In John Godfrey Saxe’s poemThe Blind Men and the Elephant, several blind people touch an elephant and describe it. One feels the tail and declares it is like a rope. Another grabs the tusk and identifies it as a spear. Another touches the leg and claims it’s the trunk of a tree, and so on. Saxe concludes, “Though each was partly in the right, They all were in the wrong!” The poem applies anywhere there is a complex unknown, like how to end racism. Individual lived experiences are informative but also limiting. The more people who are engaged in observing and discussing an issue, the closer we get to a nuanced understanding of the whole. Curiosity is key — if we are individually unyielding in our perceptions or if we collectively arrive at a conclusion too soon, we will always be “in the wrong.”Understanding must precede action.
Anti-racist consultants, along with the work ofIbram X. KendiandRobin Di Angelo, have provided an important narrative within SMUHSD, but it has dominated the thinking on race for years with little measurable progress in student outcomes. There are insightful, authoritative voices missing from the district’s race discussion — such asJohn McWhorter,Glenn Loury,Coleman Hughes,Tabia Lee,Sheena MasonorRoland Fryer.I’m advocating for more rather than fewer perspectives. Critics argue that introducing additional voices “waters down” the message of anti-racism or stifles the momentum needed to overcome the status quo.
To them, I ask: When we say we want our students to be exposed to diverse perspectives and engage in critical thinking, why? Isn’t it so they can develop the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in society and solve complex problems within it? That is precisely what is required of us at SMUHSD. We should practice what we preach. It’s easy to assume that disparities in outcomes among students of different races are simply due to racism. That should be explored and addressed, but not to the exclusion of other factors. Doing so is merely identifying one part of the elephant in the room. Here is one example. In a recent book titledThe Two-Parent Privilege, economistMelissa Kearneyshows how the taboo factor of family structure is associated with many of the disparities in education outcomes. To illustrate, thepoverty rate of black married couplesin 2022 was 5% (on par with white and Asian couples), compared with 25% for Black single-mothers. It’s important to look at all contributing factors and understand where we can make an impact.
Critics may argue that instead of preparing students to flourish in society, we should be preparing them to change it. They say we should expose them to diverse perspectives and engage them inFreirian“critical consciousness” so they become awakened to the oppression our society perpetuates on people of color and are motivated to dismantle it. This is a debate on the purpose of public education — a topic for another day.
Recommended for you
Anti-racist consultants love to problematize the characteristics of so-called“white supremacy culture,”which have nothing to do with race or the belief that white people are superior to people of color. Racializing behaviors such as the worship of the written word, individualism or objectivity as “white” is concerning for a few reasons. First, it conflates the distinct constructs of race and culture. Where is the evidence that such behaviors are unique to white people/societies or are uniquely problematic for people of color? Second, “white supremacy” evokes the KKK or Nazism in peoples’ minds. Decent people rightfully distance themselves from such repulsive ideologies. Therefore, thecasual use of the termto describe cultural norms is a spurious attempt to shame people into rejecting whatever is labeled “white supremacist” in favor of the new anti-racist movement. Anti-racists must rely on such emotional manipulation to gain converts because using evidence would be committing the white supremacist sin of objectivity. Third, it discourages dialogue. It’s all too easy to silence critics by labeling them or their ideas — however mainstream — as white supremacist.
However, that’s the point. If white supremacy culture is the“water we’re swimming in,”then anything mainstream is part of the problem. Values like individual responsibility, rationality, merit, free markets and equality of opportunity are under attack, but if you are caught defending them you are written off as complicit in upholding white supremacy. See the problem? Most importantly, blanket use of the term renders it meaningless — to the great disservice of victims of true white supremacy.
SMUHSD has the moral imperative to achieve better outcomes for all students. A single-story narrative is not sufficient to perceive the elephant. What we really need is rigorous analysis and more expansive dialogue.
Jennifer Jacobson is a member of the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees. The views expressed here are her own.
Thank you Trustee Jacobson for a great well balanced piece explaining your thought process. We are lucky to have you on the SMUHSD board. I would encourage those who want "anti-racism" taught from the Kendi/DiAngelo school of thought to read some of the nuanced writings from the (black) intellectuals you mentioned. As the parent of a child in the district, I supplement the one sided perspective he often gets at school with material from other sources like these thinkers.
Well written, MichKosk. I second the thanks to Trustee Jacobson and especially commend Ms. Jacobson on her writings regarding so-called “white supremacy culture.” As I’ve said in the past, using racism to address racism will never be a winning tactic.
Trustee Jacobsen's claim that she seeks more perspectives is at odds with her public comments during board meetings. She sought to silence the words of consultants whose training made her uncomfortable. History can be uncomfortable but if we can't face it, we're doomed to repeat it. Is that what we want for our students?
bethv - I don't have any children in that school district but my understanding is that Jacobsen is not afraid of telling the truth about history but about a twisted version that the consultants were blathering. For the rest of the schoolboard it was just a "check the box" issue and they could not care less about the qualification of these race baiters.
Trustee Jacobsen claims to want to hear from more voices, but she said the opposite during the board discussions- she expressed a desire to cancel the contracts of consultants whose trainings made her uncomfortable. Some truths are uncomfortable. Do we really want to avoid teaching our children uncomfortable truths?
That's not what opposite means. The school board already heard from the "anti-racist" consultants, Trustee Jacobson would like to hear from more voices other than from the Kendi/DiAngelo school of thought that that "Anti racist" consultants base their trainings on. There was no evidence presented that these multi-million dollar contracts have improved outcomes for students or made anyone less racist. Saying they are teaching "truths" leaves no room for the thoughts of those critical of these types of teachings such as those mentioned - McWhorter, Loury, Hughes etc. (all people of color)
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
Thank you Trustee Jacobson for a great well balanced piece explaining your thought process. We are lucky to have you on the SMUHSD board. I would encourage those who want "anti-racism" taught from the Kendi/DiAngelo school of thought to read some of the nuanced writings from the (black) intellectuals you mentioned. As the parent of a child in the district, I supplement the one sided perspective he often gets at school with material from other sources like these thinkers.
Well written, MichKosk. I second the thanks to Trustee Jacobson and especially commend Ms. Jacobson on her writings regarding so-called “white supremacy culture.” As I’ve said in the past, using racism to address racism will never be a winning tactic.
About time someone got around to mentioning the Two Parent Privilege.
We are so lucky to have Jen representing our children’s best interests.
Trustee Jacobsen's claim that she seeks more perspectives is at odds with her public comments during board meetings. She sought to silence the words of consultants whose training made her uncomfortable. History can be uncomfortable but if we can't face it, we're doomed to repeat it. Is that what we want for our students?
bethv - I don't have any children in that school district but my understanding is that Jacobsen is not afraid of telling the truth about history but about a twisted version that the consultants were blathering. For the rest of the schoolboard it was just a "check the box" issue and they could not care less about the qualification of these race baiters.
Trustee Jacobsen claims to want to hear from more voices, but she said the opposite during the board discussions- she expressed a desire to cancel the contracts of consultants whose trainings made her uncomfortable. Some truths are uncomfortable. Do we really want to avoid teaching our children uncomfortable truths?
That's not what opposite means. The school board already heard from the "anti-racist" consultants, Trustee Jacobson would like to hear from more voices other than from the Kendi/DiAngelo school of thought that that "Anti racist" consultants base their trainings on. There was no evidence presented that these multi-million dollar contracts have improved outcomes for students or made anyone less racist. Saying they are teaching "truths" leaves no room for the thoughts of those critical of these types of teachings such as those mentioned - McWhorter, Loury, Hughes etc. (all people of color)
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.