Blog post 3 – Race

The resources for this blog have all in different ways reflected on structural ways that racial discrimination operates within wider social and institutional frameworks: whether through inadequate EDI policies, through cultural and historical factors, or through specific educational practices. As with the other two blogs, I found one of the readings particularly helpful I allowing me to situate some of the more day-to-day experiences shown in the videos, in the wider social and theoretical context. Alice Bradbury’s research on the use of CRT within early childhood education appeared particularly relevant. It examined how apparently neutral structural systems – such as a specific policy – as a way to produce subjectivities. She writes how “policy has its ‘own specific rationalities, making particular sets of ideas obvious, common sense and “true”’  […] Policy establishes and re-inscribes particular ‘regimes of truth’ about what matters in education, and who can be recognisable as successful or failing.” (Ball 2013b, 6–7 in Bradbury, 2020, p.243) Equally, policies meant at addressing social justice, might also unintentionally reproduce social hierarchies through the “production of subjectivities – the ‘underachieving student’, the ‘disadvantaged’ child, the ‘troubled family’ – while at the same time policy is being produced through debates about what matters and what and who needs to be ‘solved’.” (Bradbury, 2020, p.243)

The quotes above seem particularly relevant in higher education where the attainment gap is often taken for granted, seen as part of the ‘normal’ day to day functioning of the higher education environment. And the policy that seeks to address it, further reinforces the division between white and BAME students, by projecting particular kinds of stereotypes (underachieving students, students who are the first in their families to attend university, students with caring responsibilities, etc.). Those students may be ‘targeted’ by specific interventions designed to support attainment, and yet further marginalise those same students who may singled-out or stereotyped.

In terms of the subjectivities produced by policy, I have often wondered about the way UAL’s dashboard data is collected and aggregated. For example, what kind of subjectivities does the policy of separating race-based data for home students only produce? Why are awarding gaps less relevant for international students? For example, there is a great deal of differentiation in terms of class, ethnicity, race, language, etc. from our large international cohorts, yet that data is inaccessible or considered less relevant due to specific (if unclear/invisible) policy reasons. This may result in specific actions/interventions not being taken to address perhaps some gaps in learning/attainment for those specific groups of students.

From the three videos shared, I was particularly struck by the last one for the way approached making racism visible by enacting the privilege walk with young schoolchildren. I found the video uncomfortable, as it made me reflect on issues around visibility/invisibility of racism as well as care in the way intersectional approaches form the foundation of education across all age-groups. It also made me reflect on how we can truly create safe, open spaces for learning in an increasingly polarised, yet also diverse environment.