‘‘Whiteness’’ as institutionalized racism as conspiracy: understanding theparadigm

Maud Blair*

London, UK

The notion of a conspiracy creating and maintaining the educational performancegap between Black and White students may seem to most to be far-fetched.However, experience of schools and of the workings of local education authoritiespoints to a continuation if not a deepening of educational inequalities. How canthis be understood? Gillborn believes that this situation is no less than theoutcome of a conspiracy of ‘‘whiteness’’. This paper endorses this view, arguingthat the normality of ‘‘whiteness’’ creates a culture of colour blindness whichundermines attempts to recognize the different educational experiences ofminoritized groups thereby re-enforcing existing inequalities.

Keywords: educational performance gap; inequalities; ‘‘whiteness’’

Introduction

‘‘Whiteness’’ is a relatively recent area of study and therefore to link ‘‘whiteness’’ to

the notion of conspiracy is likely to result in misunderstanding, scepticism, dismissal

or downright ridicule. The two concepts need to be understood in the context in

which they are being used to avoid the danger of missing the point as Gillborn’s

example of ‘‘paranoia’’ illustrates (Gillborn this issue). Anyone, therefore, who

wants to properly understand Gillborn’s article will need to understand hisconceptual framework.

‘‘Whiteness’’ is an ideology or social creation (Leonardo 2007, 262), a signifier of

power and privilege in both global and local terms. ‘‘Whiteness’’ is not, as Leonardo

says, to be mistaken for White people although the two are of course closely linked.

‘‘Whiteness’’, like ‘‘patriarchy’’ is an organizing principle which maintains the power

or access to power and privilege of White people but is not necessarily deliberate or

the result of the conscious actions of individual White people. Indeed most of us,regardless of colour, ethnicity or belief are implicated in the perpetuation of

‘‘whiteness’’.

It is the normalized nature of ‘‘whiteness’’ that for me makes the idea of a

conspiracy so compelling. It is, however, important to understand Gillborn’s use of

the concept of conspiracy. He goes to some trouble to explain that he does not refer

to the sensationalized idea of a conspiracy so popular in Hollywood and in the

movies generally, which is about secrecy, whispering in dark rooms, ‘‘cloak anddagger’’ activities. He uses the legal definition of a conspiracy which evokes the

image of a wheel with a hub (whiteness) and millions of ‘‘spokes’’ (all the different

social, political, educational, etc. agencies and individuals) that might work

independently and on their own agendas, but share in and work with the

‘‘commonsense’’ understandings and reference points that help to shore up the

*Email: mblair49@hotmail.com

Educational Review

Vol. 60, No. 3, August 2008, 249–251

ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online

# 2008 Educational Review

DOI: 10.1080/00131910802195828

http://informaworld.com

power and interests of the hub. Gillborn illustrates this well in his example of the

media discussions of educational under-achievement.

I approach Gillborn’s article from the perspective of a practitioner in schools and

local education authorities. I work as an adviser in a diverse London local authority

with a higher than average percentage of poor people from all backgrounds,

including White. I have also worked in two other local authorities, one in London

which is a little less diverse but relatively affluent with large pockets of poverty

especially in areas of immigration; and in a predominantly White, largely affluent

local authority outside of London. In addition I have worked as a policy adviser

within the Department for Education.

What does my experience tell me about the ‘‘hub-and-spoke’’ conspiracy which,

according to Gillborn, is responsible for the persisting achievement gap? Despite

statements of belief and intent about the important role of race equality for the

economy and for social cohesion, despite education commissions, the Race Relations

Act (1976), the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) and the ‘Ethnic Minority

Achievement Grant’ (EMAG), successive governments have failed to address the

structures that create unequal educational outcomes for Black and other minoritized

students. The rhetoric has never matched the practical and ideological investment

needed for a paradigm shift in the social psyche. Whilst there is little doubt that

British governments have made public their abhorrence of racial discrimination and

indeed of structural inequalities, and this is reflected in public discourse, ‘‘whiteness’’

has been and remains the central reference point for such statements or laws. This

tension between rhetoric and reality (Gay 2007) has stymied the radical approach

needed to eradicate race inequality and the result has instead been knee-jerk (often in

the form of endless little pilot projects) and contradictory responses which have the

effect of deepening inequalities. Those of us on the margins or working against the

social and political beliefs and actions that produce ‘‘whiteness’’, might recognize

the normalized nature of ‘‘whiteness’’ - what Stuart Hall describes as life seeming to

be ‘‘just so’’ – and know that it is not always ‘‘just so’’. However, the structural

arrangements and workings of ‘‘the hub’’ and its spokes makes ‘‘whiteness’’ seem to

be ‘‘just so’’. This reflects in the practices of schools and local authorities and in the

outcomes for minoritized students.

There are few, if indeed any, individuals working in the field of race equality in

education that would not recognize Gillborn’s ‘‘gap talk’’. But few of us would also

recognize that we are implicated in a conspiracy which undermines the very purpose

of our work – to ensure equal outcomes for all students and especially those most

likely to be failed by the system. We do after all, according to Gillborn’s theory,

work individually and collectively as part of a hub in which ‘‘whiteness’’ is the

central referent. Might our work be ‘‘actively resisting’’ (Gillborn this issue), or does

our existence in schools and local authorities merely create the impression that

something is being done to improve the situation for Black students when in reality

we give legitimacy to ‘‘gap talk’’? After all, why is it that, despite 40, perhaps 50 years

of anti-racist work in schools and many different strategies to raise achievement, we

are unable to make a dent in the systemic practices which undermine the educational

opportunities of Black students?

According to Leonardo (2007, 263), ‘‘whiteness is nowhere since it is unmarked,

and everywhere since it is the standard by which other groups are judged’’.

Whiteness therefore has the ability to obliterate colour as an important signifier of

250 M. Blair

oppression and powerlessness. This ‘‘colour-blindness’’ has been a central feature of

British education policy despite the existence of explicit funding streams for the

education of minoritized students. Lopez (2006) cited in Leonard (2007, 265) states

that colour-blindness ‘‘focuses on the surface, on the bare facts of racial

classification, rather than looking down into the nature of social practices’’.Colour-blindness is certainly a feature of the daily policies and practices of schools

and local authorities. It is not unusual to hear head teachers comment that their role

is not to differentiate between students but to ‘‘raise standards for all’’ – an

interesting twist in the intentions of the Swann Report (‘‘Education for All’’) which

was a call to government and schools to recognize the differential educational

experiences of Black students. Certainly this need to ‘‘standardize’’ (Gay 2007, 281)

in the interests of raising standards has had pernicious effects on outcomes for Black

students. As I state in my article published on the Multiverse website (Blair 2007), itis clear from statements such as, ‘‘we treat all children the same; we don’t have a

problem here; we don’t have time, we don’t have resources; there are too few of

them(sic)’’; the attitudes to those who work in the area of Ethnic Minority

Achievement (EMA) – feared, distrusted, marginalized, tokenized; the limited

‘‘diversity thinking’’ in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) – that we

are not talking about individual racism as the overwhelming reason for the negative

effect of the education system on so many Black children and young people. This is

about systems – government institutions, school institutions, cultural institutionswithin which we work and with which we collude. What we are in fact talking about

is ‘‘Institutional Racism’’.

Another common statement that I should have added is, ‘‘the problem is not race

it’s class’’. The power of institutional racism, manifest in statements such as this, lies

in its ability to refocus educational problems onto the Black students themselves and

their families and communities. The ‘‘Talk’’ that fuels institutionalized racism in

schools and in local authorities, is precisely, as Gillborn says, that which twists the

facts, re-interprets data to suit the argument and creates a victimology of Whitestudents (thereby also pitting race against class). Gillborn states that, ‘‘One of the

strengths of institutional racism is that no single person or agency can be held up as

wholly responsible, but to some extent, the system draws authority from them all’’

(this issue). The depressing reality is that until we find the answer to the

‘‘conspiracy’’ we seem to be left with little choice but to continue the work we do.

Whatever agreements or disagreements there might be with Gillborn’s ideas, he

launches a debate that is very important for education in Britain. If we can dispel the

fear that exists around discussions of institutional racism, we might just begin tounpick and perhaps unravel, as a society, the conspiracy of ‘‘whiteness’’.

References

Blair, M. 2007. ‘Getting it’: The challenge of raising achievement of black students

in schools and local authorities. http://www.multiverse.ac.uk/attachments/

dfa97d04-21f5-478a-bd55-89d9fcc61f61.pdf

Gay, G. 2007. The rhetoric and reality of NCLB. Race, Ethnicity and Education 10, no. 3:

279–93.

Leonardo, Z. 2007. The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educational

construction of whiteness. Race, Ethnicity and Education 10, no. 3: 261–78.

Educational Review 251