Key-Keepers VS Gatekeepers

 In the chapter "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children," Lisa Delpit discusses the breakdown in communication between dominant groups (primarily white populations), and subordinate groups (primarily people of color) that has resulted in ongoing gatekeeping. Delpit argues that many liberal attempts at empowering subordinate groups are disempowering and instead of resulting in liberation, they limit the skills given to students of color and disqualify them from opportunities where there are gates raised in their way.

It is simply a fact that the way someone presents themselves impacts the opportunities that are open to them. Every day, applicants are barred from employment opportunities because of how they dress, how they speak, and how they spell their names. Gates are closed in their faces daily. However, many of these gates DO have keys that can be given students, and teachers who take responsibility to award these keys make a profound impact in the lives of their students.

Ignoring the presence of these gates in order to be a "nice" person and simply take someone as they are is not the act of kindness it is made out to be. It does not save someone's self esteem. It does not create a world where they have more access. It creates a world where they have less opportunities because it leaves the individual facing enormous gates without the keys to go through and with the sense that they have been lied to about their own identity and potential.

These keys can be explicitly taught, empowering individuals to achieve their goals with less resistance without encroaching on their culture or "whitewashing" individuals. Culture is dynamic and resilient - it is able to hold multiple modes of thought at once and is not so fragile that learning keys like formal grammar, presentation, and professionalism will eradicate it. Distributing keys through direct instruction while celebrating the heritage and background of each individual gives them access to common language and modes of interaction that opens rather than closing doors.

Teachers need to understand that they have the opportunity to be key-keepers or gate-keepers in their classrooms. By explicitly teaching how to navigate the current norms in public society, they can be generous key-keepers, handing out keys to their students while trusting their students to remain authentic to their true selves. Neglecting to instruct students in these areas, however, makes the classroom a place where gatekeeping gains powers. It denies students the tools they need to achieve their goals in a world that is selective about who passes muster, even when done with the intention of respecting a student's background and heritage.

Delpit is very clear, however, that this instruction exists because we are in-between. The gates that exist need to come down, and every opportunity needs to be taken to make this a current reality. To assume the gates are already open, however, does a disservice to students who may graduate and find every door slammed in their face due to the denial of their teachers. While handing students keys, it is just as important to do the work to take down the gates that stand in their way.

Connection as Correction

 

                                                            Artworks at my old Starbucks

While pursuing my undergraduate degrees, I worked as a Starbucks Shift Supervisor in order to pay my bills. We had a group of middle school students at my location who would come in every day after school and TERRORIZE our cafe. Running, screaming, throwing drinks, cussing out random customers, vaping and doing drugs in the bathrooms - it was a lot. And it was a lot of kids. Like hordes. With no adults to speak to them about their behavior.

So I did. I went over, sat down, introduced myself to 15 kids who could have taken me in a fight, and explained that there were expectations of their behavior in a public place and that things had reached the point that we would need to call the police on them if their behavior did not change. They were shocked, one or two were apologetic, and then one or two seemed like they were committed to taking things that far. But I didn't threaten and then leave. I sat, we talked it through, and we came to an arrangement.

                                      Feedback from "Abi's Kids" as the Staff Started Calling Them

We went over an agreement of behaviors needed, which they agreed was reasonable. And then we set up the art bin. I asked the students if I could test my art lesson ideas on them since I wanted to be an art teacher when I was done with Starbucks. They agreed that this could be a fun way to stay out of trouble, and so the art bin was born. I went to dollar tree, got a basket and some manila folders, and I left an art activity for each day of the week in the folders for "my kids" to do whether I was there or not, and I had staff report to me on their behavior. If someone acted up, I talked to them next time I saw them on shift and we worked it out. The behaviors stopped almost immediately, and our cafe suddenly had artworks to display. Staff started pulling out the basket preemptively, telling me how well it worked. A year after I quit, I still go in and see new kids putting up art in the cafe using the art bin, and my old coworkers don't complain about how kids make their job harder. 

This is the power of connection as correction, a concept I saw explored in the chapter Colorblindness is the New Racism by Margalynne J. Armstrong and Stephanie M. Wildman.

In this chapter, Armstrong and Wildman discuss how colorblindness, an often well intentioned way of refusing to recognize difference, actually causes harm rather than good. It glosses over the fact that people from different races have different experiences, creating an ignorance gap that makes it more difficult to create authentic equality. This can be well intentioned in that people want to skip in history to a place where there is equality and everyone has the same opportunities for positive experiences, but it moves faster than the true rate of change and results in more obstacles in the meantime, not less. It detaches people from each other because they aren't making room for alternative experiences other than their own.

Armstrong and Wildman explore an alternative to colorblindness that they term "Color Insight." It is a view that requires considering the context of discussions around race, examining systems of privilege, unmasking perspectivelessness and white normativeness, and combating stereotyping and looking for the "me" in each individual (page 68).This might sound like a tall order, but what I appreciated was how they wrapped this concept in practices of connection rather than correction.

The authors offer many ways to practice what they preach, primarily utilizing personal observation to elevate the awareness of their students. They have students take a day to observe and document their own experience, to look at where race intersects with their day-to-day life instead of glossing over it or sweeping it under the rug. This is then translated to a group discussion in which different experiences are shared and can be compared and contrasted, revealing systemic issues in an approachable way that opens instead of shutting down conversation. As the authors say, "Observation does not end the radicalized reality in which we live, but the exercise provides a shared context that the class can return to in later discussion" (Page 71). This shared context is key - it builds empathy, which often translates to action. It is uniting instead of dividing and undercuts defensiveness. Students are able to explore their connection not just to race, but to each other, to bond over their experiences or to see through someone else's eyes and develop care and motivation to improve their experience. This moves the conversation far away from who's "fault" it is that privilege/oppression exists (a trap many conversations fall into and never recover from, even if there is valid support for the conversation) and instead creates a shared responsibility to work towards resolving a problem that is bigger than any one person.

                                             Some of the Starbucks Community, A Microcosm

When this connection comes first and is firmly established, it is possible to dig deeper to the roots of the issue that the majority now can agree needs a solution. They can buy in to deeper work because they realize their experience is not the only experience. It's possible to dig into what has been normalized and to discuss what the new normal should be, building off of new found or enriched empathy. It's possible to see the individuals who exist in what was previously a "concept" to be debated. Armstrong and Wildman call this seeing the "me" in the other person, their individuality and humanness that we can connect to. They assert that "this recognition enables the construction of bridges between individuals across identity categories and deeper recognition of the role of privilege in all of our lives" (Page 73). People simply do not connect to concepts the way that they connect to other people, and truly seeing the impact of their lifestyle and decisions on other can shift the thousands of choices they make throughout the day.

In the same way that connecting with the students in my opening anecdote created the change that needed to happen in my Starbucks, connecting with people so that they can see their true impact on others is the most important foundation we can lay as social justice advocates. The students coming in didn't see the staff or customers as other humans - they just saw bodies. People trying to be "color blind" are similar: they miss the trees for the forest. When the students became "my kids" and belonged to our Starbucks community, it made a huge difference because they started to see that they were people impacting other people. It helped our staff to see them as people, too, and to engage with them as "Abi's kids" instead of as problems. It created a community bridge strong enough for mutual accountability, a deeply necessary tool for social justice. Correction, while necessary, creates defensiveness. Connection, however, completely undercuts the resistance of "what does this have to do with me?!," replacing it with empathy and the strength to make a tangible difference as a member of a community. It is the ultimate tool for lasting correction.

More Reading: What I have called connection in this article, Bell Hooks beautifully articulates as love. You can read more about her profound perspective here!

Responding to Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson

As a social justice advocate who has much to offer in his field, Johnson argues in his writings that privelege is real, that our verbiage matters, and that everyone is affected by the power structures that are part of our culture. He argues that awareness and action are needed to understand that these systems are made by people and can be changed by people, and that this change is much more possible than critics suggest. And for the  most part, he argues this really well.

While I found I agreed with this central argument in Johnson's writings, I found myself struggling with some of the ways Johnson speaks of people who do not see where he is coming from. While I did not find him harsh, I felt that Johnson fell into a common trap I've observed in social justice movements of responding to name calling with their own version of "othering." In the same way that entrenched privilege looks at social justice advocates as "hippies" who are "too sensitive," Johnson and other social justice advocates seem to be unaware that they applying the same offensive mentality when they name humans as "defensive" (a different version of sensitive) and present them to the world as people who cannot be reasoned with. While this may be inadvertent, it is important. An example of this can be found on page 9, where Johnson mentions "It's become almost impossible, for example, to say sexism or male privilege without most men becoming so uncomfortable and defensive that conversation is impossible. They act as though sexism names a personality flaw found among men, and just saying the word ("Can we talk about sexism today?") is heard as an accusation of a personal moral failure. The same is true of all the other "isms."" While yes, people often bristle when these topics are raised, I disagree with Johnson's underlying premise that this is a flaw in the people who are being spoken to, and I would argue that seeing defensiveness as a detriment is a key factor in why these conversations often bear no fruit. 

Defensiveness is a challenge, not a flaw, and like most challenges, the approach taken usually determines the outcome far more than the challenge does. Countering the "othering" done by privileged groups by "othering" them as unhelpful, ignorant, and/or defensive prevents social justice advocates from creating a space in their movements where humans, innately intelligent, powerful, and (most often) altruistic humans, can see that they belong and can works towards their benefit and the benefit of others. When these benefits are truly clear, when underlying presumptions are aired and cobwebs cleared, change happens and even the most entrenched opposition can become the staunchest ally because their belonging came through striving.

I am not alone in this radical conversation conviction. I am privileged to belong and work at a school that values the development of staff through book clubs. One book we read this year was Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (you can find the book on amazon here and a video of the key points here).  This book is very accessible - the writing style is personal and easy to read through. The content, however, requires taking a plunge and taking an inordinate amount of responsibility for every conversation in which you are a participant, especially when you do not see eye to eye with the person you are speaking with, but need to arrive at an urgent resolution. Every other page was a gut punch for me as I read and eye opening in how I had been approaching conversations as a person who most people get along with, but who has had my fair share of tiffs, yelling matches, and times when I have frozen others out. The book leaves absolutely no room to blame your conversational partner. It removes fault, in fact, and replaces it with responsibility, making it the responsibility of the reader to take ownership of every interaction they have rather than being a victim to the words or choices of others.

 

The book argues that first of all, the story we tell about the other person needs to be checked before we begin ANY kind of conversation. We are all guilty of what the book calls "villain stories," narratives we tell ourselves about how the other person is unwilling to understand us, unwilling to make the changes we need, and even out to hurt us. These villain stories are our subconscious trying to protect us, but they are often what charges conversations. They allow us to determine someone else is "other" and then destroy powerful conversations through silence or violence because we do not believe the other person is willing or worthy to discuss the topic. These stories often undercut social justice movements because "the opposition" is seen as unreasonable and unwilling to come to the table, and then never sent an invitation. That, or the "villain story" is sensed by the person invited to the conversation, and proven right because they know the conversation is performative at best and an attack at worst.

Social justice advocates need to check their "villain stories" before they lose their strongest potential allies. It's too easy to blame the other side for when conversations go wrong, rather than to truly, critically examine the lenses and approaches we use in these conversations. How do we really see people who seem to have a different ideology? Are they enemies? Or are they really humans to us, even if they never change? Experience proves over and over that "people rise or fall depending on your expectations of them." Do we have appropriate expectations of people who disagree with us? Are we presenting a world where they "lose" so someone else can win and then getting surprised that they seek to defend themselves? If this is the message often received when the topic of privilege is raised,  how can we make changes to our conversations to show the mutual benefits of the causes we advocate for rather than blaming the other person for their "defensiveness?" How can we shift from seeing justice as the victim of "defensiveness" to seeing each person as a reasonable human being who is a valued part of making the world a better place, even if they don't agree with our stances? In answering these questions, which should not be a quick or easy process, we can find ways to break down walls instead of reinforcing them.

While I truly believe that Johnson and other advocates are primarily speaking of their experiences, and that their intention is not to alienate, the "villain stories" they often share about "defensive" opposition lack critical qualities that investigate the conversation had, rather than the motives of the other person. They communicate the assumption that there are people who are unwilling to change, rather than that there are people who need a different kind of conversation, one that is often very hands on, in order to change. Until we truly are able to walk with people through the emotional process of change, of wrestling with ideas in messy ways, in airing out fears of scarcity or inadequacy, we are limiting the scope of people welcome in the process of making a difference, and we will be left again with the feeling that conversations are going nowhere.

A Bit About Me

 Hello!

My name is Abigail Link and I teach High School Art in Woonsocket, RI!

My first art show of student work!

This is my first year teaching full time, but teaching has been part of my life to different degrees ever since I was 12 years old and teaching at youth camps.

A friend's birthday party on a rooftop in DJ

When I was 19, I got a job working in a non-profit in a tiny African country called Djibouti. I absolutely loved going all around the country sharing a mobile library and ecology projects with people, encouraging a love of reading and nature while connecting with different communities. I learned so much from these communities and the amazing people who welcomed me as a guest in their country! I also had the opportunity to travel widely for my job and have visited four out of seven continents. 

Graduating with my cohort!

Working in Djibouti, I wrestled with how to make a lasting difference when I was surrounded by so many different needs. I researched how different countries and communities developed strategies to deal with cycles of poverty and learned that art education was often a defining factor in whether or not a community was able to develop a creative approach to their individual situation. It is a powerful vehicle to come alongside communities while they own their development, whatever development means to them. While I was not an "artist" at that point, I committed myself to learning and attained Bachelor's degrees at Rhode Island College in Art Education and Ceramics with a minor in International Non-Governmental Organizations.

My current experiment: Sourdough Bagels

When not pursuing degrees, teaching, or doing non-profit work, I love to cook, to paint, to create ceramic luminary vessels, and to take walks in nature! While I've been struggling to find the time, I also love to read and enjoy a wide variety of books. While I live on my own now, I am also the third of ten siblings in a blended family of biological siblings and siblings adopted through the RI foster system. My parents have won awards for their amazing parenting capabilities, especially as the majority of my adopted siblings came to our family with severe medical needs ranging from childhood cancer to epilepsy. While it hasn't always been easy, it has made us close as a family and now my siblings and I are launching careers that work towards making the world a better place.