Local View / Black History Month: In denial over racial injustice? Embrace some new terminology

Preparing to teach a night class not long ago, I thought there must be some mistake with the textbook. English 1102 is a required college course in which students read and write essays to sharpen their communication and critical-thinking skills. It's good preparation for any career. Paging through the textbook my school mandates for the class, however, I did a double take: There were no essays by any syndicated African American columnists.
I thumbed back to the table of contents. The nearly 200 articles were editorials and op-eds from newspapers, including essays by syndicated white columnists like David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, John Stossel, and Charles Krauthammer. Granted, the book contained a few articles by African Americans, including Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, but not a single perspective was included by the syndicated Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Charles Blow of the New York Times, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, or Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Was this a problem? A mere oversight? Or was it evidence of racism in our system of education? February is Black History Month, a time to confront such questions and assess how far we've come with respect to racial progress. So, in answer to the first question, yes, the textbook was a problem. Exclusion of key African American writers was both offensive and toxic for my African American students, exacerbating their sense of invisibility in the classroom and in society. Volumes have been written about the deleterious effects of feelings of powerlessness and lack of self-worth experienced by minorities in this country. It's because of disparities in institutions like our schools. A predominantly white textbook is also, essentially, a lie. It's a misrepresentation of history and truth, usurping the very purpose of education for students of all races. Further, the absence of living, leading African-American voices squanders opportunities for conversations about race, the most contentious issue conflicting this country. As for the second question, yes, the use of a college textbook without equitable African-American representation was, I am fairly sure, an oversight. Understand, it would be hard to defend the editors and producers of the book, for how can you compile an anthology covering current events while omitting viewpoints of our most reputable African American newspaper writers? Imagine, for example, a book purporting to cover the latest automotive trends, but failing to mention Honda. Authorial diversity? Apparently it just wasn't considered. But a slight resulting from oversight does not make it OK. Damage is still done. And that's the point. Many believe that when white people don't consider race or don't think of it or don't let it factor into their activities, words, or everyday decisions, it exempts them from charges of racism. They think that if something they do is perceived as discriminatory - not nominating a black actor for an Academy Award, not selecting a textbook with equal representation of black authors - but they didn't mean anything by it, then they are not racists and that what happened is not racism. A CNN poll found that less than 12 percent of whites consider themselves racist. But many of us are deluding ourselves. Our good intentions alone never have insulated African Americans from economic or social injustice. So it seems that semantics, or disagreement about the meaning of racism, actually has been an impediment to even admitting there is a problem as a first step in doing something about it. I propose, therefore, that we coin an alternative term for racist. Something functional but less judgmental. Something that connotes instead forgetfulness or blindness or inattention, where it applies. Something like, "The textbook committee race-lamely screwed up." Or, "The sports commentator race-lessly misspoke." Or, "The Academy race-advertently nominated all white actors." Perhaps then more whites will be less resistant and less in denial while feeling just enough contrition to acknowledge a problem. Perhaps then we'd find ways to nudge further along our glacial history of progress toward racial harmony. And maybe even order a new set of textbooks.   David McGrath lived in Hayward for 29 years and has been contributing to the News Tribune Opinion page for more than 10 years. He's an emeritus professor of English for the College of DuPage in Illinois and is the author of "Siege at Ojibwa" and "The Territory." Contact him at profmcgrath2004@ yahoo.com.Preparing to teach a night class not long ago, I thought there must be some mistake with the textbook.English 1102 is a required college course in which students read and write essays to sharpen their communication and critical-thinking skills. It's good preparation for any career. Paging through the textbook my school mandates for the class, however, I did a double take: There were no essays by any syndicated African American columnists.
I thumbed back to the table of contents. The nearly 200 articles were editorials and op-eds from newspapers, including essays by syndicated white columnists like David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, John Stossel, and Charles Krauthammer. Granted, the book contained a few articles by African Americans, including Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, but not a single perspective was included by the syndicated Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Charles Blow of the New York Times, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, or Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune.Was this a problem? A mere oversight?Or was it evidence of racism in our system of education?February is Black History Month, a time to confront such questions and assess how far we've come with respect to racial progress.So, in answer to the first question, yes, the textbook was a problem. Exclusion of key African American writers was both offensive and toxic for my African American students, exacerbating their sense of invisibility in the classroom and in society. Volumes have been written about the deleterious effects of feelings of powerlessness and lack of self-worth experienced by minorities in this country. It's because of disparities in institutions like our schools.A predominantly white textbook is also, essentially, a lie. It's a misrepresentation of history and truth, usurping the very purpose of education for students of all races.Further, the absence of living, leading African-American voices squanders opportunities for conversations about race, the most contentious issue conflicting this country.As for the second question, yes, the use of a college textbook without equitable African-American representation was, I am fairly sure, an oversight. Understand, it would be hard to defend the editors and producers of the book, for how can you compile an anthology covering current events while omitting viewpoints of our most reputable African American newspaper writers?Imagine, for example, a book purporting to cover the latest automotive trends, but failing to mention Honda.Authorial diversity? Apparently it just wasn't considered.But a slight resulting from oversight does not make it OK. Damage is still done. And that's the point. Many believe that when white people don't consider race or don't think of it or don't let it factor into their activities, words, or everyday decisions, it exempts them from charges of racism. They think that if something they do is perceived as discriminatory - not nominating a black actor for an Academy Award, not selecting a textbook with equal representation of black authors - but they didn't mean anything by it, then they are not racists and that what happened is not racism. A CNN poll found that less than 12 percent of whites consider themselves racist.But many of us are deluding ourselves. Our good intentions alone never have insulated African Americans from economic or social injustice. So it seems that semantics, or disagreement about the meaning of racism, actually has been an impediment to even admitting there is a problem as a first step in doing something about it.I propose, therefore, that we coin an alternative term for racist. Something functional but less judgmental. Something that connotes instead forgetfulness or blindness or inattention, where it applies. Something like, "The textbook committee race-lamely screwed up." Or, "The sports commentator race-lessly misspoke." Or, "The Academy race-advertently nominated all white actors."Perhaps then more whites will be less resistant and less in denial while feeling just enough contrition to acknowledge a problem. Perhaps then we'd find ways to nudge further along our glacial history of progress toward racial harmony.And maybe even order a new set of textbooks. David McGrath lived in Hayward for 29 years and has been contributing to the News Tribune Opinion page for more than 10 years. He's an emeritus professor of English for the College of DuPage in Illinois and is the author of "Siege at Ojibwa" and "The Territory." Contact him at profmcgrath2004@ yahoo.com.