Also that's involved in all of this, well, I, I get it from that Eva Figes book, _Patriarchal Attitudes_. I had no idea until I read some of that history about how ingrained this is in their education, in their history, in their psyches, White man, European superiority, over everybody else.

There you go.

What did you say?

It's gonna be a rough day for the White boys.

It's gonna be a rough day at the office.

And, I think that's a good [whistles]-

Sorry. [laughs]

[laughs] I think that's a good point for us to start from.

Talking about the history and the teaching. When someone said earlier, talking about institutionalized racism and how it was designed to perpetuate itself, that our system, the school systems, and all are designed to continue. I know you focused on that when you talked about we have to re-educate the educators or redefine how we're going to educate. What I want to know from you, and all of you, especially White males, is if you agree or disagree with this article? Does it have any validity? Is it just a, what's the word? I don't want to use "joke," but is it being facetious? Is it, does it, has, does it have any validity whatsoever? Elba, you want to start the discussion for us? When you don't, when you talk or look away, I get you.

Sure. Given an opportunity to talk, I will. I think that there are two ways to look at it. We, I think that there are two ways to look at the, the piece. And one is to look at it as, as a joke, as being facetious. But I think another way is, is to look at it as a commentary on what's possible in terms of equality. I mean, I think that one could see a message that simply says that policies that ensure steps towards equality, even if it's equal access, that that's something that's not just for Black people. It's not something that's just for oppressed groups. They're really something for society, that would free the entire society.

How does freeing an op-

-certain basic human thing that you're missing because you, you are quote-unquote "oppressed" and I mean, and I think that's very important. So, I think, for example, so, ending oppression liberates the oppressor as well and it allows them, makes it more likely they'll be more of a human being.

Are you saying that-

Excuse me.

I just want clarity.

OK, OK.

Are you saying that the oppressor is aware of the fact that they are missing all of these values?

I don't think they are.

OK.

I don't think they're aware of it. I think the slave owners weren't aware of it but-

OK. That, I, I thought that's what you were saying. That's all.

OK.

I think it relieves the oppressor from responsibility of someone else's life and it puts it back on you where it belongs. I, personally, don't want to be responsible in another words, if I'm gonna be in charge of your life by a law or an institutionalized racism, then I'm responsible for what happens to you rather than you being responsible. And I don't know if most people feel this way, but I don't want that responsibility. I'd like everyone to take care of their own life.

OK. Yes, ma'am.

Well, it's, it seems to me that the sides that we, we need to clarify is pluralism, which is up there. Now, when I used the word pluralism this morning, I had no idea it was gonna be a controversial term. So, I'd like to explain, well, how I feel it's tied into all the concepts we're talking about including-

Can you hear her over here?

No.

As much as I hate turning off this fan, don't-

Don't blame it on me. Don't blame it on me.

You can talk louder-

I'll stand up.

Yeah. Stand and project. This is speech class.

All right. Judy Richardson said it very perfectly this morning. She said, "Affirmative action isn't the problem. Institutionalized racism is the problem." Now, affirmative action is just one strategy to address it. But pluralism, it seems to me, is one solution or antidote to institutionalized racism. In fact, isn't, isn't pluralism the opposite of institutionalized racism? In a pluralistic society, everybody should have equal access to and enjoyment of power: political, economic, social, cultural, all power. We have a pluralistic society, but we do not have pluralism in any power structure that we have. So pluralism isn't passive. It's not tokenism. It's not wishy washy. What I mean by pluralism, is the full enjoyment of power by all people. And that's, and that's very revolutionary, because when decisions and priorities and allocations of money are all made by White males, those are very different priorities and decisions and allocations than when they're made by women, and people of color, and so forth. And that, of course, is exactly, Julian Bond's caricature is of the institutionalized racism, power held in the White male which Ozell Hudson alluded to earlier. So, pluralism, I think, we maybe have to have some common understanding because this morning I felt like that was in itself a total controversy.

Could I ask just one thing? Do you have a plan for achieving pluralism?

Well, I think there, there have to be strategies on all fronts just as there, there was in the movement. Affirmative action is one of them, political organization, and, you know, empowerment, franchise, any means. All means. Because as Frederick Douglass said the oppressor will receive as much oppression as they'll take. And he didn't mean that in the sense of blaming people for being oppressed. He meant that people who hold power never hand it over.

Well, I just wanted to, I just wanted to [inaudible].

Yeah.

Does anyone disagree with this article? Does anyone feel that the Civil Rights Act, or can anyone think of any justification for saying that the Civil Rights Act is not a way of freeing White men?

No, I would just say that I don't think it's true that White men are walking around with a lot of guilt. I think it's, it's the-

What?

Walk around, what?

They can't hear you. You have to stand, I know it's difficult to get out of these chairs.

Because I think, for example, our system does give people, White people, the illusion of a working meritocracy. And people come to believe they really deserve what they have, even if that's not necessarily true.

So, the, the issue that he raises is that the guilt is not there. And if there's no guilt, is there any reason to free them? I mean, I know that if you're talking the penal system, when they go before the parole board, if you don't admit that you did something wrong, they generally won't parole you. So, if White people, White men in particular, do not feel that they have any reason to be guilty, can you free them through the Civil Rights Act? Yes? Go ahead.

Yes, because the, the, the structure will be such that they will be, that equality will forced and people will be forced on an individual basis, to confront issues that they wouldn't have had to confront otherwise. And it's only when in some way, you trip over, you confront, you are exposed to the issue, if you are the oppressor, if you are the one that's responsible, do you realize it. If, if you're open to the revelation, do you realize where you are and what your responsibilities are.

Yes?

How did we get into...

Can't hear you.

Are we assuming that every individual will come with the same frame of reference, with the same expectations, with the same sense of responsibility, and privilege? And if we are doing that, didn't we have that system, or that set of values or perceptions in place during the height of the plantation mentality? I mean, when you look at that, White males were very much in charge. They, they controlled everything within their realm. And they didn't have any guilt about anything. They rationalized that which they might have been guilty for if they had that moral conviction and responsibility somewhere lurking in their thoughts at that moment. I mean, that was part of the whole milieu of trying to filter through that power structure and figure out where the actual power lay and where there was the opening to begin to address those issues. If that was, in fact, the case, then does that not refute all that we have placed forth as the response to "freeing" said oppressors?

Well, one of the things about being right here, I'd say, is that a lot of different thoughts go to my mind each time someone speaks, you know. One of them was a book by a woman, Hannah Green, _I Never Promised You a Rose Garden_, where she said that, she was talking about mental illness, and that the only way you can address or correct a mental illness is to first recognize that it exists, you know. And then if you've never admit that it exists, you could never correct it. Yes. And then you, Pat.

OK. I think there's another dimension that needs to be added. Don't assume that White male is a monolith in that any more than the Black male or Black female or any other groups among us-

Can't hear you.

Project!

-don't assume that the White male represents a monolith or monolithic culture. There's divisions within the White males. There are some White males who had to work very hard for what they got because of class distinction. Son of a tobacco farmer growing up on a tenant farm had to work much harder than someone who is the son of a doctor, a lawyer, or professional class. So, there is a class distinction that cuts across racial lines too well, and I think that needs to be injected into this discussion.

And now I think that it's important that we keep that in mind. But it was something that was said earlier in one of the discussions was that one of those baggage that White men don't necessarily take with them are those little things like every time a police officer drives or walks past that most Black men look over their shoulder. You know, it's those little things. I know that that is not completely true of all White males. That there will be some who will have to do that, but that is more a product of their individuality than of their culture. Let me come to Pat. I'll come back to you.

To answer your question, I, I don't think that-

We can't hear you.

To answer, I'll stand up if I have to. To answer Leslie's question, I don't think this new Civil Rights Act will make it easier for White men to get rid of their guilt or, or dispel their guilt, whatever. I think that, you know, if anything, it will make them hold onto, you know, as much as possible. Just like the affirmative action law, like, it's there, but it's not implemented. It's not forced. So, you know, how many, you know, just like, I can't think of names, but just like he said over there about a lot of, about the monolithic problem between White men. That there's a line that, that, that there's some sort of distinction. But White men are not going to give up their power just like that, just because this law exists because it's there. So, it would take all of us to make sure that it's enforced and that it's in places everywhere because, just like any other law if we don't make it work, you know, it's not gonna work. You know, it takes more just [inaudible].

Elba, Russell, here and there. [laughs]

I find it interesting that out, out of all of the available perspectives, points of view, sort of slices that we can take out of, in, in terms of approaching this potential legislation, that we would choose to critique it in the context of the White man's experience. Of everything that's available, to me, that speaks to the power of White men. Just the fact that we're sitting here talking about it, if there are a lot of different ways to talk about it. What are the impacts gonna be on education? We could've been talking about it, is it gonna free Black men or is it gonna further enslave them? What does this mean for women? What does this mean, you know, for civil rights in general? And that, if we would choose to perpetuate via the media and via even this forum, using White men as the context, I think really speaks to the power and sort of privilege that they have. And then we need to be accountable about our role in that, because we make choices about, you know, power is an illusion. You can give it and you can take it away and we give it.

Well, the other side of that before we go to Russell is of course, since I'm supposed to lead this discussion about this, is that it is a point that's never discussed. You know, in all the discussions I've had, this point of view, I've never taken part in. I've never discussed freeing White men from the shackles of-

Of themselves?

-of themselves, or privilege, or whatever we wanna to call it. And, you know, I know that it's been discussed psychologically as far as sexism is concerned but I have not seen it discussed for racism. Russell was next.

I, I think that,

Speak up.

Oh, excuse me. I thought I was sitting tall enough to be-

I, I wonder if, there seems to me to be a psychological side and an ideological side that maybe transcends the issue of whether or not we're talking about White men or what for what group. One problem that I have with this, is it deals with one psychological feeling, guilt as if that's something that exists to the exclusion of other things, of, of, of other psychological feelings. It, it seems to me that, certainly even if there is guilt, I'm not sure if there is because of the ideological component, that certainly there's, there's another benefit, which is a reduction in anxiety. If you, if you know that the structure of society will usually put you at, on top, then you may very well choose the guilt, if you feel that, over the anxiety of wondering where you're going to be and how you're going to get there. That's, that's one of the issues. The, the other side is that I, I think that, I think someone brought this up earlier, there, there are lots of ideological components here that "rationalize" quote-unquote, the, the experience of or expectations of White males. One of those ideological components was stated clearly by John C. Calhoun in one of his major writings. He, he s-he, he stated that, in his justification for slavery, that slavery was needed because it takes leisure to think about the more valuable things in life. To think about philosophy, to think about the value of things, etc., and because of the amount of work that was necessary in this world, the only way to create a leisure class capable of, capable of doing that higher thinking was to have a slave class to do the work. Whatever we think about the merits of John C. Calhoun's argument, I think that some of that is reflected in our society as it is now, where we denigrate certain types of work or, and believe that some people should have the, the, the leisure or the, the room to do other types of work. And that's, that's an ideological subcomponent of, of, of this issue that may again assuage whatever guilt feelings exist, if they do exist.

OK. It was Dan, Loretta, Miss Houston, and come on back over here then.

Yeah. What I was saying doesn't really address that point but I-

Could you speak up?

Oh. What I was saying doesn't address that point but I just feel that as far as the law would, is concerned, it would, it's an instrument for raising consciousness. I don't, you have all the power. I agree that the guilt feelings for most White men aren't there and that they're not, they're just not thinking. That the, the consciousness isn't there. And if you have the power, then you don't even have to think about it. But once the power is wrested from you then you're forced into situations where you have to confront them. So, I would say, I think that's what has to happen.

OK, Loretta, then Miss Houston.

I'd like to hear some reflections in terms of a strategy. Julian Bond, as we know, was very much a strategist in thinking things through at various stages of, of the freedom movement. Julian Bond has written this op-ed and put it in the u-_New York Times_. _New York Times_ readership, what do we think about the strategy aspect? Is this a different way to label things? Is it, Elba raised some, some criticisms of a couple of other people have talked about. This is mass media, _New York Times_, it's on the op-ed page, what do you think is the impact of that?

Is it in direct response?

Miss Houston then-

I was gonna speak to the article, and Julian Bond. I had the feeling, as I read it, that it was facetious and not to be taken seriously. It was satire. And the fact that we're taking it, we're just, that we're taking it seriously that he in, indeed meant that there be a discussion around freeing White men and their guilt, you know, kinda surprises me.

And I agree.

And-

I don't think it was every meant as any kind of a serious approach.

OK. Yes, sir?

Yeah. I, I can't get over, you know, being a member of the BTU, and going over to the court just very recently, waiting for a White man to protect us, Judge Garrity. And to protect the decision that we were made, that was made, and then to have taken a kind of unpopular stance that, that wastes, some of the Blacks feel, the time of the people, by treating the White as the real minority in the Boston school system. I taught, right, I only have five White students out of, out of five big classes. So, the real minority is the White. And then, and then this has a Unitarian Universalist base and there's a story about a Unitarian who had a chance to go see God or go to a discussion about God. And the Unitarian went to the discussion. And, and the idea that we would, that we would just do something sometime and save all the talks because we, we, we don't have enough generosity of spirit, and we're too angry to afford what I call the luxury of disagreement. And disagreement is, is a, is a luxury.

OK. OK.

Loretta raises the, the strategic use or purpose behind this. And I think that what Bond is responding to directly is an article which appeared, I think, probably a week or two prior to that, written by Shelby Steele in which he, which is included in our notebook, here, called "Negative Vote on Affirmative Action." And if I can, I'd like to quote, basically, I think, what Bond is really attacking, or what he's really going after. He says, Steele says: [reads] "I think one of the most troubling effects affirmative action for Blacks is a kind of demoralization. Under affirmative action, the quality that earns us preferential treatment is an implied inferiority. However this inferiority is explained-and it is easily enough explained by the myriad deprivations that grew out of our oppression--it is still inferiority. There are explanations, and then there is the fact. And the fact must be borne by the individual as a condition apart from the explanation, apart even from the fact that others like himself also bear this condition. In integrated situations in which Blacks must compete with Whites who may be better prepared, these explanations may quickly wear thin and expose the individual to racial as well as personal self-doubt. Of course, Whites also feel doubt, but only personally, not racially." What this means in practical terms is that when Blacks deliver themselves into integrated situations, they encounter a nasty little reflex in Whites, a mindless, atavet-atavistic reflex that responds to the color Black with negative stereotypes such as intellectual ineptness. I think this reflex embarrasses most Whites, Whites today and, thus, it is usually quickly repressed. On an equally atavistic level, the Black will be aware of this re-the reflex his color triggers and will feel a stab of horror at seeing himself reflected in this way. He, too, will do a quick repression, but a lifetime of such stabbings is what constitutes his inner realm of racial doubt. Even when the Black sees no implication of inferiority in racial preference, he knows that Whites do, so that consciously or unconsciously the result is virtually the same. The effect of preferential treatment-the lowering of normal standards to increase Black representation-puts Blacks at war with an expanded realm of debilitating doubt, so the doubt itself becomes an unrecognized preoccupation that undermines their ability to perform, especially in integrated situations." Now Steele, in talking to Gerald, at lunch, he writes this, seems to me, pretty clearly and so forth but one of the key points is that I don't know that he has any evidence to back this self-doubt kind of depiction. What is the research? What is the psychological research that proves this point? His, a lot of his talk has been a result of, seems to me, narratives, in, interviews, and so forth but I don't know if there's any psychological evidence in, in, studies around now that, that would prove these points here. But it's something that, you know, it's out there.

And maybe being worse and useless if there were some.

That prove that?

Yeah, because what we're dealing with is just like the modern crooks. They don't have plans, they don't have or you can go and find the plan, but it's like Wordsworth finding sermons in stones. He found them because he'd hidden them there. And it's the same as we, we have trying to prove things that you can prove in here. The real glory of this is that we're strong enough to maintain ourselves, in spite of tremendous differences and come to some unifying concept.

OK. We're running out of time. So, I wanna a give a couple of...Lurline and then Pat.

We cannot correct things unless we know what it is that needs to be corrected. This article reminds me of a position paper written by Peggy McIntosh which deals with White privileges. And she lists about forty-nine things that White people, male as well as females, can get just virtue of the fact that their skin color is White. Among them is immediate acceptance, immediate reaction to the fact that whatever they say or do is right. And if you'll check in life, we can see that those things are so. And I haven't the list of the forty-nine things but I can get them.

It's being handled right now.

Oh, oh, then, I, then I won't get into it. OK. Well, let me finish. Well, since you have...well, since you have it, I'll just finish my comment then. Unless White people realize that these things are happening to them because they are White, then they will not perceive that there is anything that needs to be corrected. And I think for a strategy we need to let White people know that here are certain facts. Here are certain things that are happening to you because you're White and that people of color are being negated from these things because they are people of color. And until White people recognize that as a fact, there's nothing we can do to help them change.

Pat.

But even, Lurline, sometimes even when it's White folks, and he's pointing out, White folks that, Hey, you're wrong because you are leaving, you know, folks of color out of situations, sometimes they still don't back down. They still hold on to that ground. Now, the reason why I'm saying it is, just recently I was on the youth committee of the Mandela visit and Rubin held a license, the vending license for the entire esplanade. And the Black vendors wanted some of that space. They wanted to display their sale goods and, and, etc., and they had their vending license, too. They might've had their license even long before Rubin had his license, but that wasn't debatable. When they went before the lice-when the Black vendors-

Who's Rubin?

He's the person who has the, Les could probably explain how the process goes, but he's the person who has the entire license for the esplanade. Whenever there's an event on the esplanade, he sells food and goods, etc. So, when the vendors of color went to the license commissioner here in Boston to state that they wanted some of that space, that it was not fair that Rubin had, you know, all this space. And they asked him whether or not he would give up some of it. He said no. And so the licensing commissioner said that there was that he could do about it because he checked the records and everything was legal. It was OK. So, then he, he said to the vendors of color you have to go back and personally negotiate with Rubin, you know, to give up some of the space, so you can sell your goods, etc., so forth and so on, when Mandela is here. They went back and they did this. And what Rubin did, he, he gave them a real good slap in the face. He says, Well, what I'll do is I'll hire several youth of color to work for four hours each and give them five dollars an hour. You know, this is how we'll, we'll, you know, this is the remedy I can come up with. You know. So, the vendors of color was very displeased. So, what happened was in our community, immediately there were flyers that went out. It was on, I think it was also put on the, WILD which is the Black radio station in our neighborhood that no one of color was to buy any goods, anything at all, from any of the vendors on the esplanade during the Mandela visit, because vendors of color was not allowed to use any space to sell their goods because Rubin was not willing to give up any of his power, any of his freedom. OK.

There was one comment over here.

Purpose, I meant to say. Thank you.

I, I, I, mine was just minor, in response to that. We need to know of isolated, isolated cases but we cannot use isolated cases and think that that will help us to solve problems. As Ozell said this morning, that when certain people want to get certain acts done, they make their point and then they bring things to prove it. Now what we need to do is to be able to bring a lot of cases to show that yes indeed, Blacks have been negated just because of their skin. Mark you, we have a lot of it, but if we're not gonna prove it to the White person, that it's really the skin color that's doing the difference, it's not going to make a diff-a big difference.

I think Boston this past year had an outstanding example of how a White male can take the system, use it against White females, and misuse a whole society, both Black and White. And how the media and the power structure can take that same situation and build on it, and continually oppress the Black community, oppress White women, because I think they were as much a victim in that case as anyone, and not have to apologize or do anything in defense of it. They have an article in the paper today and Stuart dominated our papers for so long, but today they talked about how they headed a private investigation team to go out to see who leaked all this misinformation to the press. Well, the press got it on their own, in some cases. But it's obvious as to who was leaking most of it. But they will never name and I tell you this now, they will never name any one person as being responsible for leaking any of this stuff even though those of us who were involved even on the peripherals of the case knew where the stuff was coming from. They will never indict any of the police officers or court personnel that abused the rights of citizens of this community and they will never make right what happened to three Black men. They only talk about Willie Bennett. He's the only one you'll hear. And in the paper today it said only Willie Bennett was ever accused or held up as being the person. In fact, there were three people who spent time in jail behind that case and there's no way they'll ever justify that. And all the movies that you watch, everything you see will be from the White male perspective, which is just what this was about. White men control the media. They control the educational institutions in this country. And as a result of that, the rest of the White male society is being victimized because that was somebody's sister, somebody's daughter. But more than that, the rest of us are being victimized. Elba, and then we're gonna stop.

I really don't wanna put you on the spot but I'm going to.

I think that what we evidence as a community and what community of color and women's community, a working class community evidenced around the Stuart case is what I call learned helplessness.

Yeah.

Because what you just said is, "We knew." Well, if you knew, why didn't we know? Wait, not just like, you, you knew but if there was a group of people who I would say, who are "part of the struggle," whatever that means to you, OK? Who knew, who were in on the investigation, who were advocating for justice in this situation, whatever that looks like. They had information. What happened is that they have bought into the conspiracy of silence. Now, I understand the importance of a strategy of silence while it's going on but they're still analyzing it from a White perspective it appears in the paper today. And we continue to participate in that conspiracy. And, yes, they control the media, but we have the power. And we've shown that we have the power and the ability to make their control of the media a, a burden of responsibility to them, and not just a tool of oppression.

See, the problem with that, is that that's partly true, but a White woman, Michelle Caruso, challenged everything that was said. Michelle Caruso and myself we went over the whole route that the murderer supposedly followed, and went over the whole thing. I got sued by Charles Stuart for implying that he killed his wife, by Charles Stuart and the estate of Carol Stuart for defaming him and calling, causing pain, and suffering to Carol Stuart, by daring to raise that issue. It didn't stop me, of course, because I had to do my job. But the point is, Michelle Caruso went to her paper, with her doubts, with the issues, went to the DA's office and said, How come you haven't investigated this man?

Look. Look, let me tell you something. So-

And yours was not published, right?

So who, who, so who said-

White men.

-to the Blacks in South, in the South, who said, Oh, by the way, did they read in the paper, Rosa Parks has been arrested and the Blacks have declared a boycott, and they said, Oh, I guess I don't ride the bus today because I'm Black or I support these people? Do you know what I'm saying? We, and it's not you, it's we.

Yes, I know, I agree.

We as a community have just learned this helplessness, that if we don't see it in the media, we were talking about it over lunch about if they don't identify a leader then, gee, I guess we don't have one. You know, it's learned helplessness that's so frustrating. And until we get rid of it, if this is who we are, if this is the way that we are, as people, we're the ones who wal-bring this baggage into the classroom to teach our students. Surprise, they learn helplessness.

I don't think it's only just learned helplessness.

So, too, that's why I say, no superintendent-

Whoa! I was talking before you. We are not getting half the information that we are able to write published, and that's a key. Who dominates the press in the Boston area?

Well, that's, that's White males,

And I think, and I think that's, that that's another.

I have to stop it at this point. I know that there's some more conversation that could easily go on, but I actually wanted to bring Stuart up. But we started at two and we're supposed to stop at two-thirty, and we're fifteen minutes over almost. But thank you very much.

And again we'll have an opportunity to talk some more about this because the next person who will be visiting with us is Professor Beverly Tatum who teaches at Mt. Holyoke in the Department of Education and Psychology. As one of the segues there is a reading that I would like to ask us to do which doe-does build upon Dr. McIntosh's article. So, we will collectively-

-participate in a reading that will be led by Tessil and by Lyda. So if Lyda and Tessil will go to the front.

Oh, in the front? I thought we did this from the back. Voices from behind?

Voices from behind.

Voices from the rear.

[reads] "On racism and White privilege. "Doors of advantage swing open so silently, so invisibly to Whites, that they are largely unaware of this," says Peggy McIntosh of Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. She writes:"

[reads] "I had been taught about racism as something which puts, puts others at a disadvantage but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects-"

A little bit louder.

[reads] "White privilege, which puts me at an advantage."

[reads] "Dr. McIntosh speaks of the unearned advantages. Privileges that ease life and progress for those who are White Americans and that impede life chances for those who are people of color. She writes:"

[reads] "I think Whites are carefully taught not to recognize White privilege just as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. Finally, I have come to see White privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was meant to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks."

[reads] "Her thesis, that there is a base of unacknowledged privilege which facilitates continuing oppression. This unearned entitlement is actually confirmed dominance. It is distorting. She writes:"

[reads] "Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow 'them' to be more like 'us.'" In the words of Dr. McIntosh."

[reads] "Shades of 'why can't women be more like men talk.' To further our consideration of the McIntosh thesis of how being a law-abiding person of good will isn't sufficient in itself, let's share in the reading of various things that attach to White skin-color privilege. I invite each of, each in our circle group to read one of the statements. Read the number, then the sentence following it, then pass the sheets to the person to your right."

[reads] "One. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."

[reads] "Two. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me."

[reads] "Three. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live."

[reads] "Four. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me."

[reads] "Five. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed."

[reads] "Six. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."

[reads] "Seven. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is."

This is difficult for me to read, huh? [reads] "Eight. I can be sure that my children will be given, will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race." This is a White person's.

[reads] "Nine. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on White Privilege."

[reads] "Ten. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race."

[reads] "Eleven. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another woman's voice in a group in which she is the only member of her race."

[reads] "Twelve. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and, and find someone who can cut my hair." That's interesting. Usually, I will.

[reads] "Thirteen. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability."

[reads] "Fourteen. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them."

[reads] "Fifteen. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes towards their race."

[reads] "Sixteen. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color." Really?

[reads] "Eighteen. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race."

[reads] "Nineteen. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial."

[reads] "Twenty. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race."

[reads] "Twenty-one. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group."

[reads] "Twenty-two. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion."

[reads] "Twenty-three. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider."

[reads] "Twenty-four. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race."

[reads] "Twenty-six. If a traffic cop pulls a White person over or if the IRS audits his or her tax return, they can be sure that they haven't been singled out because of their race."

[reads] "Twenty-seven. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place."

[reads] "Twenty-six."

[reads] "Outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared."

[reads] "I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine."

[reads] "I can be pretty sure that if I argue with the promotion-for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me."

[reads] "Thirty. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend no more credibility for either position than a person of color will have."

[reads] "Thirty-one. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices"

[reads] "Thirty-two. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races."

[reads] "Thirty-three. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race."

[reads] "Thirty-four. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking."

[reads] "Thirty-five. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race."

[reads] "If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each episode or situation whether it had racial overtones."

[reads] "Thirty-seven. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally."

See who's back there.

Do you wanna go?

[reads] "Thirty-eight. I can think over many options, social, political, imag-"

Can't hear you.

Yeah. They can't hear you.

[reads] "Thirty-eight. I can think over, I can think over many options social, political, imaginative, or professional without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do."

[reads] "Thirty-nine. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race."

[reads] "Forty. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen."

[reads] "Forty-one. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me."

[reads] "Forty-two. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race."

[reads] "Forty-three. If I have low credibility as a leader-"

He's forty-four.

OK. Go ahead. There is Joyce.

[reads] "Forty-three. If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my race is not the problem."

[reads] "I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race."

[reads] "I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race."

[reads] "Forty-six. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin."

[reads] "Forty-seven. I can travel alone or with my husband without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us."

[reads] "Forty-eight. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household."

[reads] "Forty-nine. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership."

[reads] "Fifty. I will feel welcomed and normal in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social."

Having described this, Dr. McIntosh asks and we ask, [reads] "What will we each do to lessen this imbalance of power and privilege? Will we choose to use any of our arbitrarily awarded power to try to reconstruct power systems?"

I'd like to ask, Beverly, why, why don't we stand and stretch?

Sure.

And I have copies if anyone would like a copy.