So it's illegal to teach the idea of white privilege as fact now. I guess that's the same for male privilege, class privilege etc

[chomalungma]

It's got to be hard to discuss racism, sexism, class advantage to pupils and to discuss how that can be overcome without directly teaching about white privilege, male privilege, class privilege as fact.

Maybe they could offer alternative views?

This is the debate on Black History Month - which is a fascinating read

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-20/debates/5B0E393E-8778-4973-B318-C17797DFBB22/BlackHistoryMonth

And the Government view

"Lots of pernicious stuff is being pushed, and we stand against that. We do not want teachers to teach their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. Let me be clear that any school that teaches those elements of critical race theory as fact, or that promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law"

So parents can discuss it with their children, but teachers can't discuss it

[noblegiraffe]

Depends how you teach it. I wouldn’t stand in front of the class and say the white kids are privileged etc, but, I would show images to get them thinking about the issue and lead a discussion about what white people may take for granted... Such as... plasters for their skin

You want to teach ‘white privilege’ but not mention the words ‘white privilege’ and you want to spend time talking about the colours of plasters and so on.

Is this the most effective use of an hour of PSHE in tackling racism?

If you’ve already acknowledged that you need to tread carefully (not tell white kids that they are privileged when introducing the concept of white privilege) and as a teacher you know this will be taught badly anyway by non-specialists who will probably have a quick read through of the PowerPoint before the lesson, are you sure this is a good idea?

[LadyWithLapdog]

What a depressing thread. I thought 2020 couldn’t get shitter but here we are with people doubting white privilege or the need for awareness of it. Bloody hell.

[LastTrainEast]

OP The point was that our schools should not be inviting in activist groups or promoting them or their extremist agendas. Our children are there to be educated not recruited. Nor are they there to be punished for "inherited racial guilt"

I was concerned and still am that we'd have 'woke' teachers forcing the white kids to stand up and apologise to the rest in class.

I've encountered enough people who would get off on that.

[OverTheRainbow88]

You want to teach ‘white privilege’ but not mention the words ‘white privilege’ and you want to spend time talking about the colours of plasters and so on.

Yes, could easily do it as a lesson starter, getting the kids thinking and then introducing the topic of racism. The colour of plasters is an example of something a white child may have never considered to be an issue for others- so yes I would spend time talking about this.

I teach RE, ethics A level, philosophy and PSHE, so fully qualified to teach it as would my fellow specialist teachers in my department. I teach much more complex topics than this. Can’t speak for other schools though.

[SarahAndQuack]

@noblegiraffe, I get where you're coming from, especially the worries about teachers who don't have much time or training.

But children have heard this term already. I know teenagers. They've heard this term; they have these debates themselves.

I don't think you can ignore that.

So it seems to me that what the government is doing here is creating a situation where, if students are already having this discussion, a teacher is required to say 'well class, white privilege isn't a fact you know, there are many opinions'.

That worries me too. Because the teachers who'd have done it badly will still do it badly, and the ones who might do it well will be hampered by worries about what they might say.

It's like section 28 again (which is why I still do not understand why you differentiate this from homophobia).

Back in 1990, I'm sure loads of teachers would have been mildly or majorly homophobia and/or ill equipped to moderate a class discussion about sexuality. But the fact that section 28 existed only meant that teachers who would have been able to tackle homophobia, instead felt they couldn't talk about it.

Won't this risk the same situation?

[noblegiraffe]

here we are with people doubting white privilege or the need for awareness of it.

That is not what I’m saying at all.

I’m saying that telling groups that they are privileged when they feel anything but may not be the best tactic in addressing issues like racism. I’m saying that I would like some evidence that teaching kids that white kids are privileged compared to black kids due to the colour of their skin will make racism less of a problem.

We need to tackle racism. We currently do that by talking about and tackling discrimination and boosting positive role models for black communities.

Where’s the evidence that the ‘white privilege’ angle of approaching the topic will be more successful and less divisive? Because I’m not convinced.

[turnitonagain]

@noblegiraffe

Lifetime earnings shown by level of qualification

Degree or equivalent: £1,819,792

Higher education: £1,384,448

GCE A-level or equivalent £1,233,024

GCSE grades A-C or equivalent £1,022,112

Other qualifications £978,848

No qualification £873,392

OK but this is not the whole picture as I doubt working class white women out earn men but they apparently have better results in school.

I don’t think people can keep saying working class white boys do badly in school means white privilege doesn’t exist. Because I don’t believe they are the lowest earners in the UK.

[Mintjulia]

@ladywithlapdog I don't think people doubt white privilege exists, the question is whether it is reasonable, beneficial and fair to teach the concept to teenagers who are already struggling.

I don't doubt the psychology of child molesters or mass murderers but that's not suitable content for seventeen year olds either.

And you wonder why we have so many teenagers with depression!

[SarahAndQuack]

@mintjulia, people clearly do doubt that white privilege exists - there are examples on this thread.

[Kpo58]

I think that the term White Privilege was purely created to create a bun fight and turn people off. I'm not denying that the concept behind it exists, but it definitely could have been named better so that it actually ment something to people rather than just as a way to put barriers up to the whole discussion.

Maybe BAME the Barriers could have been a better name so that people could look at the barriers that face non white people rather than just turning people off from the discussion?

[amusedtodeath1]

It depends on how the angry black woman presents herself, if she's openly hostile it's not going to do her any favours and has nothing to do with racism.

If the interviewer dismisses an interviewee because of the colour of her skin then the interviewer is the problem, they are racist and need educating. It's sad that these things happen in 2020, I wish it didn't but I have a 16 YO DD and her generation are so different from those before them, it's not just her or her group of friends either. It's working, slowly yes but progress is here, they're almost ready to take on the world and make it a fairer place. It's older generations who make the decisions here and not all of them are racist but there was a general bias growing up in those generations and they are the people who create the unfairness that dark skinned people experience. We risk alienating young people by not being clear about who is the problem here.

[Devlesko]

Nobody is doubting some white privilege exists, because it clearly does, but it's not a given.
Racism exists, full stop.
It's how we tackle it that's important, not the colour of the skin of the poor buggers experiencing it.

[OverTheRainbow88]

Would the ‘angry black woman’ be described as an ‘assertive white woman’? Hmmm likely

[SarahAndQuack]

@amusedtodeath1

It depends on how the angry black woman presents herself, if she's openly hostile it's not going to do her any favours and has nothing to do with racism.

If the interviewer dismisses an interviewee because of the colour of her skin then the interviewer is the problem, they are racist and need educating. It's sad that these things happen in 2020, I wish it didn't but I have a 16 YO DD and her generation are so different from those before them, it's not just her or her group of friends either. It's working, slowly yes but progress is here, they're almost ready to take on the world and make it a fairer place. It's older generations who make the decisions here and not all of them are racist but there was a general bias growing up in those generations and they are the people who create the unfairness that dark skinned people experience. We risk alienating young people by not being clear about who is the problem here.

I'm saying 'angry black woman' because it's a well-known trope: black women are perceived to be more 'angry' or 'hostile' than white women even if they express themselves in exactly the same way. That's the point. I should have made it clear, but that's the point.

If the interviewer knows they are dismissing the interviewee because of the colour of their skin, that's one thing. That's open racism. But that's rare. What's much more common is for the interviewer to say to him or herself 'well, I'm no racist, but she was just so ... hostile'. Or 'well, yes, he's qualified, but something about him made me feel he just wasn't such a good fit'.

If these things didn't happen - these events that are basically unconscious racism - then we would not find people of colour underrepresented in organisations that claim to want to include them and employ them, would we?

[ConfusedcomMum]

Perhaps it's an issue that leaders of the white community could tackle and explain why some of their community are poorly-performing in education?

(Yes I know this sounds ridiculous but just wanted to make a point about how similar claims sound ridiculous to others, e.g. 'Muslim community needs to address issues' - who is that supposed to be? The Turkish, the Somalians, The Albanians, The Malaysians, Indian or Chinese Muslims, or (gasp!) Converts?! . Or is it that we are all equally part of the same British public and actually these are all our issues to address/own too?)

[amusedtodeath1]

@OverTheRainbow88

Would the ‘angry black woman’ be described as an ‘assertive white woman’? Hmmm likely

I took angry black woman as a statement of fact, I didn't question it the same as if someone said angry white woman I wouldn't question it,. If people mean assertive they should write assertive

[SarahAndQuack]

I assumed you'd recognise it as a trope; I'm sorry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_black_woman

[CornwallCucumber]

I've always believed wholeheartedly in the concept of white privilege and I still do, but I've recently been wondering about whether there is really that much value in using it to educate people in combatting racism, particularly in the UK with our diverse multicultural society. After all what is the benefit in telling an underprivileged person they're "privileged"? If you're already on board, you'll understand the nuance of it, but otherwise it just feels like a slap in the face. I think teaching about the prejudice and discrimination that people from different ethic backgrounds face makes more sense.

[amusedtodeath1]

I'm sorry I'm not aware of the angry black woman trope, I am aware of the whole angry woman is hysterical trope though so can understand it in a way. I took it at face value and I should have picked up on it tbh. Apologies.

Unconscious racism is a problem but surely that's what education is for?
You can't educate someone who genuinely believes that the paleness of skin tone is tied to superiority, but you can educate someone who is subconsciously bias (usually because they grew up watching "some like it hot mam, or all the other deeply offensive shit we used to allow).

Today's youth aren't like that, they don't feel superior or privileged because they grew up being told we are all equal.

Obviously I'm generalising here are there are exceptions, people do need educating but I think it's aimed at the wrong people and with the wrong tone.

If you want someone to listen it's often pointless to start from the perspective of white privilege, some people will never understand that it's not an insult and people new to the concept might not give you the chance to explain that.

[Devlesko]

I had just received my latest funding offer before covid hit.
I speak about racism towards my white ethnic minority race, the history of slavery, other atrocities and how society has found it acceptable to continue the prejudice and racism.
I talk about change and the importance of education and make sure they take something away, such as a better understanding and knowledge.
Usually on my way out a few will have comments of "Miss I won't say pyky, gyped or chav".
I agree the younger generation are ready to take on the injustices that have existed throughout history, to many groups.

[SarahAndQuack]

No, my fault, should have explained. And YY, definitely it's related to the 'women are hysterical' thing.

I agree it's what education is for - I just worry that the end result of the government's decision won't be education, it'll be letting racism go unchecked because teachers feel it's too much of a can of worms to be worth opening.

As someone who teaches teenagers, I do not think today's youth don't feel they're superior. Sadly, I know for a fact quite a lot do.

I see the point about not starting with white privilege - I get that. But I don't think teachers will have the option, because the discussion is already out there. Sure, if you're teaching a class of eight year olds, I would expect they've not heard the phrase and probably they will be surprised (and maybe interested) if you approach it by asking what colour plasters are, and so on. But if you're teaching a class of 18 year olds, enough of them are likely to have heard something about these debates, that they'll raise it for themselves.

[OverTheRainbow88]

@amusedtodeath1

Because that’s the white privilege the white person has.

[noblegiraffe]

I don’t think people can keep saying working class white boys do badly in school means white privilege doesn’t exist.

I certainly didn't say that. But telling working class white boys who are underperforming in school and know what that means in terms of their work and college prospects that they are privileged compared to ethnic minorities probably isn't the best approach to tackling racism.

And of course poverty exists for white people. Trying to suggest that despite their lack of qualifications they'll end up earning more anyway isn't helpful. It's minimising the real issues facing them.

I said it before on this thread, minimising and ignoring the problems facing white working class communities hasn't brought this country together or made it more tolerant of minorities in any visible way.

[Devlesko]

I said it before on this thread, minimising and ignoring the problems facing white working class communities hasn't brought this country together or made it more tolerant of minorities in any visible way.

As you are a teacher

[BiBabbles]

I doubt working class white women out earn men but they apparently have better results in school.

Depends on other factors. Single childless women, particularly younger ones (often more affected by their school results), have been outearning their male compatriots for some years in many areas.

Would the ‘angry black woman’ be described as an ‘assertive white woman’? Hmmm likely

I thought she would be called a Karen, though there is probably an equal chance of just being called assertive, especially if younger.

Demographics only give part of the any individual's picture.

When schools discuss poverty, they can discuss a range of ways people have viewed the issue and tried to tackle it. The same applies to racism or any other oppression. In discussing racism in schools, discussing different lenses - individualistic, systemic - and ideas on how to improve things has merit. White privilege is used in a few lenses to view racism in society through. I've not really seen evidence that teaching it to white people does anything worthwhile, as I said before evidence shows it just makes white people less considerate towards other white people, but there isn't really a need to discuss it and then act like the only other opinion is racism. There is differing opinions even within CRT.

Privilege is a theoretical framework to explain oppression in society - it's a way to discuss various social (dis)incentives and social changes. Applying it to the individual level as something someone has is always going to fall apart because demographics do not work so neatly off a spreadsheet and for every qualitative example, there are counter examples. None of these things are simple, even less simple when applied at the individual level. That's why some prefer to keep CRT at the community and population level. That's why some prefer to focus on history and practical things kids can do now, and leave the theory to the academics.

I'd be a bit annoyed if a school taught individualistic privilege as a fact just as I was annoyed when my DDs' school used Marx as an example of 'the left' vs Hitler as 'the right' via PDF over lockdown. The oversimplification resulted in me having to unpick things with my 12 year old for ages and I can't see what good that did.