Part 2 personal life
hnguyen1462
Martin2018ChapterRacialBattleFatigue.pdf
1
Factors Contributing to Microaggressions, Racial Battle Fatigue, Stereotype Threat, and
Imposter Phenomenon for Non-Hegemonic Students: Implications for Urban Education
Jennifer L. Martin
This chapter will review the phenomena of microaggressions, racial battle fatigue,
stereotype threat, and imposter phenomenon, all of which can be caused by a lack of knowledge,
sensitivity, empathy, and respect for identity characteristics/social identities deviating from the
dominant norm such as race, class, gender, sexuality, language, citizenship status, disability
status, religious affiliation, etc. These phenomena often play out in schools – often negatively
impacting academic success. Culturally responsive teachers value and respect the identities of all
of their students, and work to dismantle systems of oppression that cause them harm: situational
and institutional (Frattura & Caller, 2007). Some teachers, ill prepared to work with students
different from them, do real harm to many of their students by perpetrating microaggressions,
which can lead to the related phenomena of racial (and other forms of) battle fatigue, stereotype
threat, and imposter phenomenon—causing a reduction in academic success for non-hegemonic
students.
Introduction and Review of Key Terms
Microaggressions are subtle slights, intentional or not, including statements, actions,
minimizations, and invalidations, serving to trivialize one’s gendered, racialized, or other
identity-based experiences by those who do not share those same experiences, thus denying their
significance (Nadal, 2010; Sue, 2017; Sue, Capadilupo, Nadal, & Torino, 2008a; Sue,
Capadilupo, & Holder, 2008b). According to Smith, Allen, and Danley (2007): “The impact of
racial microaggressions on individual Black targets become communicable as the psychological
and emotional pain of the incidents is passed on to family, friends, and the larger social group
2
and across generations” (p. 554). Racialized microaggressions can cause psychological stress,
physiological stress, and behavioral stress (Franklin, Smith, & Hung, 2014). Within educational
settings, microaggressions can include: “(a) non-verbal forms, (b) false assumptions based on
stereotypes, (c) overt racial remarks, and (d) low teacher expectations” (Franklin et al., 2014, p.
308). Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, and Sue (2013) found that the “hidden nature” of
microaggressions often make them “invisible” to perpetrators (p. 197).
Sue and colleagues (2007) classified microaggressions into three areas: microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations. Microassaults are explicit identity-based derogations,
verbal or nonverbal, intended to harm the target, such as racial epithets. Microinsults convery
insensitivity toward one’s heritage or identity; for example, microinsults can include the “model
minority” myth experienced by many Asian Americans, indicating that they experience little
racism, despite evidence to the contrary (Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, & Sue, 2013).
Microinvalidations involve the denial of one’s experiences with racism (and other –isms), thus
effectively dismissing or invalidating them (Sue, Capadilupo, Nadal, & Torino, 2008a, May-
June). These denials are usually perpetrated by members of the dominant culture, or hegemonic
persons. According to Sue (2017), “People of color, for example, often have their lived racial
realities about bias and discrimination met with disbelief by our society. They are often told that
they are oversensitive, paranoid, and misreading the actions of others” (p. 171).
Sue, Capadilupo, and Holder (2008b) found that Black students in particular face
microaggressive behaviors by White teachers that “. . . negate their contributions, communicate
low expectations, and exclude their participation in school activities” (p. 330). These experiences
increase self-doubt, low self-esteem, and various psychological and physiological health issues.
Additionally, individuals experiencing microaggressive behavior also face the added stress of
3
deciding how to deal the microaggressive conduct, and either directly or peripherally, with the
perpetrator. The way in which the target responds may confirm stereotypes that the perpetrator
holds about the target’s identity group, which places the target in a double bind (Sue,
Capadilupo, & Holder, 2008b). For example, if a Black woman challenges a microaggressive
comment, she may be deemed to be overreacting, labeled as aggressive, and stereotyped as an
“angry Black woman.” This causes additional stress for the target.
White and otherwise hegemonic people may feel guilty about issues of race, and/or their
associated level of privilege; to distance themselves from issues of racism and other -isms by
ignoring or denying the existence of microaggressions protects their self-image of being good
people, and dismisses the implication that they in fact benefit from the oppressions of others
(Sue, Capadilupo, Nadal, & Torino, 2008a, May-June). The term “gaslighting” is used to
describe the psychological phenomenon of manipulating someone to question their own sanity
(Sarkis, 2017). Gaslighting is commonly used against targets of microaggressions so that
perpetrators can gain power and control. Experiencing microaggressions, explicit racism, denials
of these experiences, and gaslighting can eventually lead to racial battle fatigue (RBF).
RBF (and other forms of battle fatigue) involve the cumulative impact of experiencing
daily microaggressions and other forms of societal racism (and other –isms), which cause a
negative impact on the health and well-being of non-hegemonic populations (Franklin, Smith, &
Hung, 2014; Smith, Mustaffa, Jones, Curry, & Allen, 2016; Smith, Hung, & Franklin, 2011;
Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007). RBF is used to describe three major stress responses:
physiological, psychological, and behavioral and involves the energy expended on coping with
and fighting racism (and other –isms), which is exacted on racially marginalized and stigmatized
groups, such as dealing with daily microaggressions (Smith, 2008). It is important for teachers to
4
address inequities in the school, classroom, and curriculum; otherwise, only “majoritarian”
discourses will be perpetuated, and students possessing counter-narratives may be marginalized.
As Chaisson (2004) states, “Subverting discourses on race functions to perpetuate the racial
system that advantages Whites for being white and oppresses racial minorities” (p. 346).
Initially, the dismantling and problematizing of White privilege can cause anger and
defensiveness in majority populations, which speaks to the necessity of such an undertaking,
especially in predominantly White schools (Chaisson, 2004). Counter-narratives are an important
aspect of this conversation. Counter-narratives problematize and/or cast doubt on the validity of
hegemonic discourse or “accepted wisdom” perpetuated by the majority that also can
communicate racial (and other) stereotypes, and represent the telling of lesser-known tales and
also critiquing commonly told ones (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). Without them, only hegemonic,
Eurocentric, “majoritarian” discourses will prevail (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004).
Racial battle fatigue imposes a cumulative effect, where “. . . race, gender, and other
factors intersect to create specific, unique conditions of disadvantage (or privilege) for some
compared to others” (Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007, p. 553). The disadvantages that RBF can
cause include headaches, high blood pressure, digestive problems, stress, fatigue, sleep
problems, loss of confidence, anger, fear, procrastination, neglecting responsibilities, resentment,
hopelessness, and helplessness, etc. (Franklin, Smith, & Hung, 2014; Smith, Allen, & Danley,
2007; Smith, Mustaffa, Jones, Curry, & Allen, 2016). These problems can lead to the related
problems of lower grades, dropping out, and drug abuse for college students. RBF is both
physically and emotionally debilitating (Franklin, Smith, & Hung, 2014).
Dealing with racism and racial battle fatigue can negatively impact Students of Color
attending college. Latina/o students and Students of Color in general experience more racial
5
hostility on college campuses and racial stressors than their White peers, causing them to
question their academic self-concepts, hope for the future, and feelings of belonging (Franklin,
Smith, & Hung, 2014). According to Smith, Mustaffa, Jones, Curry, and Allen (2016), Black
males attending Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) often experience “hypervisibility” and
“hypersurveillance,” stemming from anti-Black stereotyping, which can then lead to RBF.
African American college students, particularly males, have the added weight of defying
stereotypes about their intellect (Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007). African American males are
pressured to excel in spite of racially biased course content and racially insensitive professors,
inducing stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). All of these factors can influence retention
and graduation.
Stereotype threat is the fear of confirming a negative stereotype held about one’s group by
others not possessing the same identity (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Activating negative
stereotypes can hinder testing performance for children and adults (Aronson, 2014). Low teacher
expectations as well as perceived discrimination can lead to stereotype threat, and thus lower
performance on tests (Thames, Hinkin, Byrd, Bilder, Duff, Mindt, Arentoft, & Streiff, 2013).
This heightened fear to “represent” for one’s racial/ethnic/gender (or other) group, may result in
higher stress and lower academic performance. Steele (2010) pinpoints the identity categories
that are often rife for stereotype threat: age, sexual orientation, race, gender, ethnicity, political
affiliation, mental illness, disability, etc. Steele (2010) further illuminates the danger of
stereotype threat, “We know what ‘people think.’ We know that anything we do that fits the
stereotype could be taken as confirming it” (p. 5). Thus, the vicious circle is perpetuated. If
teachers are unaware of their implicit biases, and of the phenomenon of stereotype threat, they
are likely to perpetuate it. Aronson (2004) found that repeated exposure to stereotype threat can
6
cause a “disidentification” in students, thereby causing students to no longer feel an affinity for a
field of study to which they once identified. When students feel that they are not viewed as part
of the group (“belonging uncertainty”), their sense of belonging and achievement can be
undermined (Walton, 2007).
Imposter phenomenon (or imposter syndrome) is a psychological phenomenon where
non-hegemonic individuals question their competence in their current role: student, teacher,
leader, etc., because they may be the only person representing their race, gender, or other
minoritized identity, and thus feel “phony” in comparison to those around them (Dancy, 2017).
Imposter phenomenon also involves one’s attribution of success to external factors, such as
chance or luck, feeling as though one does not deserve success, and downplaying one’s successes
(Dancy, 2017). According to Ewing, Richardson, James-Myers, and Russell (1996), academic
self-1concepts combined with racial identity perspectives can contribute to imposter feelings.
Students who find themselves within a supportive learning community can assuage the impact of
imposter phenomenon, which presupposes a counter-narrative of the oppressive ideas of one’s
minoritized group.
Clance and Imes (1978) first used the term “imposter syndrome” to identify feelings of
fraudulence in working women; however, since then, scholars have since expanded the concept
of imposter phenomena to various identity categories where individuals attribute their success to
external factors, despite evidence to the contrary (Caselman, Self, & Self, 2006). However,
phenomenon is still experienced more commonly by people of historically marginalized groups,
such as people of color, immigrants, people of lower socioeconomic statuses, and others (Dancy,
2017). Non-hegemonic people, particularly those working or studying within hegemonic
7
environments, are often taught that they must “work twice as hard to be half as good” (Weir,
2017, p. 24).
According to Ahlfeld (2010), there are factors that can ameliorate imposter phenomenon,
including, resiliency and resourcefulness, facilitating supportive relationships, finding significant
work, and viewing one’s work as significant; these coping mechanisms can serve to dismantle
“feeling like a fraud.” Additional compensatory strategies include cultivating and maintaining
relationships with mentors, and focusing upon one’s strengths/areas of expertise (Weir, 2017).
Teachers are at risk of creating racial battle fatigue, stereotype threat, and imposter phenomenon
within their students if they do not actively cultivate cultural competence and culturally
responsive teaching practices, and continually reflect upon the impact they have on students.
Stereotyped ideas about good teaching are ubiquitous, and teachers can easily fall into the trap of
teaching in the ways in which they have been taught, which do not necessarily include cultural
competence or culturally responsive practices. It may be that teachers lacking in a critical
intersectional analysis come to resemble their own institutions, and thus perpetuate, rather than
challenge, the status quo; this can have disastrous implications for non-hegemonic students.
Students in the Classroom
In a variety of school settings (K-12 - post-secondary), many non-hegemonic students feel
“isolation and alienation”: that they have to leave certain aspects of their identities at the school
door in order to be successful (Carter Andrews, 2012, p. 1). According to Carter Andrews,
“These feelings often result from structural features within the school (e.g., tracking, lack of
culturally diverse curriculum, biased teacher attitudes and beliefs, negative stereotypical beliefs
held by White peers, and discriminatory policies) that represent forms of institutional racism” (p.
5). Warikoo, Sinclair, Fei, and Jacoby-Senghor (2016) found that teachers do in fact treat
8
students differently based upon their race, yet many teacher educators continue to endorse the
notion of colorblindness, and the associated myth that if we just treat everyone the same, that
everything will work out fine.
The civil rights of Students of Color within all schools is a cause for concern for critical
pedagogues and social justice educators, but it should be for all teachers and teacher educators: a
disproportionate number of Students of Color are referred for special education services, and
disciplined more frequently and unfairly. White middle-class children are thus the “unmarked
norm” against which the developmental progress of other children is measured (O’Connor &
Fernandez, 2006). Further, both O’Connor and Fernandez (2006) and Blanchett (2006) argue that
the underachievement of Students of Color is exacerbated by their disproportionality in
underfunded schools with unqualified or uncertified teachers lacking experience. The desire to
“give back” without the requisite knowledge and mindset to view Students of Color from asset
perspectives has done its damage. The data clearly demonstrate this, yet we continue to educate
underprepared teachers to work in urban schools with historically marginalized student
populations.
There are many common words and phrases leveled against Students of Color (Morris,
2016). For example, loud, disrespectful, aggressive, urban, ghetto, thug; not college material,
does not care about school/future (this includes student and family), incapable of learning. These
words and phrases serve to perpetuate low expectations for marginalized student populations,
can be delivered directly to students as macro/microaggressions, and can lead to spirit murder,
stereotype threat, racial battle fatigue, and negative self-fulfilling prophecies. Spirit murder is
common in schools because of inadequate teacher training, cultural mismatch, and deficit
thinking. The notion of “spirit murdering” conceptualized by Williams (1991), and later
9
explicated by Love (2017), is “. . . ‘the personal, psychological, and spiritual injuries to people of
color through the fixed, yet fluid and moldable, structures of racism, privilege, and power’” (p.
199). I argue that spirit murdering can occur with any individual who problematizes, troubles, or
questions the status quo, particularly if that individual possesses a non-hegemonic status, i.e.,
women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community, as well as People of Color and indigenous
populations; in short, those possessing little to no power may be subjected to spirit murder,
especially if they question institutional or systemic practices that do not serve to support them.
According to Warikoo, Sinclair, Fei and Jacoby-Senghor (2016), teachers treat students
differently based on race, and this differential treatment contributes to disparities in achievement
based on race, “Explicit attitudes are beliefs and evaluations about people and things that
individuals knowingly endorse and have complete discretion over whether they disclose” (p.
508). If left unaddressed, over time, implicit biases lead to deeply rooted and debilitating cycles
of inequities within schools (Jones, et al., 2012). Many teachers have lower expectations both
behaviorally and academically for students different from them, which leads to classroom macro
and microaggressions (Kohli, & Solórzano, 2012), stereotype threat, and racial battle fatigue.
Relatedly, when students learn these messages, they may internalize oppressive feelings
about themselves, which may then affect how they perform academically (Dancy, 2017). Further,
they may develop impostor phenomenon, which affects their self-confidence and productivity,
even when they have the intellect and skills to achieve (Dancy, 2017). Pipeline schools, many of
which are urban charter schools, play a key role in the school-to-prison-pipeline (Alexander,
2010), and focus primarily on compliance—about sitting down and staying quiet—preparing
students more for prison than for democratic possibilities (Morris, 2016). In many of these
spaces, silence is the expectation for many students, particularly if they are Black and Brown,
10
read urban. Such schools are and should be considered Apartheid schools. The concept of the
“White savior” is rife within Apartheid schools where the students are perceived to be in need of
“saving” by the innocent and righteous White teacher (Matias, 2016). According to Matias and
DiAngelo (2013), “. . . while the system of White supremacy has shaped Western political
thought for hundreds of years, it is never named nor identified as a system at all. In this way,
White supremacy is rendered invisible while other political systems are identified and studied.
Much of its power is drawn from its invisibility” (p. 5). If White majority pre-service teacher
candidates are not asked to confront issues of race throughout their education, they will be hard
pressed to do so as professionals. Explicitly negative attitudes about race, now hidden within the
philosophy of colorblindness, do not negate their persistence. Warikoo and colleagues (2016)
argue that explicit racism has decreased in our current milieu, but implicit negative associations
exist, which result in more subtle forms of racism.
If specific conversations about race are not broached within teacher education programs,
racist practices of sorting of non-hegemonic students will continue, contributing to the mis-
education of students of color, and by extension, of White students who receive the implicit
message that they are superior. When students are “spirit murdered” they may experience what
Kohl (1994) describes as “not-learning,” or, “Deciding to actively not-learn something involves
closing off part of oneself and limiting one’s experience. It can require actively refusing to pay
attention, acting dumb, scrambling one’s thoughts, and overriding curiosity” (p. 4). Additionally,
as Erickson (1987) states, “Learning what is deliberately taught can be seen as a form of political
assent. Not learning can be seen as a form of political resistance” (p. 344).
In a ground-breaking study, Goff, Jackson, Di Leone, Culotta, and DiTomasso (2014)
argue that Black and Brown children are perceived as older and thus more responsible for their
11
actions than their White counterparts. These misperceptions (based on implicit bias) have grave
consequences for non-hegemonic students, and contribute to their dehumanization and
criminalization. Goff and colleagues found that teachers do not perceive Black and Brown
students as possessing the “essence of innocence,” as do their White peers. Morris (2016) argues
that African American girls specifically are viewed negatively in much more insidious and
subversive ways, with the discipline of and control of appearance, often done in informal ways,
but with the end result being the punishment of Black girl aesthetics, such as natural hair,
dreadlocks, or braids, being deemed as “disruptive.” According to Morris, “The politicization
(and vilification) of thick, curly, and kinky hair is an old one. Characterizations of kinky hair as
unmanageable, wild, and ultimately ‘bad hair’ are all signals (spoken and unspoken) that Black
girls are inferior and unkempt when left in their natural state” (p. 92).
In addition to aesthetics, African American girls are also often disciplined for their
“attitudes”: as Morris indicates (2016), “‘Willful defiance’ is a widely used, subjective, and
arbitrary category for student misbehavior that can include everything from a student having a
verbal altercation with a teacher to refusing to remove a hat in school or complete an
assignment” (p. 70). In sum, the issue of the containment of the Black girl within schools is a
specific crime perpetrated on Black girls, which must be immediately rectified through our
teacher education programs.
According to Smith, Hung, and Franklin (2011), “Depending on the social environment,
the level of rigidity, and its obstinate racial control, Blacks will experience more or less intense
racial microaggressions” (p. 67). And, “. . . racism and racial microaggressions operate as
psycho-pollutants in the social environment and add to the overall race-related stress for Black
men, Black women, and other racially marginalized groups” (p. 67). I would argue that the
12
White teachers in this space have little understanding of these phenomenon, but only view their
students from the perspective of cultural deprivation. Furthermore, this school operates from a
perpetual state of institutionalized racism, defined by Ture and Hamilton (1992) as relying on
“. . . the active and pervasive operation of anti-Black attitudes and practices. A sense of superior
group position prevails: Whites are ‘better’ than blacks; therefore, blacks should be subordinated
to Whites. This is a racist attitude and it permeates the society, on both the individual and
institutional level, covertly and overtly” (p. 5).
Students possessing intersectional identities, and/or LGBTQ+ status, living with a
disability, and students with mental health issues, may also feel excluded and subjected to
microaggressions in school because they deviate from the dominant norm: White, male
heterosexual, able-bodied, etc. (Nadal, Whitman, Davis, & Davidson, 2016). This sense of
intersectional exclusion can lead to feelings of impostorship (Dancy, 2017). LGBTQ+ students,
for example, may experience various microaggressions attacking their sexual and gender
identities including, but not limited to, heterosexist and homophobic language, disapproval of
LGBTQ+ identities, denials of homo/transphobia, perceptions that LGBTQ+ individuals are
pathological, stereotypes and/or fetishism of LGBTQ+ individuals, etc. (Nadal, Whitman, Davis,
& Davidson, 2016). In fact, 85% of LGBTQ+ students report experiencing verbal harassment,
making this population of students the most vulnerable to school-based harassment (Kosciw,
Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2013).
Students possessing intersectional identities in schools can also be subjected to
microaggressive conduct devaluing their multiple minority statuses, thus exacerbating the
amount of minority stress they experience (Nadal, Whitman, Davis, & Davidson, 2016). Students
possessing intersectional identities may also be subjected to microaggressions by members of
13
one of their own shared minority groups because their other intersectional identities deviate from
the expectations of their shared racial group, for example, and/or they may be subjected to
microaggressive comment for one identity that perpetrators perceive as in direct conflict with
their other intersecting identities—leaving the target in a no-win situation.
Haberman (1991) terms a “pedagogy of poverty”- likely in urban schools and
communities of color - based on rote memorization, drill and kill strategies, banking concept of
education, teacher-centered, highly rigid and structured, rife with low expectations. This
pedagogy is the direct inverse of what Ladson-Billings (1994) deems “culturally relevant
teaching,” or “. . . teaching about questioning (and preparing students to question) the structural
inequality, the racism, and the injustice that exist in society” (p. 18). According to Smith, Hung,
and Franklin (2011), People of Color “continue to be viewed as outsiders and treated in
stereotypic and racist ways” (p. 64). They speak of Black males in particular having to “spend
mental energy considering whether they are genuinely accepted or just being tolerated. . .
discerning the difference between individually supportive Whites and destructive actions by
Whites as a collective. . . [and] confront additional and unique race-based stress identifying
when, where, and how to resist oppression, versus when, where, and how to accommodate to it”
(pp. 65-66). According to Harris Combs (2016), “The master narrative of colorblindness does
not serve the interests of People of Color, and it serves to silence and reject their epistemologies”
(p. 160).
Teaching and Teacher Education
Just as our K-12 education system has been whitewashed (Sandoval, Ratcliff, Buenavista,
& Martin, 2016), so too have our teacher education programs. Nieto (2010) argues that teacher
education programs, “notorious for their homogeneity” screen out candidates of color, “Because
14
of their cultural uniformity, and unless there are conscious strategies to the contrary, preservice
programs often serve as a mechanism for reproducing negative and racist attitudes and beliefs
that later get translated into teaching approaches that continue to create inequitable education”
(pp. 61-62). Thus, teacher candidates, untrained and unprepared to question the status quo, are
unprepared to teach their Students of Color in an emancipatory way, for full democratic
participation and possibility (Loewen, 2010). Instead, teacher education programs prepare
teacher candidates to teach Students of Color only for assimilation to the status quo, which
necessitates deculturalization (Spring, 2013), including the destruction of native and home
languages, and cultures.
The whitewashing of teacher education not only involves the chosen curriculum as
master narrative and the candidates who are recruited and admitted into teacher education
programs (read White), but also candidate expectations for Students of Color that are cultivated
within said programs; this act of whitewashing results in a perpetual non-questioning of these
ideological uncritical and harmful practices. According to Nieto (2010), “For. . . White students,
the teachers thought of success as academic excellence, whereas for their African American
students, especially those perceived to be discipline problems, success was defined as ‘feeling
good about school, adjusting to rules and expectations, having positive interactions with adults,
and attaining a sense of belonging’” (pp. 117-118). Likewise, Loewen (2010) found with
regularity that practicing teachers expected White students to succeed and Black students to fail
regardless of social class.
Despite the above noted issues within teacher education, there are critical pedagogues
working to dismantle institutional structures that are harmful to scholars possessing non-
hegemonic statuses as well as institutional structures within K-12 schools operating from deficit
15
mindsets, and thereby harming, i.e., spirit murdering, the students who attend them. According to
Paris (2012), “Deficit approaches. . . [view]. . . the languages, literacies, and cultural ways of
being of many students and communities of color as deficiencies to be overcome in learning the
demanded and legitimized dominant language, literacy, and cultural ways of schooling” (p. 93).
In sum, there are uncritical and apolitical aspects of the field of education: teachers who attempt
to indoctrinate their students to assimilate into traditional American culture, understanding little
else, disciplining and punishing those students who do not abide, while not seeing any of their
actions as political, problematic, or controversial. Within the field of teacher education, scholars
must not only critique, but also dismantle the deficit approaches that serve to undermine non-
hegemonic students.
As Britzman (2003) argues, “The problem of conformity in teacher education stems in
part from its emphasis on training” (p. 46). As a field, we are not collectively focused on
knowledge creation per se, or on critical analysis of schools and institutions and the culturally
irresponsive individual and systemic practices that occur within, but rather on the practitioner
aspects of the field, e.g., writing proper lesson plans and objectives, following state and national
standards, and practicing classroom management. If we want our teachers to do better for our
non-hegemonic students, then we too must be better. The unexamined problem of Whiteness has
much to do with this lack of examination. According to Matias (2016):
Whiteness then sets the prevailing context for which US teacher education exists and
operates. The context of white-teacher-as-savior is aligned with the teachers’
psychosocial experiences with race and whiteness despite their lack of diverse racial and
socioeconomic upbringing. Many of my teacher candidates have explained that their
desire to become an urban-focused teacher hinges on their privilege of whiteness, and
16
thus feel the “need to give back.” Yet nearly all cannot articulate why: what makes them
feel compelled or guilty enough to give back? What racialized processes have they
undergone that leads them to believe they are apt to teach urban students of color? And,
most importantly, how will this impact urban students of color? (p. 231)
There are many problems with this unexamined “White savior” complex. Why do these
students, still in the process of completing their teacher education programs, think they have
anything to “give back” yet? Do White teacher candidates in their early 20s, with little to no
knowledge of urban communities of color, view these urban Students of Color and their families
from such a deficit perspective that they believe they can contribute anything? Do they say such
things about suburban schools? Would they even begin to know how to critique the harmful
institutional practices that exist in many urban schools—where students have lower expectations
placed upon them because of racial prejudice, implicit bias, and zip code? Most teacher
education programs do not prepare White students to engage in such critical conversations.
The notion of caring is prominent within teacher education and K-12 teaching, but it is a
concept that is not critically examined or theorized, and often lacks the quality of authentic
caring for historically marginalized students because it lacks the component of action and an
underlying un-examination of racial bias. As teacher educators, we must become comfortable
with this discomfort, to challenge our pre-service teachers (most of whom are White) to examine
their racial and cultural biases. Matias and Zembylas (2014) delve into the concept of caring as a
mask to hide White racial animus, stating that “declarations of caring and empathy are often
empty or inauthentic, because they fail to be accompanied by action... such expressions of caring
fail to recognize how they are embedded in modalities of racism and social inequality that are
perpetuated by assuming that declarations of caring are enough to alleviate the other’s suffering”
17
(p. 321 - 322). Racial pity and disgust on the part of White teacher candidates and White
teachers are directly connected to low academic expectations and deficit thinking about Students
of Color, their families, and their communities, which, in turn, can cause stereotype threat and
internalized racial stereotypes.
Case Study: An Invitation to Speak at an Urban Charter School
As a former K-12 teacher and now a teacher educator, I was recently invited to an urban
charter school to provide a guest lecture for a class of fifth-graders. I was informed that at this
charter school, all curriculum had been suspended so that teachers could focus on “character
education.” Abrasive, aggressive, disrespectful, loud were some of the words the teacher used to
describe his students prior to my visit.
I was invited to give a lesson on “character education” to these students, but I was not
going to do that. I was informed that these children “did not know how to behave,” and that the
teachers were attempting to inspire the students to be “good people.” My initial reaction was
shock and anger. I suspected that it was the teachers who needed education, and not the students.
I planned a lesson for what I thought would be appropriate for a fifth-grade classroom, including
viewing Dr. Bettina Love’s TED on Hip Hop, Grit and Academic Success, some discussion of
culturally responsive schools, a writing prompt, and ending with a creative expression exercise
on student culture. I suspected that I would not have any behavior problems. I was right.
After introducing myself to these students, all African American, and one international
student of Middle Eastern descent, I asked students what they thought I wanted them to do while
watching the movie. They answered, “Be quiet!” I responded, “Yes, but that was not what I was
thinking. What else?” They answered, “Stay in our seats!” I stated, “Okay, but also not what I
was thinking.” They responded a few more times with behavioral expectations, but finally they
18
stated, “Take notes!” I said, “Yes, exactly. Please write down anything important that you hear in
the film.” As I walked around during the film, I noticed a very small boy struggling to write with
a marker. I asked him, “Would you like a pencil to write with?” He responded, “Yes, I would
love a pencil.” I then asked the teacher for a pencil. He replied, “We don’t give them pencils. All
they do is break them and throw them on the floor.” I went to my purse and found a pen to give
the student. He did not attempt to break it, or throw it on the floor.
After the film, I asked the students what Dr. Love argued was the most important thing
about any school. They all answered, “Love!” They were correct, but, unfortunately, this was not
what they were experiencing within their own school. I then asked the students to write one
sentence discussing the most important aspect of the film in their estimation. The true highlight
of this exercise was when one boy discussed spirit murder, as does Love in her TED Talk. He
said something like, “Sometimes schools can spirit murder their students when they do not value
the students’ cultures.” It was that deep. I am sure the teacher heard this comment, but I am not
sure he was listening.
The students attending this urban charter school were being prepared for a future of
compliance. There was no art or music offered. Their school was situated in a deserted former
strip mall. The students’ playground was the concrete parking lot; their only equipment at recess
was a lone basketball hoop, a few jump ropes, and one broken hula hoop. On my way out of the
classroom, I noticed a list of rules written on the whiteboard, most of which I broke without even
realizing it:
1. Getting out of seat
2. Talking (noise)
3. Saying rude things to each other—shut up, gay, bald, etc.
4. Disrespect to adults—back talk, smack lips, roll eyes
5. Yelling!
6. Leaving room without permission
19
7. Dancing in or out of seat
8. Leaning/tipping chair or desk backwards, forwards, sideways
9. No sharing food
The first principle of the hidden curriculum of this school is that the students are not
worthy or capable of learning content because they needed to learn first “how to behave.” The
culture within the White teaching staff did not see any contradiction between their expectations
for these children, and what they would expect and demand for their own—but they saw
themselves as “nice” and “good” people, so the problems within the school could not have
anything to do with them. These students were experiencing racial microaggressions from their
teachers in the form of low expectations and stereotypes, which have serious impact not only on
learning, but also on the mental health of students (Nadal, Griffin, Wong, Hamit, & Rasmus,
2014). The suspension of a formal curriculum in place of behavior and character education, is an
extreme form of violence perpetrated upon these students. The second principle of the hidden
curriculum of this school was that these students did not act in ways that they were supposed to
act, according to White middle-class values.
At the end of my visit that day, I toured the school. I visited a K-first grade classroom,
and stood at the door. The door was open, and tiny children approached me, interested in who I
was. “I like your earrings,” was a comment that I remember. These children were curious and
alert, but I was taken aback by the White teacher in the room, the only White presence, yelling at
the children to “sit still,” and “stay in your chairs”; she shouted that she would call their parents
and that they were “on red.” I could not fathom how this White woman could yell at these
children. I again witnessed racialized microaggressions in the classroom. These teachers’ low
expectations for students will only lead to negative academic consequences for these students.
20
These students were not viewed as children and rather were viewed as “little criminals,”
who were in need of discipline as opposed to education. I witnessed dehumanization,
criminalization, and an attempt at control. I hypothesize that these students experience a silent
form of racial battle fatigue because of their treatment in the school including frustration,
hopeless, anger, which can result in real health challenges and behavioral responses. Upon taking
my leave of this urban charter school, I implored my host to not fight the battle of the pencil, but
to provide students what they need to learn. I attempted to make the connection between
culturally responsive curriculum and students success, but I am not sure if they were equipped to
hear me. I am not sure that my noted devastation at the realities of this Apartheid school was
taken into consideration.
Conclusions
Although public schools are the best hope we have to educate the most students of all
identities, teachers and teacher educators can and must do better. If my case study is any
indication of what can occur in schools when people are watching, microaggressions perpetrated
upon students, which can lead to the associated phenomenon of stereotype threat and racial battle
fatigue, what happens when no one is watching? We must do better. We must do better in
recruiting Teachers of Color. We must do better to create culturally responsive curriculums both
in higher education and in K-12 schools, i.e., curriculums that are not whitewashed: devoid of
the history of claims of racial superiority by Whites, and the dismantling of indigenous and
cultural languages and histories of various peoples living inside and outside of the contiguous
United States.
Previous research has suggested that not only are disciplinary techniques negatively
associated with educational outcomes, but also, they are inequitably levied toward Students of
21
Color (Casella, 2003; Lewis, Butler, Bonner, & Jubert, 2010; Monroe, 2005; Perry & Morris,
2014; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Is the problem that most teachers are White,
and unaccustomed to working with populations different from them? Is it that they are operating
from stereotyped notions of their students and thus deficit thinking? Can White teachers be
prepared to work in culturally diverse settings? According to Milner (2006; 2008), for teachers to
be prepared to work in diverse settings, they must be well versed in the following areas: cultural
and racial awareness, critical reflection, and the merging of theory and practice. They must also
be committed to defying the notion that lack of student success, particularly in urban schools, is
the fault of students, their parents, their home cultures, and their communities. To this end, we
must advocate for teacher education programs that challenge and confront the dominant social
order (Bolotin Joseph, Luster Bravmann, Windschitl, Mikel, & Stewart Green, 2000). Although
this work is difficult and White students may tend to resist it (Martin, 2015; Milner, 2013), we
have no other choice.
Teacher educators must advocate for asset perspectives when viewing all students in their
respective communities: tapping into students’ prior cultural knowledge when teaching new
knowledge can help to establish dynamic mental models that network to the learners’ existing
schema, adding meaning to the new knowledge for the learner (Griner & Stewart, 2012; Moll,
Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992). As teacher educators, we must provide our future educators
with mindsets, dispositions, and practices aimed at closing opportunity gaps for all students, but
for Students of Color in particular.
22
References
Ahlfeld, A. J. (2010). The imposter phenomenon revisited: The intersection of race, gender, and
professional status for women of color. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(9-B),
5803.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New
York, NY: The New Press.
Aronson, J. (2004, November). The threat of stereotype. Educational Leadership, 62, 14-19.
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. New
York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Carter Andrews, D. J. (2012). Black achievers’ experiences with racial spotlighting and ignoring
in a predominantly White high school. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-46.
Caselman, T. D., Self, P. A., Self, A L. (2006). Adolescent attributes contributing to the imposter
phenomenon. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 395-405.
Chaisson, R. L. (2004, October). A crack in the door: Critical race theory in practice at a
predominantly white institution. Teaching Sociology, 32, 345-357.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women:
Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, research and practice,
15, 241-247.
Dancy, T. E. (2017). Imposter syndrome. In K. Nadal (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
psychology and gender (pp. 21-23). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised
that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in
education. Educational Researcher, 33, 26–31.
Dorpat, T. L. (1994). On the double whammy and gaslighting. Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy,
23
11, 91-96.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational
achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 335-356.
Ewing, K. M., Richardson, T. Q., James-Myers, L., & Russell, R. K. (1996). The relationship
between racial identity attitudes, worldview, and African American graduate students’
experiences of the imposter syndrome. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 53-66.
Franklin, J. D., Smith, W. A., & Hung, M. (2014). Racial battle fatigue for Latina/o students: A
quantitative perspectives. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13, 303-322.
Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C. A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all
learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Nichols, A. H., Di Leone, B. A L. (2013). Anything but race:
Avoiding racial discourse to avoid hurting you or me. Psychology, 4, 335-339.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645-662.
Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2012). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality
through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48, 585-621.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,
290-294.
Harris Combs, B. (2016). Presumed biased: The challenge and rewards of teaching “post-racial”
students to see racism. In D. M. Sandoval, A. J. Ratcliff, T. L. Buenavista, & J. R. Martin
(Eds). “White” washing American Education: The new culture wars in ethnic studies
(Vol 2: Higher Education) (pp. 149-164). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
24
Jones, J. M., Cochran, S. D., Fine, M., Gaertner, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., Shih, M., & Sue, D.W.
(2012). Dual pathways to a better America: Preventing discrimination and promoting
diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force
on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity.
Kohl, H. (1994). “I won’t learn from you” and other thoughts on creative maladjustment. NY:
The New Press.
Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names! Racial
microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 15, 441-462.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2013). The 2013 national school
climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our
nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Love, B. L. (2017). Difficult knowledge: When a black feminist educator was too afraid to
#sayhername. English Education, 49, 197-208.
Loewen, J. W. (2010). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbooks
and get students excited about doing history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Martin, J. L. (Ed.). (2015a). Racial battle fatigue: Insights from the front lines of social justice
advocacy. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Martin, J. L. (2015b). Self-study of social justice teaching on the tenure track: A pedagogy of
vulnerability. In Martin, J. L. (Ed.), Racial battle fatigue: Insights from the front lines of
social justice advocacy (pp. 3-28). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Matias, C. E. (2016). White skin, black friend: A Fanonian application to theorize racial fetish in
25
teacher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48, 221-236.
Matias, C. E., & DiAngelo, R. (2013, summer-fall). Beyond the face of race: Emo-cognitive
explorations of White neurosis and racial cray-cray. Educational Foundations, 3-20.
Matias, C. E., & Zembylas. (2014). “When saying you care is not really caring”: Emotions of
disgust, Whiteness ideology, and teacher education. Critical Studies in Education, 55,
319-337.
Milner, H. R. (2013). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers
and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 1573-1598.
Milner, H. R. (2006). Preservice teachers’ learning about cultural and racial diversity:
Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 41, 343-375.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, D., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching.
Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141.
Monroe, C. R. (2005). Why are “bad boys” always black? Causes of disproportionality in school
discipline and recommendations for change. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79, 45-50.
Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidson, K. C. (2016).
Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer
people: A review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 488-508.
Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Wong, Y., Hamit, S., & Rasmus, M. (2014). The impact of racial
26
microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 92, 57-66.
Nadal, K. L. (2010). Gender microaggressions: Implications for mental health. In M. A. Paludi
(Ed.), Feminism and women’s rights worldwide: Volume 2, mental and physical health
(pp. 155-175). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D. W. (2013). Racial
microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60, 188-199.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.
Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress collateral consequences of
exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79, 1067-87.
Sandoval, D. M., Ratcliff, A. J., Buenavista, T. L., & Martin, J. R. (2016). (Eds). “White”
washing American Education: The new culture wars in ethnic studies (Vol 2: Higher
Education) (pp. 149-164). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Sarkis, S. (2017). 11 Signs of gaslighting in a relationship. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-signs-
gaslighting-in-relationship
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34, 317-342.
27
Smith, W. A., Mustaffa, J. B., Jones, C. M., Curry, T. J., & Allen, W. R. (2016). “You make me
wanna holler and throw up both my hands!” Campus culture, Black misandric
microaggressions, and racial battle fatigue. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 29, 1189-1209.
Smith, W. A., Hung, M., & Franklin, J. D. (2011). Racial battle fatigue and the Misseducation of
black men: Racial microaggressions, societal problems, and environmental stress.
Journal of Negro Education, 80, 63-82.
Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position. . .you fit the
description” Psychological experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American
male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 551-578.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yasso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of
Negro Education, 69, 60-73.
Spring, J. (2013). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Steele, J. R., Bianchi, E. C., Nalini, A. (2014). The effect of racial primes on the test
performance of African-American and European-American children. Revue
Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27, 161-174.
Sue, D. W. (2017). Microaggressions and “evidence”: Empirical or experiential reality?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 170-172.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions
28
and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology,
13, 72-81.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2008). Racial microaggressions
and the power to define reality. American Psychologist, 277-279.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, A. M. B. (2008). Racial microaggressions in the life
experience of Black Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39,
329-336.
Thames, A. D., Hinkin, C. H., Byrd, D. A., Bilder, R. M., Duff, K. J., Mindt, M. R., Arentoft, A.,
& Streiff, V. (2013). Effects of stereotype threat, perceived discrimination, and examiner
race on neuropsychological performance: Simple as Black and White? Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 19, 583-593.
Ture, K., & Hamilton, C. V. (1992). Black power: The politics of liberation. New York, NY:
Vintage.
Walton, G. M. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96.
Warikoo, N., Sinclair, S., Fei, J., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. (2016). Examining racial bias in
education: A new approach. Educational Researcher, 45, 508-514.
Weir, K. (2017). Feel like a fraud? American Psychological Association. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/11/fraud.aspx
Williams, P. (1991). The alchemy of race and rights: Diary of a law professor. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Zion, S.D. & Blanchett, W. (2011). (Re)conceptualizing inclusion: Can critical race theory and
29
interest convergence be utilized to achieve inclusion and equity for African American
students? Teachers College Record, 113, 2186-2205.
