A more perfect union

Growing up in California’s K-12 public school system, just as both of my parents did, I think and reflect on this often. On the topic of California history, my parents were taught that, for example, Junipero Serra was a great man who civilized our state. In the 1990s, I was taught a more nuanced version of him as having developed the missions but mistreated the indigenous population (harms that continue to haunt descendants generations later). And I suspect fourth-graders learn an even more complex telling of the Spanish missionary system today. This curriculum evolution reflects our society’s desire to better understand multiple narratives and reframe our understanding of both the past and present beyond the lens of the dominant group. I believe this is real, even if slow, progress that must continue. 

Race in particular is an incredibly challenging topic. Very few people are good at talking about it, myself included. I write, however, because I live in a curious space of whiteness. As you can see in my picture, I present and live my life as a white person. However, as an Ashkenazi Jew (of Eastern European extraction), to many, I am not white. This illustrates the absurdity of race. Even in our decennial national census, categories shift as societal perspectives evolve.

The census is a great tool for identifying and tracking differences and this is one way we can detect there are systems at play in how race affects opportunities. For example, in recent data from the city of San Mateo gathered for our general plan, homeownership rates vary significantly across race — 26.1% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 58.9% for Asian households, 31.0% for Latino households, and 58.7% for white households. And yet, there is complexity; we have to look at other factors, too, to not be led into believing that Asian and white households are somehow living in parity with one another. 

The psychologist, educator and former Spelman College President Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum, wrote the seminal book on race and education, “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria.” In it, she argues that many people are confused about racism, or do not understand racism as a system of advantages based on race. And so it’s not just one person’s thought or action, but rather a whole interlocking set of formal policies and social practices woven into the fabric of our society. Those systems can and do, in part, influence outcomes despite individual successes or failures. Although the book is two and a half decades old, it still very much applies today.

Tatum lays out an analogy of racism as a moving walkway, like those at SFO or any major airport. We stand on the moving walkway and it moves us along past several terminal gates. By standing on the analogous moving walkway, we are passively in a society that continues to have advantages built in for some people and not for others. Those who are running in the same direction as the moving walkway are those actively engaged in racism. Where it gets difficult, is to move against it. Those seeking a societal change are walking in the opposite direction of the moving sidewalk. If you move at the same pace, but in the opposite direction, the status quo remains. The majority of people on this moving walkway, are passive actors, not actively engaging as individuals pushing back or intentionally causing harm. 

For our youth, there must be a developmentally and age-appropriate curriculum to explore these disparities and build understanding in our high school classrooms, similar to Tatum’s work. I hope our school board members can work to better understand one another and encourage that in the classroom. 

Sarah Fields leads public affairs for a local social service nonprofit organization. She serves as the chair of the San Mateo Parks and Recreation Commission as well as on the Peninsula Multifaith Coalition’s Board of Directors. The views expressed here are her own.