“They didn’t really have key experiences that they thought they could bring to the table”: Perceptions of white racial absolution during cross-racial intergroup dialogues

Abstract

This article analyzes how White racial absolution, a form of White resistance to interrogating White racial identity through discourse, impedes cross-racial intergroup dialogs (IGDs) and impacts the IGD experience of Students of Color (SOC). Eleven undergraduate IGD students and six undergraduate IGD facilitators participated, and critical race discourse analysis (CRDA) was used for analysis. Findings showed that White students engaged in White racial absolution by avoiding White racial sharing (WRS), or side-stepping conversations regarding their Whiteness. The three themes around WRS included (a) Whiteness as a justification to not contribute to the IGD, (b) offering surface-level commentary regarding Whiteness, and (c) leaning on other social-identity-based marginalities or summoning the racial experiences of People of Color. Implications from this study illustrate that White racial absolution within cross-racial IGD alienates SOC, which stifles the overarching goal of resolving gaps between people of diverse social identity backgrounds.

Structural acuity: Black women undergraduate students in cross-racial intergroup dialogues.

“…Black women undergraduates such as Keisha and Theresa underscored the high emotional toil (Kelly et al, 2021) of sharing their deeply personal experiences about racial and gender suffering without reciprocity from their White peers. Black women’s structural acuity revealed IGD fostered a space that allowed White students to evade discussing their racial realities, leaving their understanding of race and behavior toward people of color covert and unexamined (C. D. James-Gallaway, 2023; C.…”

“…Black women’s structural acuity revealed IGD fostered a space that allowed White students to evade discussing their racial realities, leaving their understanding of race and behavior toward people of color covert and unexamined (C. D. James-Gallaway, 2023; C. D. James-Gallaway et al, 2023).…”

“…We have contributed perhaps the only empirical analysis on this topic and call for scholars to conduct similar studies to further an empirical understanding of the ways DEI efforts affect SOC and multiply marginalized groups. Critics noted how power and privilege penetrate the IGD space and compromise the experiences of marginalized groups (Gorski, 2008;C. D. James-Gallaway, 2023;Jones, 1999;Leonardo & Porter, 2010; Vasques Scalera as cited by Gorski, 2008).…”

“…IGD’s calls for engaged listening and the use of empathy from all participants (Gurin et al, 2013; Zuniga et al, 2007) raise ethical concerns for marginalized groups, who according to Jones (1999) should not be expected to listen or be empathetic to privileged groups or their exercises of oppression. Thus, scholars argue that IGD spaces benefit privileged groups because they use marginalized groups as teaching tools (C. D. James-Gallaway, 2023; C.…”

“…Thus, scholars argue that IGD spaces benefit privileged groups because they use marginalized groups as teaching tools (C. D. James-Gallaway, 2023; C. D. James-Gallaway et al, 2023; Vasques Scalera as cited by Gorski, 2008).…”