being White just makes us human. “There is no more powerful position than that of being just human. The claim to power is the claim to speak for the commonality of humanity. Raced people can’t do that—they can only speak for their race” (Dyer, 2012, p. 10). To limit whiteness simply to concepts of race and racism would not recognize the complexity that exists in defining White. Whiteness is a lived experience. It is an ideology, a system of beliefs, policies, and practices that enable White people to maintain social power and control” (Suchet, 2007, p. 868). There is a distinctive silence that exists in defining whiteness (Suchet, 2007; Nakayama & Krizek, 1995; Lane, 1998). “Whiteness is that which is not seen and not named. It is present everywhere but absent from discussion. It is the silent norm” (Suchet, 2007, p. 868). Whiteness is the center from which social definitions of “normal” are defined and the center from which power has been established in American society. Wander, Martin, and Nakayama (2012) suggested, “Whiteness refers to a historical systemic structural race-based superiority” (p. 34). According to Suchet (2007), “Whiteness dominates through normalizing itself and constantly mutates while always maintaining supremacy. There are enormous variations of power among White people related to class, gender, sexuality, and other factors, and many ways to be White. Nonetheless, White power reproduces itself and can never be separated from privilege” (p. 869). Kobayashi and Peake (2000) said, “One of the reasons that Whiteness is so powerful is that it promotes a re-articulation of racisms of the past. It incorporates some lessons from the civil rights movement, erases racial differences, and pretends that its values apply to everyone” (p. 394).
Evangelical Christians and Race Evangelical Christian cultural toolkit. Emerson and Smith, (2000) unwrapped the cultural “toolkit” (Swindler, 1986) by which White evangelicals interpret and experience the world around them. “What makes White evangelicals unique, according to Emerson and Smith (2000), is not that they are more racist or supremacist, but rather that they adhere stringently and consistently to individualist, anti-structuralist ideals and discourse” (Tranby & Harmann, 2008, p. 342). According to Emerson and Smith (2000), there are usually three characteristic sets of assumptions related to race and about individualized society that evangelical Christians tend to adhere to: accountable free will individualism, relationalism, and anti-structuralism. The authors defined accountable, free will individualism as a belief that suggests individuals “exist independent of structures and institutions, have free will, and are individually accountable for their actions” (p. 76). A strong belief in relationalism suggests that there is importance and relevance in developing a personal relationship with God. As Tranby and Harmann (2008) observed, “this emphasis transposes itself onto and strengthens the importance of interpersonal relationships in the evangelical worldview” (p. 343). Finally, is a perspective of belief that suggests social structural influences on social injustices do not exist. Individuals with anti-structuralist beliefs feel that focusing on groups or structures is counter to a belief in individualism, as such, they choose to avoid or to deny such explanations. This cultural “toolkit,” according to Emerson and Smith (2000), works in keeping most evangelical Christians’ adherence to it, blind to issues of race, and institutional racism. They view racism not as a product of systemic abuse, but an act of individual
reconciliation, though in theory a positive step toward progress, is not without significant challenges. “When there is a protracted history of distrust among those who are different in the Christian community, we call for unity through reconciliation. Reconciliation; however, may be difficult to achieve. It requires a willingness to trust ‘other.’ It requires relying upon the good will of others” (p. 11). The author continued by outlying points toward reconciliation that have in the past gone unaddressed, suggesting some integral questions that can provide a framework toward healing. First, many [White] Christians are challenged by accepting that they have privilege; generally resisting associating with any sense of guilt for identifying with members of the privileged group. Second, there is a great deal of unawareness of “issues and social dynamics of prejudice” (p. 11) that lead White Christians to blame people of color for the challenges of racial inequality. This supports Emerson and Smith’s (2000) previous findings. Third, while in theory racial reconciliation is seen as a positive effort, there is little incentive to confront and/or change structures that support ongoing inequity by White evangelicals and as a result, many efforts that are made appear to be superficial responses. As Emerson and Smith, (2000) suggested, individual changes verses uncomfortable systematic changes. “When a pathway to equity and social justice within the Christian community goes beyond temporary accommodation strategies, and when people are empowered to go beyond ‘tolerance’ or ‘tokenism’ toward meaningful inclusiveness, the benefits of reconciliation will seem more realistic and the journey toward reconciliation worthwhile” (Harden, 2010, p. 14). Harden’s (2010) critique of the challenges of reconciliation provides some observations that are more palatable than a critical assessment of challenges to racial
A review of the literature related to diversity at evangelical Christian colleges and universities suggests that progress in introducing and supporting diversity has been slow. Gaps in the research suggest that there are additional questions that are worth studying. Such studies can advance our knowledge of the successes and challenges present within efforts introduce and support diversity on these campuses. They can help promote the unique voices on evangelical Christian campuses that need to be heard. These gaps in research also suggest that a more critical approach to this research might be necessary. Some of the research conducted on the topic of diversity at evangelical Christian colleges and universities has embodied the problematic use of language and stereotypes in the very discussion of their findings. For example, Fubara et al. (2011) says that one of the obstacles for evangelical Christian colleges and universities in embracing fully the racial diversity of their climate is the weak personal values of these non-majority students. For evangelical Christian colleges, opportunities exist and a critical review of efforts can lead to more success in diversification and inclusion for these campuses. Chapter Three: Methodology A qualitative approach was employed for this study. As Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) suggested, this study, as in the case of all good qualitative inquiries, was in search of meaning. The use of qualitative inquiry has several advantages that are applicable to this study. According to Stake (1995), there are advantages to a qualitative approach, which include the ability to humanize a problem and the ability to introduce people or situations in a lively manner. This allows the researcher to view the world through the
works closely in supporting and advising student organizations including the Black Student Union and Latino Student Organization. Driving to the location of our interview, I made note of the campus running parallel to the main drag into downtown. The backyard of the campus is the downtown, with its quiet streets and sidewalks of inlaid red brick, lined every 15 feet or so by large trees. A two way street, changing into a one way street, runs down the middle of downtown and separates the sides of the street, lined with bistros, coffee shops, microbreweries, and local businesses of fashion, art, and restaurants. I was immediately drawn to the attractiveness of this area. Outside the restaurants, patrons are invited to sun drenched seating areas to sip their coffee or beer and chat, or to read their paper and watch the people strolling by. During our first interview, it was nearly fall, so there were not many folks taking advantage of those locations, but I imagine in the heat of July, people walking with children and their family dog up and down the block, meeting neighbors and taking in some brunch. I felt familiar with this type of neighborhood. The suburbs around Chicago, where I live, try to duplicate these streets, which offer a strange sense of nostalgic joy. I sat inside the coffee shop, drinking coffee and watching patrons walking by outside the large windowed storefront. Outside the coffee shop is a statue of children at play, a bronze monument that only adds to my sense of nostalgic joy—childhood captured in frozen bliss—young girls in dresses with pigtails and boys with ball caps and t-shirts watching a kite overhead. I looked for some explanation nearby of this monument, seeking some context. From my interpretation, the features of the faces of these children suggested to me that they were
ALWAYS have a back-up plan. (personal correspondence, February 22, 2015) There is a great deal of wisdom that Derek learned from his first experience. He wrote: The work of diversity and inclusion is only as important as your administration makes it. My work is much like changing the tide: It's not changed by one factor, it's the 1,000 small factors that cause it to change. My work is much more about investing in the lives of students. (personal correspondence, February 22, 2015) In spite of the knowledge he acquired, and in spite of the support he receives, the reality remains that the experience of a professional of color working at an evangelical Christian college is far from easy. I believe it takes a deep toll on them not simply because of the stress of the work, but because of the stress it presents to their lived experience and identity. Within a few months of our in-person conversation, the incidents at Ferguson, Missouri brought conversation about race to the forefront of many college conversations. On my own campus, we were hosting conversations and creating space for dialogue and topical, critical explorations of the events, attempting to help students make sense of the incident and other similar incidents. I asked Derek what was happening at Matthew College. He said, “When the news broke, I knew we needed some immediate responses.” Derek’s office worked to coordinate the creation of safe spaces on campus specifically for students of color, although open to all, to come and process. A respected faculty member who helped facilitate the conversation within this space joined him. Derek said, “I sent out a mass email around 10:15am to invite students to this time. I intentionally did not send it out campus wide because I wanted it to be a majority students’ of color audience. I expected 10-15 students, but 28 students showed up. Derek recounted the experience like this: American