In the article
Racism prevalent in higher education by
Michelle Jones (2013),
she writes about the issue of racism within universities in Capetown. Buyile
Matiwane, a member of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology student
representative council, suggests that racism is not recognized as an issue. In
spite of there being instances of both outright racism and “racial undertones
on campus”, people are unwilling to engage in dialogue and discussion on the
issues. Greg Vass (2012) addresses the issue of racism present in the
racialised educational landscape in Australian schools, and likens it to an “elephant
juggling” in a room, an issue that some may be aware of, but find difficult to
bring into the attention of others. The reason this is the case is that people
are unwilling to recognize that “‘race’ and education [still persist] into the
twenty-first century” (Vass, 2012: 2). I agree that the solution to these
issues of race and racism within schools is through dialogue and engagement. I
also discuss how one’s positioning affects their effectiveness in contributing or
sustaining such dialogue.
In Jones’ (2013)
article, Matiwane mentions that “everyone should be talking [about the issue of
race], everyone should be wanting to hear, get it out in the open”. This is a
similar concern of Vass (2012: 5), who argues that the racialised landscape in
schools need to be recognized, and one way of doing so is through “counter-stories”,
the “increased use of narrative to meaningfully articulate the experiences of
the racialised Other within education”. He therefore writes a series of
constructed stories, ‘Chronicles’, in his article, which allow us to examine ‘real’
situations through the analysis of them. In so doing, issues usually avoided
because they are sensitively connected to real people and places can be more
easily discussed, where real names and places are not used and the caricatures
of characters playing specific roles allow nuances within social interactions to
be more clearly seen.
In the
discussion on the need for dialogue, it would also be relevant to consider who
would be best placed to begin or facilitate such discussion. Vass (2012: 7),
being white, finds himself “implicated…within discursive processes that overtly
and covertly sought to protect the ‘master’ narratives”. However, due to his
awareness of “racialised discourses embedded within [his] place of work”, he
was seen as a “white ally” by colleagues, almost a representative of sorts when
it came to such issues (Vass, 2012: 7). While lacking in terms of the personal experience
of marginalization himself, perhaps it may be that Vass is better placed than a
non-White to speak up to fellow Whites on such issues, being able to come
across as unlikely to be biased toward another race.
In the news
article, “Born-frees” are mentioned by “Russel Botman, rector and
vice-chancellor of Stellenbosch University” as having a great responsibility to
perhaps represent these issues of race within the agenda of dialogue and
discussion (Jones, 2013). The rationalie, I believe is that “bornfrees” are able
to present their narratives as counter-stories to the dominant ones. Likewise, within
our schools, whether one belongs to the dominant racial group (as Vass), or the
subordinate, one is still well-positioned to contribute to the process of
dialogue, thus allowing recognition and reconciliation to occur.
References
Jones,
M. (2013, October 3). Racism prevalent in higher education. Retrieved
from Iol news:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/racism-prevalent-in-higher-education-1.1586650#.UlNk6YZmim4
Vass, G. (2012). The
racialised educational landscape in Australia: listening to the whispering
elephant. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-26.
No comments:
Post a Comment