Leila Zefri

EDUC 533

10/16/2019

Analytic Paper #1

This year I have been challenged to reflect and critique my educational experiences and

the role societal beliefs have shaped it. My reflection paired with my learning of social justice

education has led to many realizations about how the culture in my community and schools are

deeply rooted in white supremacy. My educational environment is not an anomaly or

experienced in isolation, meaning that the culture of my community reflects the culture of this

nation. With that being said, to critically analyze the discourse and role of race in America and

the world is no small task. However, it is a task that must be of importance to every individual

and society. This paper will examine the beliefs of three scholars: Pollock, Delpit, and Love in

regard to race in education. These three scholars work together to address and analyze the real

harm that is experienced by minorities due to the systematic racism engrained in our structures of

society (e.g. schools). The nuanced arguments made by these scholars call society to begin

unrooting this racism, and these white supremacy values, from schools. This dismantling creates

space for a restructured society where all individuals can be truly free and equal.

To begin, I will examine how Pollock believes race and different cultures are currently

discussed in schools. Pollock argues that schools engage in “shallow culture talk” defined as

addressing cultures in such a way that is inaccurate, a-historic, rude, and diminutive to the

individuals within the culture. Pollock does not simply observe the phenomenon of superficial

discourse in schools; she asserts that this type of discourse is causing real harm to its students. As

stated by Pollock, “getting to know actual people seems unnecessary” when they are being
diminished to overly simplistic versions of themselves (Pollock, 2017, p.167). Pollock

challenges the notion that discussing “other” cultures is enough in education. To acknowledge

other cultures in a shallow way is far from enough and is ultimately damaging—regardless of

good intentions. As Love puts it, “there are no shortcuts and no gimmicks” on the road to social

justice and Pollock argues that shallow culture talk is used as a “shortcut” to address culture

without actually engaging with it in a meaningful way (Love, 2019, p.9). I agree with Pollock

and Love’s assertion that this type of engagement with cultures is incomplete and harmful. In my

educational experience, intersectionality as a concept was not introduced until college. This

failure to address all aspects of an individual’s identity (and how they contribute to their lived

experience) diluted my ability to understand the lives of my fellow classmates and other

individuals I interacted with. Moreover, the lack of intersectionality education in my K-12

education hindered my own identity. I was constantly given an identity and its associated

meaning and stigmas without considering of my personhood as a whole. Isolating parts of my

identity made it hard for me to explore and understand myself. Therefore, it was also difficult for

my classmates to understand me. In We Who Are Dark from We want to do more than survive:

Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom, Love continues to agree with

Pollock that an intersectional approach is needed in order to properly address race in America. It

is not simply enough to examine an individual’s race without the context of their other multiple

identities (e.g. their economic status, gender, or sexuality). To do so ultimately results in a failure

to completely understand their experience. Furthermore, Love argues that society (through its

systems and structures) does not allow people of color to do more than survive. Love envisions a

world and educational system where people of color are free to move from just surviving to

mattering and living. Love bravely envisions a world where the right to matter is “never
questioned, reduced, or taken away” (Love, 2019, p.2). Shallow culture talk is a form of reducing

individuals’ ability to matter. Through engaging in shallow culture talk, teachers convey the

message that those in that culture do not matter enough to be properly addressed. Pollock and

Love shine light on the real violence that is experienced by people of color and minorities that

may seem subtle (or even go unnoticed) to some individuals.

Moreover, Delpit would argue that what Pollock defines as “shallow culture talk” is

enabled by the culture of power present in society. Delpit adds to both Love and Pollock’s

arguments by adding this dimension of power. Delpit argues that education uses coded language,

which she tokens as “silenced dialogue,” that is only accessible to those in the culture of power.

Similar to shallow culture talk, Delpit believes that silenced dialogue is used by the culture of

power to systematically exclude people of color in a hidden manner. To be specific, Delpit

believes (and I agree) that the codes/rules of the culture of power are hidden to those with power

and those without power are often acutely aware of their exclusion (Delpit, 1988, p. 282). While

Delpit suggest that schools need to “teach all students the explicit and implicit rules of power” as

a means of creating more an equitable educational system, I align more with Love’s radical

reimagining of education. Rather than give children of color the tools to succeed within racist

societal structures (e.g. schools), as Delpit suggests, we need to create societal systems that are

not rooted in a culture of power. In my opinion, any system rooted in the culture of power as

defined by Delpit is ultimately doing harm and contributing to black suffering—even if students

of color are given the rules necessary to “succeed.” Even though Love imagines a more

transformed educational system than Delpit, she agrees that society, as it is now, is advantageous

for whites by “rationalizing racist ideas of biological racial inferiority” (Love, 2019, p.8).
 All three of these scholars acknowledge that the educational system in America, which

acts as a mirror to American society, is self-serving for whites and causing harm for people of

color. This notion originally seemed obvious to me, but as Delpit pointed out, those who are

often excluded from the culture of power tend to be more sensitive to its existence and effects.

My identity as a half Puerto Rican-half Moroccan American daughter of an immigrant positioned

me to have a heightened sense of power dynamics in my schooling and life more broadly. Unlike

me, individuals within the culture of power (white people) are often oblivious to the harms of

shallow culture talk and silenced dialogue because their culture is privileged by the current

system.

Considering the arguments of these three scholars, it can be concluded that those with

power in society participate in (and often promote) shallow culture talk and ultimately get to

decide who matters. However, taken together, these scholars fail to explicitly mention economic

status in their work. Since race and economic status are undeniably intertwined in America, a

more complete analysis on race would add socioeconomic status as a factor to acknowledge and

dissect. Another major shortcoming of these articles is that none of them highlights the strengths

of people of color and their ability to transcend and succeed despite the fact that society is

designed to suppress them. It is important to ask the question, “under what conditions and by

which means do individuals overcome their real and perceived racial barriers?” Considering

these trends is an empowering way to study how race plays out in society. It is not enough to just

address the harm that is done to people of color in education; it is necessary to acknowledge and

understand their successes as well.

These scholars do address ways in which the issues of race and how we discuss it can be

amended. As mentioned above, Love and Pollock are in agreeance that through intersectionality
topics and issues centering race can be more appropriately addressed than it currently is. Also,

Delpit calls on individuals to practice listening and understand that everybody is an “experts on

their own lives” (Delpit, 1988, p.297). However, these scholars leave us to consider how to get

those who benefit from shallow culture talk, silenced dialogue, and oppression of colored people

to acknowledge and join the cause to change such injustices. While many people intentionally

contribute to what Love calls “black suffering,” those who may be oblivious to it need to have

this brought to their attention. I believe the easier task is presenting a problem to individuals and

the harder task is getting them to care and take this on as their own cause. Love eloquently points

out that nobody is truly free while others are not. With that said, it is important that find and

create innovative ways to get those who benefit for our highly racialized and racist society (often

white, rich individuals) to begin the fight. Once every person is willing to “welcome the

struggle” (as Love puts it) of fighting for educational and social justice, that is when people of

color will be able to thrive and matter as they so desperately want to.

In conclusion, Pollock, Delpit, and Love address the subtle ways racial power and

discourse play out in society. These authors’ arguments do not, and could not, completely

address all the nuanced examples and methods in which white supremacy infiltrates our schools

and society. They do, however, extend a critical discussion on suffering as a result of the

aforementioned infiltration. While there is no new word or discourse, these authors bring new

ways to address and disentangle white supremacy from our schooling.

 Works Cited

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's

children. Harvard educational review, 58(3), 280-298.

Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of

educational freedom. Beacon Press.

Pollack, M. (2017) “Shallow Culture Talk.”