes to the following realization:

Overall, even with all of the anxiety, guilt, and fear I have relating to my own racial identity and it’s relation to others’ racial identity, I do believe I have some responsibility towards not perpetuating and helping those of other races. After all, by the very definition of privilege, I am more advantaged to help those who are racially prejudiced against than they are to help themselves (emphasis added).

While their intentions are good, the students reinforce, some implicitly and others more explicitly, the perception that people of color need white people to “save” or “rescue” them (Edwards 2006; Hughley 2010; Kendall 2006); this assumption can feel both patronizing and paternalistic. In addition, as Srivastava (2005:31) argues, the notion of goodness can lead to an unhealthy “preoccupation with morality and self.” Elaborating this point, Srivastava (2005:41) cites Kleinman (1996) who states that “we become so invested in our beliefs as radicals or ‘good people’ that we cannot see the reactionary or hurtful consequences of our behaviours.” A fine balance thus needs to be made between utilizing white privilege to create change while simultaneously not disempowering people of color. Michael and Conger (2009:60), as well as other scholars (Brandyberry 1999), emphasize this point and argue that white ally groups need to promote social change while not “co-opting the efforts of people of color.”

In contrast to the “helping” narrative, other students recognized the need to collaborate with, not for, people of color. To that end, Andrea reveals: “I know now that being white gives me an advantage that can actually be beneficial to people of color and any other marginalized group, which is to fight with them, not for them, for a more equal and tolerant world.” In addition, Hannah recognizes the problematic tendency for some white people to “help” the other in a martyr-like way and quotes the saying: “if you have come to help me, you are wasting your time . . . if you come because your liberation is bound up in mine, let us work together.” Kendall (2006) affirms the importance of this premise; she also believes that this work should be done without expectation of gratitude, as this endeavor should not be focused on pleasing the “other,” but rather individual growth and development.

By using Edwards’s (2006) conceptual model for social justice ally identity development to analyze these results, it becomes clear that many dialogue students are thinking about ally identity in complex ways. Edwards outlines three stages of ally development: aspiring ally for self-interest, aspiring ally for altruism, and ally for social justice. While it is important to acknowledge that this is one of many different models of social justice ally development (see e.g., Broido 2000; Broido and Reason 2005; Eichstedt 2001; Reason 2007; Reason et al. 2005) and that the stages can be complicated or expanded depending on the individual, Edwards’s (2006) model provides a useful framework for deconstructing and making sense of students’ responses.

In the white students’ discussion of ally behavior, there was little evidence of the first stage of ally development, characterized by a focus on individual acts of racism and a failure to acknowledge systems of oppression or privilege. To differing degrees, the POC-WHITE and IWRID students shared an understanding of structural racism and grappled with ways of reconciling their white privilege. However, a number of students did exhibit signs of the aspiring ally for altruism stage by expressing their desire to work for members of the target group who they identify as victims in need of help. Additionally, motivation for individuals in this stage of ally development comes from the notion that helping others is the morally right thing to do (Edwards 2006:47). By promoting a narrative of being a “good person” (which aligns with the self-interest category) or a “rescuer” for people of color (which aligns with the altruism category), white students are able to act in self-sacrificing ways while unknowingly reinforcing the status quo (Edwards 2006; Frankenberg 1993; Hughey 2010; Kendall 2006; Michael and Conger 2009; Srivastava 2005). Emotional burnout is also common with this stage of ally development, which ultimately interferes with their ability to create lasting change (Edwards 2006; Tatum 2003). Lastly, only three papers indicated that students were in the ally for social justice stage and acknowledged the need to work “with” not “for” members of oppressed groups. These students demonstrated an understanding of the ways that systematic racism affects everyone and how challenging inequitable racial structures will liberate both target and agent groups. In doing so, they are able to reconnect, individually and collectively, with their own humanity (Freire 2000).

Challenges of Becoming White Allies

While these students are making clear and important progress in their white racial identity and ally development, the commitment to social justice is not without its social and emotional costs. Feeling overwhelmed, discouraged, or “burned out” (Edwards 2006; Tatum 2003) are common reactions when white allies become attuned to the enormity of the task at hand. Not surprisingly, then, many of the students in our sample expressed similar sentiments. Zoe, for instance, admits to almost withdrawing from the IWRID course, and Karen, a first-year student, fears “regressing” when she is not able to regularly engage with these issues within a classroom setting. In addition, Sara astutely highlights the fears that many white allies experience being seen as “racial traitors” (Alcoff 1998; Bailey 1998; Eichstedt 2001) and thus alienated from their own racial group:

I have begun to recognize it is only myself that holds me back from continuing to grow in this process. The reality of becoming a white ally is daunting and scary for me because it could possibly categorize me as a minority in society. . . . Was I really willing to give up the bliss of ignorance to live a life of fighting for another group’s cause while challenging loved ones and potentially ruining relationships?

Sara continues by explaining how an argument with family about “helping” people of color

put me at a place of confusion, questioning and resistance. . . . After the pain of fighting with my family I was scared that feeling so passionate about this issue was going to take over my life in a negative way and possibly change relationships with people I loved.

Bailey (1998:28) describes “race traitors” as: “privilege-cognizant whites who refuse to animate the scripts whites are expected to perform, and who are unfaithful to worldviews whites are expected to hold.” By “de-centering,” “de-stabilizing,” or “subverting” the center (Bailey 1998:32), race traitors take responsibility for owning their unearned privileges and creating alternative racial scripts that may, as Sara notes, alienate them from their loved ones.

Support Systems Needed for White Allies

In order to address some of these concerns, it is imperative that emerging white allies develop a support system of white role models and mentors to further their development and encourage persistence, in spite of the resistance they may encounter from others (Michael and Conger 2009; Reason et al. 2005; Roosa et al. 2005; Smith and Redington 2010; Tatum 1994, 2003). For Anna, a supportive peer group made all the difference: “Luckily, I know that I have a group of people at this school who are in the fight with me, people I can turn to when I feel frustrated, people who will validate me when I feel I have made a small victory.” Likewise, Taylor notes:

Hearing powerful anti-racist white speakers (in our readings, in class and outside of class) was the portal for me from a place of guilt to a place of action. . . . Through this exposure to anti-racist whites I was also able to glimpse a positive white identity for the first time, an identity based on acknowledging privilege and working against it.

As these students note, a support system is crucial as they continue their work; without it, burnout, loss of motivation, and alienation from family and friends can discourage them from continuing on their journey to becoming white allies.

Conclusion

I hope to be a consistent and confident ally, and I imagine that I will learn a lot about myself in the process of supporting others. (Brittany)

IGR has made me want to commit to social justice for the rest of my life. (Rachel)

As Brittany and Rachel’s comments indicate, it is possible for Historically White Institutions to productively engage white students in issues of race and social justice. This process, however, cannot be left to chance. In order to locate “cracks in the walls of whiteness,” or moments when it is possible to shift dominant narratives (Brunsma and Brown 2012; Bush 2011:204), HWIs need to intentionally create curricular and co-curricular synergetic spaces that challenge white students’ understanding of race and racism and encourage them to act as allies for racial justice. In particular, pedagogical approaches that merge cognitive and affective learning can help students bridge the theoretical and personal in productive and rewarding ways, if done appropriately (Brunsma and Brown 2012; Bush 2011; Chaisson 2004; Ford 2012; Trainor 2002). Trainor (2002:647) cautions that when students work to develop an antiracist white identity, certain pedagogical approaches may also unintentionally have an opposite impact (e.g., create essentialized, reactionary, angry white identities); care must thus be taken in how various pedagogies are utilized as a means of challenging students’ inherited walls of whiteness (Brunsma and Brown 2012; Bush 2011).

In our study, white college students revealed how they have attempted to dismantle the racial status quo by increasing their knowledge and awareness of whiteness, interacting with people of diverse backgrounds and experiences, and engaging these issues with courage and openness. In particular, as they progress in their white racial identity development through the POC-WHITE and IWRID experience (Hardiman 1994; Hardiman and Jackson 1992; Helms 1990, 1995, 2008), these 58 white students report identifying the: (1) key components of becoming white allies, (2) differing approaches to becoming allies, (3) challenges inherent in ally development, and (4) support systems required to continue this work.

More concretely, analysis of the final papers revealed that white students in both the POC-WHITE and the IWRID dialogues were thinking critically about their own ally development in relation to their white identities. Based on her research, Case (2012) argues that aspiring white allies must acknowledge the ways that they are implicated in the system of racism, investigate their prejudices and assumptions, and own their white privilege in order to become effective allies. Similarly, many students in our study grappled with a newfound understanding of their whiteness, its invisibility, and complexity and articulated the importance of recognizing the socialized racism within themselves. Furthermore, Case (2012:85) writes, “In addition to identifying white privilege as a major way that racism affects their daily lives, several participants also discussed it as inseparable from responsibility.” In an analogous manner, many students wrote about their own growing sense of responsibility to utilize their unearned privileges as a tool for social justice.

Moreover, like the Edwards’s (2006) model suggests, the students in this study were engaging with social justice ally development in different ways; some were in the altruism frame of mind of working for marginalized racial groups, while a few were hoping to become an ally for social justice by working with communities of color.

Finally, Case’s (2012:90) study reveals that many of the participants “felt that white anti-racists must prepare themselves for critical self-evaluation that lasts a lifetime.” Dialogue students, likewise, demonstrated their awareness that ally development is an ongoing process. To remain effective allies, the students recognized that they must make a conscious effort to continue learning and challenging their biases so that they do not unintentionally reinforce the racial hegemony that they are working so hard to disrupt.

In sum, these findings indicate strengths and weaknesses in the inter/intragroup dialogue curriculum and highlight areas for improvement and growth in this and other race- or social justice–focused courses. Overall, white students emerge from the POC-WHITE and IWRID dialogues still grappling with their white ally development by acknowledging their privilege and deconstructing their whiteness. However, more assigned readings and dialogue focused on the ways that structural racism impacts both people of color and white people could help students critically investigate the white “rescuer” narrative and develop a more complex understanding of their roles as allies (Edwards 2006). Furthermore, presenting more examples of white anti-racist activists would support white students in their racial identity development and allying behaviors.

It is also important to recognize that curricular interventions are only one avenue for encouraging the development of white allies. Given the ongoing nature of this work, one semester-long course is not sufficient unless it is supplemented with work in other contexts (e.g., co-curricular activities, conversations among friends and family members, intentional interactions with fellow allies). As such, these courses might be thought of as the initial step in a life-long search for the meaning of whiteness and its implications. Alimo (2012:55) citing Giroux (1999:250) states that the race/ethnicity dialogues serve to “help build a citizenry of white people who take action ‘so that white youth can understand the struggle against the long legacy of white racism while using . . . their own culture as a source for resistance, reflection and empowerment.’”

Limitations and Contributions

As noted in the methodology section, this self-selected, non-random sample does not allow for generalizability to other institutional contexts or populations. For instance, while women outnumber men at this institution, the sample is more heavily weighted toward the former, which might have impacted the type of data collected. Moreover, as we studied this group at one point in time, we do not know if the stated intentions of the white students enrolled in the POC-WHITE and IWRID will result in substantive ally relationships with people of color.

Despite these limitations, this qualitative study is able to provide nuanced data that reveal how white students grapple with the meaning and implications of becoming racial allies. Our results are encouraging and future research can further unpack white allying attitudes and behavior by investigating similar questions in different institutional, disciplinary, or pedagogical contexts. To provide a longitudinal perspective, the principle researcher is also currently conducting interviews with white students a year after they have completed the POC-WHITE or IWRID courses, which will be the focus of a subsequent paper.

Zoe comments in the beginning of our article that the dialogue experience is the “not-so-final remark” in white students’ journey toward becoming white anti-racist allies. As we previously noted, this process is not necessarily linear or so clear-cut. In reality, the students are likely simultaneously engaging with many of Edwards’s (2006) stages as they commit, and continuously recommit, to working for social change. In addition, they need support and mentorship from white educators and social justice advocates along the way (Michael and Conger 2009; Reason et al. 2005; Roosa et al. 2005; Smith and Redington 2010; Tatum 1994, 2003). Moreover, Tatum (1994) suggests that in order to create a more just world, target and agent groups must unite for a common cause, and educators can play a crucial role in this process (Bush 2011; Chaisson 2004; Ford 2012). According to Burkhardt and Chambers (2003), “Higher education has the potential to be a defining institution within societies, but only if it understands the importance of its role as an independent, creative, and activist force” (Bush 2011:224). Our data reveal that the inter/intragroup dialogues have the potential to change higher educational institutions in positive ways, and that learning can in turn have a ripple effect as these emerging white allies apply their knowledge and skills to their spheres of influence within the broader community (Tatum 2003).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research assistants who assisted with the coding of students papers.

Notes

Author Biographies

Dr. Kristie A. Ford is an associate professor of sociology, Director of Intercultural Studies, and the Director of Intergroup Relations Program (IGR) at Skidmore College. She received her BA in sociology from Amherst College and her MA and PhD in sociology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her research and teaching interests include race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and social justice education.

Josephine Orlandella recently graduated from Skidmore College where she majored in sociology and minored in Intergroup Relations (IGR). She facilitated an IGR dialogue her sophomore year and was involved in administrative support as well as qualitative research projects for the IGR program throughout her time at Skidmore. She is currently doing land conservation work in Colorado.

References

Adams

Maurianne

Bell

Lee Anne

Griffin

Pat

, eds. 2007. Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

Alcoff

Linda

. 1998. “What Should White People Do?” Hypatia 13(3):6–26.

Alimo

Craig

. 2012. “From Dialogue to Action: The Impact of Cross-race Intergroup Dialogue on the Development of White College Students as Racial Allies.” Equity and Excellence in Education 45(1):36–59.

Bailey

Alison

. 1998. “Locating Traitorous Identities: Toward a View of Privilege-Cognizant White Character.” Hypatia 13(3):27–42.

Berg

Bruce

. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Berkowitz

Alan

. 2003. “Applications of Social Norms Theory to Other Health and Social Justice Issues.” Pp. 259–79 in The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians, edited by Perkins

H. W.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bishop

Anne

. 1994. Becoming an Ally: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Bobo

Lawrence

Kluegel

James R.

1993. “Opposition to Race Targeting: Self-interests, Stratification, Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?” American Sociological Review 58:443–64.

Bonnett

Alastair

. 1996. “‘White Studies’: The Problems and Projects of a New Research Agenda.” Theory, Culture and Society 13(2):145–55.

10.

Bonnett

Alastair

. 1997. “Geography, ‘Race’ and Whiteness: Invisible Traditions and Current Challenges.” Area 29(3):93–199.

11.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2014. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

12.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

Forman

Tyrone

. 2000. “‘I Am Not Racist, but . . . ’: Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA.” Discourse and Society 11(1):50–85.

13.

Brandyberry

Lisa

. 1999. “Pain and Perseverance: Perspectives from an Ally.” Journal of Counseling and Development 77(1):7–9.

14.

Broido

Ellen

. 2000. “The Development of Social Justice Allies during College: A Phenomenological Investigation.” Journal of College Student Development 41(1):3–18.

15.

Broido

Ellen

Reason

Robert

. 2005. “The Development of Social Justice Attitudes and Actions: An Overview of Current Understandings.” New Directions for Student Services 2005(110):17–28.

16.

Brunsma

David

Placier

Peggy

Brown

Eric

. 2013. “Teaching Race at Historically White Colleges and Universities: Identifying and Dismantling the Walls of Whiteness.” Critical Sociology 39(5):717–73.

17.

Burkhardt

John

Chambers

Tony

. 2003. “Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good: Contributing to the Practice of Democracy.” Diversity Digest 1(2):1–2.

18.

Bush

Melanie

. 2011. Everyday Forms of Whiteness: Understanding Race in a “Post-Racial” World. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

19.

Cabrera

Nolan

. 2012. “Working through Whiteness: White, Male College Students Challenging Racism.” The Review of Higher Education 35(3):375–401.

20.

Case

Kim

. 2012. “Discovering the Privilege of Whiteness: White Women’s Reflections on Anti-Racist Identity and Ally Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 68(1):78–96.

21.

Chaisson

Reba L.

2004. “A Crack in the Door: Critical Race Theory in Practice at a Predominantly White Institution.” Teaching Sociology 32(4):345–57.

22.

Doane

Ashley W.

1997. “Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of ‘Hidden’ Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations.” The Sociological Quarterly 38(3):375–97.

23.

Edwards

Keith

. 2006. “Aspiring Social Justice Ally Identity Development: A Conceptual Model.” NASPA Journal 43(4):39–60.

24.

Eichstedt

Jennifer

. 2001. “Problematic White Identities and a Search for Racial Justice.” Sociological Forum 16(3):445–70.

25.

Emerson

Robert M.

Fretz

Rachel I.

Shaw

Linda

. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26.

Ford

Kristie

. 2012. “Shifting White Ideological Scripts: The Educational Benefits of Inter- and Intra-Racial Curricular Dialogues on the Experiences of White College Students.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 5(3):138–58.

27.

Ford

Kristie

Malaney

Victoria

. 2012. “‘I Now Harbor More Pride in My Race’: The Educational Benefits of Inter- and Intraracial Dialogues on the Experiences of Students of Color and Multiracial Students.” Journal of Equity and Excellence in Education 45(1):14–35.

28.

Frankenberg

Ruth

. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

29.

Frankenberg

Ruth

. 2001. “The Mirage of an Unmarked Whiteness.” Pp. 72–96 in The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, edited by Rasmussen

Klinenberg

Nexica

I. J.

Wray

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

30.

Freire

Paulo

. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

31.

Giroux

Henry A.

1999. “Rewriting the Discourse of Racial Identity: Towards a Pedagogy and Politics of Whiteness.” Pp. 224–52 in Becoming and Unbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity, edited by Clark

O’Donnell

Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

32.

Goodman

Diane

. 2001. Promoting Diversity and Social Justice: Educating People from Privileged Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

33.

Gurin-Sands

Chloé

Gurin

Patricia

. 2012. “Fostering a Commitment to Social Action: How Talking, Thinking, and Feeling Make a Difference in Intergroup Dialogue.” Equity & Excellence in Education 45(1):60–79.

34.

Hardiman

Rita

. 1994. “White Racial Identity Development in the United States.”. Pp. 32–66 in Salett

E. P.

Koslow

D. R.

(Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Multicultural Institute.

35.

Hardiman

Rita

Jackson

Bailey

. 1992. “Racial Identity Development: Understanding Racial Dynamics in College Classrooms and on Campus.” In Adams

(Ed.), Promoting Diversity in College Classrooms: Innovative Responses for Curriculum, Faculty, and Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Hardiman

Rita

Keehn

Molly

. 2012. “White Racial Development Revisited.” Pp. 121–37 in New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: Integrating Emerging Frameworks, edited by Wijeyesinghe

C. L.

Jackson

B. W.

III . New York, NY: New York University Press.

37.

Harro

Bobbie

. 2000. “The Cycle of Socialization.” Pp. 9–15 in Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Adams

Blumefeld

Castañeda

Hackman

Peters

Zúñiga

New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Hartigan

John

Jr.

1997. “Establishing the Fact of Whiteness.” American Anthropologist 99(3):495–505.

39.

Hartigan

John

Jr.

1999. Racial Situations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40.

Hartigan

John

Jr.

2001. “‘White Devils’ Talk Back: What Antiracists Can Learn from Whites in Detroit.” Pp. 139–66 in The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, edited by Rasmussen

B. B.

Klinenberg

Nexica

I. J.

Wray

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

41.

Hartmann

Douglas

Gerteis

Joseph

Croll

Paul R.

2009. “An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many?” Social Problems 56(3):403–24.

42.

Helms

Janet E.

1990. Black and White Racial Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice. Westport: Greenwood.

43.

Helms

Janet E.

1995. “An Update of Helm’s White and People of Color Racial Identity Models.” Pp. 181–98 in Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, edited by Ponterotto

J. G.

Casas

J. M.

Suzuka

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

44.

Helms

Janet

. 2008. A Race Is A Nice Thing to Have: A Guide to Being a White Person or Understanding White Persons in Your Life. Hanover, MA: Microtraining Associates, Inc.

45.

Hughey

Matthew

. 2010. “The White Savior Film and Reviewers’ Reception.” Symbolic Interaction 33(3):475–96.

46.

Hughey

Matthew

. 2012. White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

47.

Johnson

Allan

. 2006. Privilege, Power, and Difference. Boston: McGraw Hill.

48.

Kellington

Stephanie

. 2002. “Looking at the Invisible: A Q-Methodological Investigation of Young White Women’s Construction of Whiteness.” Pp. 153–78 in Working through International Perspectives, edited by Levine-Rasky

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

49.

Kendall

Frances

. 2006. Understanding White Privilege. New York: Routledge.

50.

Kinder

Donald

Sanders

Lynn

. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

51.

Kivel

Paul

. 1996. Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.

52.

Kleinman

Sherryl

. 1996. Opposing Ambitions: Gender and Identity in an Alternative Organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

53.

Lewis

Amanda

. 2004. “What Group? Study Whites and Whiteness in the Era of ‘Colorblindness.’” Sociological Theory 22(4):623–46.

54.

Lincoln

Yvonna S.

Guba

Egon G.

1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

55.

McDermott

Monica

Samson

Frank

. 2005. “White Racial and Ethnic identity in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:245–61.

56.

McKinney

Karyn

. 2005. Being White: Stories of Race and Racism. New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Michael

Ali

Conger

Mary

. 2009. “Becoming an Anti-Racist White Ally: How a White Affinity Group Can Help.” Perspective on Urban Education 6(1):56–60.

58.

Nagda

Biren R. A.

Gurin

Patricia

Sorensen

Nicholas

Zúñiga

Ximena

. 2009. “Evaluating Intergroup Dialogue: Engaging Diversity for Personal and Social Responsibility.” Diversity & Democracy 12(1):1–5.

59.

Reason

Robert D.

2007. “Rearticulating Whiteness: A Precursor to Difficult Dialogues on Race.” College of Student Affairs Journal 26(2):127–35.

60.

Reason

Robert D.

Millar

Elizabeth R.

Scales

Tara C.

2005. “Toward a Model of Racial Justice Ally Development.” Journal of College Student Development 46(5):530–46.

61.

Roediger

David

. 1991. Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso.

62.

Roosa

Millar

Elizabeth

Scares

Reason

Robert

2005. “Encouraging the Development of Racial Justice Allies.” New Directions for Student Services 2005(110):55–66.

63.

Rothenberg

Paula

, ed. 2002. White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. New York: Worth Publishers.

64.

Rowe

Wayne

Bennett

Sandra K.

Atkinson

Donald R.

1994. “White Racial Identity Models: A Critique and Alternative Proposal.” The Counseling Psychologist 22(1):129–46.

65.

Schuman

Howard

Steeh

Charlotte

Bobo

Lawrence

Krysan

Maria

. 1997. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

66.

Shenton

Andrew K.

2004. “Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects.” Education for Information 22(2):63–75.

67.

Smith

Laura

Redington

Rebecca

, 2010. “Lessons from the Experiences of White Antiracist Activists.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 41(6):541–49.

68.

Sniderman

Paul M.

Piazza

Thomas

. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

69.

Sorensen

Nicholas

Nagda

Biren

Gurin

Patricia

Maxwell

Kelly

. 2009. “Taking a ‘Hands On’ Approach to Diversity in Higher Education: A Critical-Dialogic Model for Effective Intergroup Interaction.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 9(1):3–35.

70.

Srivastava

Sarita

. 2005. “‘You’re Calling Me a Racist?’ The Moral and Emotional Regulation of Antiracism and Feminism.” Signs 31(1):29–62.

71.

Tatum

Beverly

. 2003. “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations about Race. New York, NY: Basic Books.

72.

Terry

Robert

. 1981. “The Negative Impact on White Values.” Pp. 199–51 in Impacts of Racism on White Americans, edited by Bowser

Hunt

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

73.

Trainor

Jennifer S.

2002. “‘Critical Pedagogy’s “Other’: Constructions of Whiteness in Education for Social Change.” College Composition and Communication 53(4):631–50.

74.

Zúñiga

Ximena

Nagda

Biren

Chesler

Mark

Cytron

Adena

. 2007. Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning about Social Justice. Washington, D.C.: ASHE.

The “Not-So-Final Remark”

Abstract

Keywords

Inter- and Intragroup Dialogue Pedagogy 1

Conceptual Framework

Literature Review

Whiteness Studies

Critiques of Whiteness Studies

White Ally Studies

Critiques of White Ally Studies

White Ally and Dialogue Studies

Methodology 2

Results

Defining Characteristics of White Allies

Developing Awareness of White Racial Identity and Learning about Oneself

Recognizing the Invisibility of One’s White Racial Identity

Acknowledging Privileges Inherent in Whiteness

Identifying Racism in Oneself

Taking Responsibility for Creating Social Change

Approaches to Becoming White Allies

Challenges of Becoming White Allies

Support Systems Needed for White Allies

Conclusion

Limitations and Contributions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Inter- and Intragroup Dialogue Pedagogy¹

Methodology²