Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 1
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom:
Navigating through the Framework Binary
Ashley Lunsford
English 890
Professor Kory Ching
May 20, 2015
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 2
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Racism is still an ongoing issue, inside and outside of educational institutions. With the
composition class being vulnerable to students sharing or expressing personal issues – students
are writing narratives, reflections, and connecting to social events – it is important for English
educators to be mindful of and prepared for the diverse and emotional themes that arise during
discussions.
As a future educator, I am interested in how topics or issues concerning race, racism,
whiteness, and white privilege – as well as related topics – are discussed in classrooms. It’s
important to see how these discussions may or may not reflect anti-racist philosophies and
emotions, in addition to how students and instructors react to these discussions and how
institutional values might influence these conversations.
The purpose of this fieldwork and qualitative case study are to explore and investigate
some of these questions posed. Through observations of First-Year Composition classroom
discussions and one-on-one interviews with the students and instructors of these classes, I plan
on exploring how these issues are communicated, what frameworks are being used
(multiculturalism or critical race theory), and what reactions arise from classroom discussions. I
will repeat this observation and interview process in three different composition classes at San
Francisco State University to see if there are any differences in discussion styles or frameworks,
reactions, and experiences between the different English courses.
What I have noticed after reviewing various studies and bits of literature is that there are
two dominant ways in dealing with or facilitating conversations concerning race in composition
classrooms: using a Multicultural framework, or the implementing the lens of Critical Race
Theory. It seems that researchers and educators have mapped out why teachers ought to use these
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 3
lenses; however, I am interested in how these frameworks are put into practice. How are they
applied in a composition classroom, and what are student reactions to these two different
frameworks? At the same time, I am curious to see how the instructors rationalize their chosen
frameworks and how they use them to lead or foster class discussions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In a recent NPR article, “Uncomfortable Conversations: Talking about Race in the
Classroom” (2015), H. Richard Milner – author of Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and
Race in Schools and Classrooms – tells interviewer, Elissa Nadworny, “we can continue
walking around like race and racism and issues of discrimination are not pervasive, but students
are the ones who are grossly underserved.” Although there have been many articles, studies, and
books on the matter, we can see that researchers and educators are still grappling with how we
communicate and discuss issues of race and racism in the classroom with students. It seems as
though scholars and teachers have strategies or lenses that they use to guide discussion, but what
does the conversation actually look like, and how does it differ, depending on what strategy or
lens they’re applying?
What I’ve noticed in the literature is that the strategies or lenses fall under two categories:
Liberal Multiculturalism and Critical Race Theory (CRT). I became curious as to how these two
major frames these types of critical or controversial discussions within the classroom. In
addition, I wanted to explore how they were applied in classroom discussions, and the problems
that arose while using them. Although Liberal Multiculturalism and CRT appear to be opposing
each other in terms of goals and methods, I wanted to compare both lenses equally, not to
highlight one over the other. I want to show both of them as valid, yet complicated, frameworks
to view classroom discussions on issues concerning race and racism.
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 4
My purpose for this review is to discover how these two strategies are perceived by
scholars and instructors, and I want to see how they might play out in a classroom for the sake of
finding some sort of middle ground or hybrid, or something different (outside of the binary).
THE LENSES
Marvin Lynn and Maurianne Adams (2002) mention that one principle of Critical Race
Theory is that it “acknowledges that racism is endemic, perhaps even permanent, in U.S.
society…it is deeply ingrained legally, culturally, psychologically into the very core of social
order” (p. 88). They continue by suggesting that “The first task of CRT is to analyze and
challenge race and racism…while recognizing the socially constructed nature of race” (Lynn &
Adams, p. 88). As a result, Lynn and Adams (2002) note that “CRT exposed the self-interest
camouflaged by dominant legal and cultural claims of neutrality, objectivity, color blindness, and
meritocracy” (p. 88). In a sense, the ideals and practices of Critical Race Theory seek to
challenge some of the key aspects of Multiculturalism.
On the other side of the spectrum, Tim McDonough (2008) suggests that liberal
multiculturalism is focused on the “collective pursuit of equality and freedom” by minorities and
people of ethnic cultures (p. 323). However, he continues, “these principles of equality and
freedom need not be treated as absolute and universal ideals, but rather as regulative notions
within a pragmatic framework” (McDonough, p. 324). Ranjoo Herr (2007) claims that
“Although ‘tolerance’ is considered a core liberal value, liberalism does not endorse limitless
tolerance.” Despite the idea that multiculturalism focuses on tolerance, liberal multiculturalism
might appear limitless due to the consistency of glossing-over conflict or difference via
colorblind ideologies in the classrooms.
APPLYNG THESE LENSES TO CLASS DICUSSIONS
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 5
When applying CRT to classroom discussions, scholars and educators emphasize
fostering difference and engaging with tensions. Richard H. Milner (2015) argues that “As
adults, even if it might make us uncomfortable, we’ve got to engage in these uncomfortable
conversations.” In addition, when it comes to white instructors, Alice McIntyre (1997) suggests
that it is a “necessity of/for white people to speak openly and honestly about our own collusion
in maintaining and sustaining the fabric of racism that weaves in and out of the social systems in
our society” (p. 41). She also poses that white instructors need to “listen to the contributions that
people of color make” and “join them in co-creating opportunities for critical reflection and
dialog” (McIntyre, 1997, p. 42). At the same time, when it comes to minority instructors or
instructors of color, Marvin Lynn (2002) used “CRT to explore how black male teachers in urban
schools in South Central Los Angeles view themselves in light of their roles as teachers of poor
and working class African American children.” He infers that “the men in this study…offer
insight into the role of schools as sites of radical possibility for social change [and] illuminate the
emancipatory ideals of black teachers in urban schools” (p. 90). On one side, white instructors
are using CTR to “engage” and “collide” with uncomfortable topics concerning race with
students; while black or other minority instructors also use CRT as a lens to promote “social
change.” In both cases, CRT is being used as a framework for promoting critical discussion on
difference.
However, Multiculturalism is also a common framework used to guide classroom
discussions. McIntyre (1997) argues that “We are witnessing an increased emphasis on the
importance of teachers developing multicultural skills in order to effectively educate immigrant,
non-English-speaking students, and children from diverse racial and ethnic groups” (p. 11).
Although the literature generally works to describe using multiculturalism as a possible lens to
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 6
lead classroom discussions, many of the sources or studies frame the lens in a negative way,
making multiculturalism appear invalid or inappropriate.
PROBLEMS THAT ARISE WHILE USING THESE LENSES
Although some of the literature looks down on using Multiculturalism as a lens to
navigate classroom discussions and ideologies, replacing it with the philosophies or principles of
CRT isn’t an easy solution. Some institutions do not prefer CRT as the primary framework for
leading conversations on culture or difference just because of the conflict or collision that is
associated with it. While doing a study at a secondary institution, Jennifer Trainor (2008)
observed that the institution/administrative officials thought that “Being overtly passionate,
angry, or confrontational was viewed as damaging” (p. 91). She later noted that fostering
difference or embracing conflict was “generally felt to be dangerous [and] school officials often
cast it as resulting from a failure to see commonality, from too much emphasis on difference”
(Trainor, 2008, p. 113). Within the classroom, “students were taught to avoid conflicts with each
other and teachers” (Trainor, 2008, p. 91). CRT might be a problem due to the conflict or
discomfort that might present itself, with might not foster a positive or productive learning
atmosphere.
There are some further issues when it comes to applying CRT specifically to the
classroom while discussing race, racism, and whiteness/white privilege with students. McIntyre
(1997) suggests that “Talking about whiteness with white students …generates uncomfortable
silences, forms of resistance, degrees of hostility, and a host of other responses that many of us
would prefer to avoid” (p. 73). Victoria Haviland (2008) also suggests that “Discussing these
issues can be difficult for white teachers in a racially diverse school ‘because you might feel like
you’re offending certain people,’” but it is “harder to ‘work [multicultural issues] in or even
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 7
address [these issues] in a predominantly white school” (p. 40). As a white researcher and future
educator, I can definitely see where some of these anxieties might come from. However, I’m
wondering if it’s just white instructors or white students what feel this discomfort. Does using
CRT as a mode to facilitate classroom discussions also cause discomfort or anxiety towards
minority students as well?
The “problem” looks a little different in classroom discussions using Multiculturalism as
a framework. Although conflict and tensions can negatively impact the classroom dynamic and
learning atmosphere, Alice McIntyre (1997) suggests that “there are existing educational policies
and practices that discriminate against certain racial and ethnic groups under the umbrella of
multicultural education” (p. 12). Ryuko Kubota (2015) argues that it is multiculturalism that
“silences our discussion of racialization and racism” and fosters cultural difference “superficially
[and] ironically supports the color blind sameness of individuals without addressing inequalities
among racialized, gendered, and classed groups” (p. 9). Audrey Bryan (2012) further claims that
the issue with Multiculturalism is that it “fails to foreground anti-racism, to problematize white
identities, or to specify how racism might be alleviated through multicultural policies and
practices” (p. 601). She continues by suggesting that “practices in which minority students are
over-represented […] are supported by a number of ideological frameworks, such as ‘color-blind
racism’, which maintain that racial discrimination has all but disappeared, and deny the salience
of ‘race’” (2012, p. 601).
On the instructor’s end, McIntyre (1997) argues “the lack of self-reflection about being a
white person in this society distances white people from investigating the meaning of whiteness
and prohibits a critical examination of the individual, institutional, and cultural forms of racism”
(p. 14). She further examines this position by stating that “For white educators, in particular, this
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 8
invisibility to one’s own racial being has implications in one’s own teaching practice – which
includes the choice of curriculum materials, student expectations, grading procedures, and
assessment techniques – just to name a few” (1997, p. 15). Victoria Haviland (2008) also lingers
on the idea that “White teachers in white dominated educational settings are indeed likely to
‘gloss over’ issues of race, racism, and white supremacy” (p. 40). Haviland continues arguing
that “Certain interactional pedagogical strategies such as encouraging student voice ‘creating a
culture of niceness,’ avoiding critique and failing to interrogate one’s own implication” create
deconstructive implications (2008, p. 42).
FURTHER IDEAS AND QUESTIONS
After reviewing the literature, there appears to two primary ways discussions concerning
race or racism are lead composition classrooms: using Multiculturalism, or the implementing the
practices of Critical Race Theory. Although the literature helps me see how these frameworks
might be applied within classroom conversations, it’s still unclear as to what the student
reactions might be and what the instructor’s rationalization might be for using these lenses.
Researchers and educators need to see how these lenses or frameworks are being experienced by
the students or instructors, rather than just knowing the conditions of each lens or theory.
At the same time, what would be the solution to some of these issues that arise in the
classroom? the solution to problems that arise in emphasizing or fostering CRT/Critical
Difference in classroom discussions – discomfort and the danger of conflict – just seems to be
incorporating more liberal multicultural methods. At the same time, the issues with
multiculturalism being emphasized in classroom discussions – glossing through the lens of
equality, color blindness, and ignoring difference/conflict – points to more critical analysis and
embracing difference/conflict to solve any problems with colorblind ideology or glossing. Where
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 9
are the options, and where is the middle ground? Is there anything educators or researchers could
do to pose a solution outside of the binary?
METHODS
INTRODUCTION
Due to the questions that remain unanswered, I would like to propose doing a qualitative
case study that utilizes the observational characteristics of a case study to view different
classroom discussions to note the student and instructor experiences and reactions that arise
within conversations concerning race and racism. Are the instructors facilitating the discussions
using multiculturalism as a framework, CRT as a framework, or a hybrid of both? Or, are they
interestingly using neither of these lenses; is there something new that exists outside of the
Multicultural-CRT binary?
In addition to taking field notes during classroom observations, I will also be conducting
interviews to see how both instructors and students are interpreting or engaging with the
material. How do they feel about it? What are their opinions on using each lens? What is the
overall experience or reaction that arises from these discussions, and do they differ when using
different frameworks to navigate the conversations? I hope to investigate and pose answers for
these questions with this qualitative study.
SETTING(S)
I plan on collecting data at San Francisco State University. It might be easier to find
Composition classes to observe, compared to classes on other campuses, due to the set
undergraduate themes that the institution requires classes to focus on. According to Mark
Roberge (2015), undergraduate classes “must be related in some way to one or more of the
following topics, drawn from the goals for the baccalaureate at San Francisco State
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 10
University:(a) human diversity within the United States and/or globally; (b) ethical choices;(c)
social justice; (d) the well-being of communities, nations, or the people of the world; (e) the
sustainability of the natural environment; (f) applications of academic knowledge to what is
important in one’s own life; (g) what unites us as human beings across time” (ilearn.sfsu.edu). I
would probably try and observe a course with the primary theme of “social justice,” or “human
diversity.” These themes might produce more classroom discussions focused on race and racism.
Ideally, I would want to observe three different classrooms – one built off more of a
Multicultural framework, the other being constructed with CRT in mind, and another that doesn’t
have a definitive lens or focus. These courses would help me note differences in student or
instructor experiences and reactions. Looking at a class that doesn’t fall under either category, or
that doesn’t directly identify with a category, would help me see if a framework exists outside of
the binary, and if it can be applied to classroom discussions effectively.
At the same time, San Francisco State University is a diverse campus with a wide array
of varying student demographics, which might lend to more diverse or alternative student
responses or experiences. As of Fall, 2011, the student population demographics appear as
follows: 5.5% African American, 0.4% Native American, 25.6% Asian, 14.2% Mexican
American, 9.4% Latino, 8.7% Filipino, 0.8% Pacific Islander, 30.4% White, and 5.1% two or
more races (sfsu.edu). I think this information is interesting to touch on because one’s race or
cultural background might influence or shape how conversations are being lead and maintained.
Are predominantly white classrooms using multiculturalism as a lens to promote colorblindness
and equality? Are more diverse classrooms using CRT to engage with difference or tensions? Or,
is it the opposite? Are white classrooms using CRT because it might be more comfortable or less
tense? Are diverse classrooms using a multicultural framework because it avoids collision and
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 11
conflict? I feel like noting the student’s or instructor’s background helps me, as a researcher,
analyze the observations and interview data with a more informed perspective.
PARTICIPANTS
A majority of the participants will be First-Year Composition students. As a result, I’m
expecting that most of the students will be coming into SFSU and into their English class right
out of high school. Because of this, I am also expecting the age group to range between 17-19
years old. Reviewing the SFSU student demographics (2011), seen in the “settings” section, I
can also assume that most students might identify themselves as “White,” “Asian,” or
“Mexican/Latino-American” (sfsu.edu). I’m assuming that there might also be a couple African
American students as well. However, I am not expecting there to be many self-identified Native
American or Pacific Islander students, due to the low demographic percentage.
Other participants will include the instructors of each of the three classes. Because the
English discipline is stereotypically filled with white faculty members, I can maybe assume that
the instructors will be white individuals. Although the SFSU website does not give me the
instructor or faculty demographics, I can see from the English Department Faculty Profiles that
there are 12 clearly white faculty members, 6 faculty members that have an ambiguous race or
ethnicity, and 4 faculty members that appear to represent a minority demographic (sfsu.edu).
Although this is my interpretation and they do not articulate their identity in their profile, I can
assume that the instructors that I observe and interview might likely identify themselves as
“white.” However, because the profiles only represent the full-time faculty, so there is a
possibility that there is an opportunity to work with a minority instructor. In terms of age, it
appears that most of the faculty members are middle-aged; however, again, the adjunct
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 12
population is not characterized on the website, so the typical age range could be completely
different or unexpected.
DATA COLLECTION
I anticipate observing classroom discussions composed of 20-30 students within each of
the three classrooms. I will observe and note responses, and I will interview students who feel
comfortable sharing their ideas with me – I’m hoping at least 5 students are willing to
participate, but ideally, I would interview 10-20 students to get a more rounded and diverse set of
responses. I will also interview the instructors – ideally, all three will agree to be interviewed –
of the course to see what their perspective is in terms of how and why they address/facilitate
issues surrounding race and racism. Using these field-notes and interviews, I hope to explore
student and instructor experiences and responses concerning themes revolving around race and
racism.
Using interviews and observational notes are my main methods because they are more
personal and collaborative. Topics concerning race and racism might have a personal connection
to students and/or teachers, and the themes have the potential to bring up very emotional
responses. Therefore, having a more intimate research stance might help students or instructors
feel more comfortable and willing to express their answers or responses honestly and accurately.
If I were to just pass out a survey, I would fear that students wouldn’t answer in a genuine and
thoughtful way. I want to take the time to really interact with students and instructors to study
their experiences and reactions. Jeffrey Grabill (2012) touches on this idea of interaction by
arguing that it can be beneficial to form a positive relationship with participants by “moving
slowly and committing oneself to getting to know people, listening to people, and demonstrating
one’s usefulness.” Forming a relationship with participants and getting to know them might more
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 13
accurately capture these reactions, experiences, and emotions. I feel that I wouldn’t be able to
effectively or appropriately interpret their experiences and make meaning of them in my analysis
by just handing out a survey.
DATA ANALYSIS
I will review my field-notes from the observations, review my recorded interviews, and
document what was said or what happened to see how race and racism were communicated
within that classroom. I will note any verbal and non-verbal responses that I observed and
determine how the students and instructors navigated through the multicultural framework or
CRT framework. I will also note any hybridization of the two lenses or if the conversation
deviated away from either side of the binary entirely.
Some of the codes that I might use as initial categorization tools are Race, Racism,
Multiculturalism, Critical Race Theory, and Whiteness or White Privilege. I think these connect
to the material pretty directly; however, I will probably use more “open coding” methods as the
observations and interviews go on. I will pick up more specific and honed codes to organize the
data and try to develop answers for the different research questions posed within this prospectus.
This data will hopefully answer various research questions asked within this project. Are the
instructors facilitating the discussions using multiculturalism as a framework, CRT as a
framework, or a hybrid of both? Or, are instructors using neither of these lenses; is there
something new that exists outside of the Multicultural-CRT binary? What is the overall student
and instructor experience within these discussions, and what are the various reactions that arise;
do they differ when using different frameworks to navigate the conversations?
CONCLUSION
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 14
There are some anticipated potential issues with validity, reliability, and ethics. Although
I will be observing three different classroom discussions, I feel like this is not enough evidence
to make a blanket claim about all classroom conversations as a whole. At the same time, my
experience as a white student and educator might hinder my ability to sympathize or resonate
with some of the student or instructor reactions and experiences. This might affect my ability to
appropriately analyze and interpret certain bits of data collected. In addition, I might feel
uncomfortable answering or discussing certain things without knowing the politically correct
terms or feeling confident enough to form a sympathetic or productive comment. I am afraid of
being insensitive or “ignorant” to certain aspects of this topic. To help me give some sort of
voice to potentially marginalized groups, I might take Mary Sheridan’s advice and use more
“ethnographic methodologies,” be aware of my methods’ “limitations,” make my “practices and
stance” more explicit, “adapt my researcher methods to the issues at hand,” and expose the
“messiness” of certain aspects of research (Sheridan, 2012, p. 79). Just being honest and
transparent might help alleviate some of this tension.
Another issue that might arise is time management. In terms of a timeline, I think the full
process might take me a full academic year. Since I am new to these issues and data collection
and analysis, as a whole, I think I will take a longer time than expected to make some sort of
meaning out of the data. I will have to focus and work hard to try and narrow my purpose and
theme. Not really knowing what to expect going into the study, I feel like I will need an extended
period of time to appropriately collect and analyze the data. Ideally, I would observe and
interview for a semester. I think this is possible, despite me looking at three different classrooms,
because I only want to observe days where I know race will come up in classroom discussion. I
think the instructors and I would have to communicate quite frequently in order for me to be
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 15
aware of when these days are happening. After a semester of observations, I think it would take
me a greater amount of time to sift through the data, code it, and organize it into some sort of
cohesive mass. I would have to then connect the dots/codes and make something meaningful out
of it.
OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE
This research will have a positive impact on composition classrooms and composition
studies. It will make educators and researchers more mindful of student and instructor
experiences and reactions during classroom discussions concerning race and racism. With this
new awareness, educators and researchers can make more informed decisions and actions while
navigate through or fostering certain conversations. In addition, educators can make more
informed decisions as to what framework they might want to use as a lens to communicate
certain issues. At the same time, I want them to be aware that there isn’t just one way or the other
– Multiculturalism or Critical Race Theory – in terms of choosing a guiding framework.
Instructors can develop hybrid lenses that take bits and pieces from each side, or work to develop
an entirely new mode outside the Multiculturalism-CRT binary. By doing this, they may be
creating a more comfortable, yet engaging, learning environment that gives students and
instructors a more rounded or expansive experience. However, I’m hesitant to say “educators
ought to use a more hybrid framework or deviate from the framework.” By saying this, I’m right
back where I started – having two frameworks that tell people how they ought to teach, rather
than what each experience is or looks like. I just want to emphasize the usefulness of
experimenting with and discovering new ways to perceive or implement these frameworks or
lenses, for the purpose of fostering beneficial classroom discussions that lend themselves to
beneficial experiences and reactions.
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 16
References
Bryan, A. (2012). You've got to teach people that racism is wrong and then they
won't be racist: Curricular representations and young people's understandings of race and
racism. Curriculum Studies, 44.5, 599-629.
Grabill, J. (2012). Community-based research and the importance of a research stance. Writing
Studies Research in Practice : Methods and Methodologies, 215.
Haviland, V. (2008). “things get glossed over” : Rearticulating the silencing power of whiteness
in education. Journal of Teacher Education [H.W. Wilson – EDUC], 59(1), 40.
Herr, R. (2007). Liberal multiculturalism: An oxymoron? The Philosophical Forum, 2341.
Kubota, R. (2015) Race and language learning in multicultural canada: Towards critical
antiracism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36, 3-12.
Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory
and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education,
35(2), 87-92.
McDonough, T. (2008). The course of 'culture' in multiculturalism. Educational Theory, 58.3,
321-42.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making Meaning of Whiteness : Exploring Racial Identity with White
Teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Milner, R. (2015). Uncomfortable conversations: Talking about race in the classroom” H. NPR.
Retrieved from NPR interview with Elissa Nadworny.
Roberge, M. (2015). Week 12. iLearn English 710 Page. Retrieved from ilearn.sfsu.edu.
San Francisco State University. (2011). SF state facts 2011-2012. Retrieved from
Communicating Race and Racism in a Composition Classroom 17
http://www.sfsu.edu/~puboff/sfsufact/archive/1112/students.htm
Sheridan, M. (2012). Making ethnography our own : Why and how writing studies must redefine
core research practices. Writing Studies Research in Practice : Methods and
Methodologies, 79.
Trainor, J. (2008). Rethinking Racism : Emotion, Persuasion, and Literacy Education in an Allwhite High School. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.