As author Margaret Hagerman herself notes, she’s doing something different in White Kids; she’s looking at how children from upper-middle-class and even richer homes learn about race, directly and indirectly. She interviewed quite a few affluent, Caucasian tweens and then revisited them when they got to high school. What Hagerman reveals floored me.

I had thought this a pedagogical textbook useful for teaching the students at my elementary school. It’s integrated, but the majority of my students fit this demographic. What I found instead was much, much more. This is definitely not just for teachers — it’s for every American seeking to understand how racial prejudice can be transmitted through what’s said and what’s not. Excellent and riveting.

In the interest of full disclosure, I received this book from NetGalley and NYU Press in exchange for an honest review.

This book was not quite what I was expecting. It is more an ethnographic or sociological study of a group of wealthy white kid and their parents in an upper middle class suburb of a midwestern city (probably Chicago or Detroit or possibly Milwaukee or Cleveland of their view on race. I did not really learn anything and felt it would have been more interesting and informative if it had focused on a variety of races and socio-economic groups. I had received this as an ARC several years ago from NetGalley and found the audiobook on Hoopla.

Thank you to NetGalley and NYU Press for this reader's copy. In exchange, I am providing an honest review.

This book shared some really important data and insights into how white Americans think about race. The piece of research that stuck out to me is that subscribing to a color-blind narrative (i.e. I don't see color) actually enables, or promotes, the person claiming to be color-blind to think and act in racist ways. Fascinating. Hagerman provides a lot of data to back up that discovery.

I'm finding it difficult to "review" this title. It wasn't easy reading in that it is a weighty topic and not something you pick up just because you aren't sure what you want to read. This is an intentional read, for a class or for the specific reason of being challenged and learning more about the racial divides in America. While Hagerman wrote it almost conversationally, in my opinion, it still felt pretty deep to wade through. I had to talk myself into reading it and push myself to finally read it through to the end. This doesn't mean it was an awful book, it just means this book isn't for the casual reader.

If you are looking for ways to talk about race with your kids, this is not a book for you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read it. Hagerman just lays down the facts of what she has observed in privileged white families, the parents' reluctance to talk about race, and how that affects their children's views on race. From racial stereotyping to the idea of being colorblind, many readers will be upset at this willful ignorance, but hopefully many more can see themselves reflected in its pages and decide to do something about it.

a deft exploration of how whiteness situates itself as the cultural default creating a society of casual, ingrained (institutional) racism

I don't know what I expected with this book. I think I was hoping for more information on how to approach the topic of race with my kids, which is not what this book is about. I should have figured that out from the title, but my brain did not compute. I didn't care for the overall tone in this book, it seemed quite judgy and condemning, no matter which approach was taken.
To be fair, this book was a DNF for me. Perhaps if I had stuck in out, it would have redeemed itself.

"Parents tied a school's reputation directly to the race and class composition of its students. While claiming to be concerned about such things as safety and class size, the families...were ultimately seeking whiter-and in their view, inextricably wealthier-school districts for their children, regardless of any other of the school's characteristics.' Further, in her discussion of the social construction of a good school, Johnson explains that parents in her study understood that 'a good school is in a good neighborhood, and a good neighborhood is a wealthier and whiter neighborhood."

"Ironically, though parents are moving to Sheridan for better public schools, they are quick to criticize the supposed black families (who they believe are) moving to Petersfield 'by the droves' for better public services and schools, calling these imagined parents 'irresponsible."

Man, this book. It's not a long read, but it's a deep read because I was highlighting practically every other page, and wanting to shout them out to the world. Hagerman does research including observation and in-depth interviews with white families and children in three affluent suburbs of an unnamed city about how these children learn about race, and the way their parents have made decisions about where to live and where to send their kids to school. It is worth reading alone for her takedown of the idea of color-blind racial ideology, and the way the white children would squirm when she asked them questions about race.

The next time someone tells you that "they don't see race" or and this is one you will notice people say all the time, call certain areas of a city "sketchy," this is the book you should press into their hands. Although she does not explicitly call for it, I think this book also demonstrates the way white people must be involved in the dismantling of white supremacy, especially through their decisions about where to live and where to educate their children.

Many thanks to New York University Press and NetGalley for providing me with an ARC of White Kids, (and which I was much delayed in reading and reviewing) all opinions are mine.

A heartfelt look into the white privilege, what kind of issues white children in our current political climate are facing, how this would in future effect their power and influence as adults. A very important book!

My Rating - 4.5/5

Riveting stories of how affluent, white children learn about race.

This is about how white children grow up in society and how they learn about race and how that impacts their lives. An important read about privilege and racial socialization.

I thought with today's racial climate that this book would be rather eye-opening and explain how the other half of society views race relations. It did to some extent, and I was not at all surprised at the view of the middle /upper-class subjects of this book. They are on the outside looking in. It goes back to the saying "it starts in the home". Talking about racism and changing your thoughts about racism are two different things. I think this book will give people something to think about and how their attitudes can rub off on their children. Take the initiative to make a difference and change these generational curses.

Thank you Netgalley for an ARC copy of this book.

Interesting take - and a frightening one.

I think this book is too academic to mainstream, but I wish someone would write an accessible version. This is important.

Margaret Hagerman* puts a new spin on how we race by exploring the development of racial attitudes among affluent white midwestern tweens. Hagerman interviewed children from XX families in three different neighborhoods in the same midwestern metropolitan area, each with varying degrees of wealth (though all families are affluent) and diversity. She interviews not only the children, but also the parents, with the goal of illustrating how children formulate ideas about race. Rather than adopting their parents’s notions of race uncritically, children engage with the world around them, perhaps sooner than we think they do. Hagerman also does a little work to show that parents are often teaching more about race than they think they do.

This was a slower read than it really ought to have been, but I chalk that up to my personal quirks. Hagerman’s writing is clear and concise. However, I alternated between feeling like she was belaboring the obvious and being appalled at the thoughts people were willing to say out loud. The former is really an unfair criticism: the book reads like an ethnography and part of the work of a social scientist is to make explicit those things we “understand” implicitly. Without putting it into words, we have no place to begin to evaluate whether we are all having the same conversation. (I suspect we often are not.)

There were moments I found the book enormously frustrating. An early chapter focuses in on how the parents in her study chose which neighborhood for their families. No one will be surprised to hear that the perceived quality of the local schools was the primary driver. A number of parents in the whitest, most affluent community, mention that they would not have lived in the more diverse communities because those public schools were not up to par with what their children needed. Hagerman doesn’t let them get away with this: the “challenges” of the local public schools are not based entirely in reality, but more on stereotypes and established gossip. Very few families took the time to actually explore the schools they rejected out of hand.

She also skewers the parents in the more diverse communities who talk a good game about wanting their kids to be exposed to diversity, but who fail to consider what this truly looks like. She challenges the advantage of schools where the diversity is primarily racial, and not socioeconomic. She also questions the value of exposure to those of other races where the power imbalance is in favor of the white families: if the only African Americans your child interacts with are those at the homeless shelter, are the children learning that African Americans are largely homeless and in need of assistance?

Quote:

...privileged white parents face a conundrum: they risk becoming either opportunity hoarders or white saviors.

It’s a giant game of “gotcha” that there’s no way to win.
There’s so much that Hagerman tackles here. How claims of “that’s racist” are used so frequently as a punchline and out of context that children struggle to identify racism (and to take it seriously). The many ways in which “color-blind” parenting is a sham. The ways in which parents are complicit in institutional racism in schools under the guise of “gifted” programs. The anecdotes are overwhelming and damning, and sometimes just a little bit ridiculous.

Quote:

On another afternoon, Carly [12], her younger sister, and a friend discuss the famous musician Rihanna. The girls disagree about what race the celebrity is, one believing that Rihanna is black “or at least a mix” while the other believes that Rihanna is white and is just wearing a lot of bronzer make-up to look tan. … Carly really wants Rihanna to be “white with bronzer” like her, rather than black.

Throughout the book, I repeatedly asked myself, “Who is this book for?” I cannot imagine white families who aspire to “color-blindness” picking up this volume. If it’s for antiracist and/or progressive parents, then there are no feel-good remedies here. This book actually pairs nicely with the Richard Reeves’s Dream Hoarders which I reviewed last year: a view into affluent families and how they protect their privilege.

Judging by one of the anecdotes in the story, I assume the bulk of her interviews took place somewhere in the middle of Obama’s two terms as president. I wonder whether she would find a shift if she revisited this same population now during Trump’s presidency. Perhaps, and perhaps not.

*Not to be confused, as I did repeatedly, with Maggie Haberman of the NYT. Yikes.

Toward the end of her book White Kids: Growing Up with Privilege in a Racially Divided America, Margaret Hagerman writes, "Overall, from my point of view, this has not been a particularly hopeful book." I would agree, but I would add that this has not been a particularly helpful book either. Here's a news flash: white adolescents from well-to-do families may not have the most progressive views on race. In fact, like any adolescent, their views on race (and everything) is fluid, immature, unformed.



Hagerman spends a whole book reproducing her conversations and observations from white kids and their families. In doing so, she seeks to demonstrate that "white children receive the wages of race from very early ages and well into young adulthood." That when white parents "fail to acknowledge inequality and racism . . . they are unintentionally complicit in the reproduction of it." That even when parents "raise children in ways that truly cultivate antiracist praxis" they nevertheless receive "unearned white advantage and the benefits of class privilege."



Hagerman spends all her time talking to families in a thinly disguised, unnamed midwestern city. (Based on the descriptions, and based on the fact that she taught at the University of Wisconsin, I'm guessing Madison.) As a result, her sample size is quite limited. When one thinks of a broadly diverse racial culture, I'm not sure Madison, Wisconsin comes to mind. For many of these kids, the only black people they know are from poor and working class families. In a larger metropolitan area, or in Southern cities, I suspect she'd find a wider array of black families. (Come to Fort Worth and I'll introduce you to some.)



Despite the limited scope, she makes a few good points. Many of the white families do value diversity. They want their children to experience environments where they will interact with children of other races. As Hagerman points out, though, wealthy white families have the option to choose their experiences. Poor black families also want their children to interact with other races, but they are often not welcome, by tradition or simply an entry fee, at place or programs where white kids are participating.



White families do face a dilemma: like every family, we want the best for our kids. But what if our kids have access to the best schools, programs, job opportunities, etc., because of our race, the (white) neighborhood we might live in, the financial status and generational wealth our family has (which black families haven't had an opportunity to have in prior generations), and other structural issues? Do we then deny our own kids? That way lies white guilt and racial restitution. Hagerman's book sparks important conversations, but her whole tone and direction are not hopeful--or helpful.





Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!

Get your highlighters out folks! Luckily, I read this in the form of an advanced digital copy so, thanks to technology (and the publisher), I was able to mark it up and make notes to my heart’s content. White Kids is Margaret A. Hagerman’s incredibly brave and timely study of a group of children, blessed with enough security that they are less likely to feel directly threatened by the (slow) socioeconomic advancement of people of color. This small, specified sample allowed her to really isolate the concept of race and how society (or at least this particular demographic) regards racial lines, discrimination, etc, both consciously & subconsciously. I have to admit that I stopped after the first couple chapters to Google the author because she was so in tune to what we (people of color) would call microagressions that I would have sworn she was coming from a place of experiencing that torn feeling when someone says something hurtful or stereotypical and, even though you know they didn’t mean anything by it and probably don’t even realize that they’ve said anything wrong, you can’t stop the wave of hurt & defensive you feel. You guys, I could have cried when I saw her picture. I am always advocating & encouraging people to read & talk to people that don’t look anything like them, the reality is, not everyone does. So, to have someone that looks like Hagerman not just write a book but literally devote years of her life to researching this topic, is huge. I can’t remember the last time I’ve felt so “seen”. I may also have a different appreciation than most for this book because of the unique perspective I grew up (and still live) with. My parents were opposite in every way. My mother is white from an educated, affluent family while my father was black from a family that had left sharecropping in Mississippi for the promise of “good” industrial jobs in Michigan. My maternal grandparents live in a home that has been in magazines, belong to a club & sit on various influential boards in multiple states. My paternal grandparents were a cook & a janitor & lived in an area riddled with crime and drugs. I went to a private school where my classmates had pools and planes & then visited my Dad’s family where I slept on a pullout couch in the “hood” and looked forward to penny candy and freezee cups. I have been privy to what both demographics say & do when they feel they are “amongst themselves” and have always tried to be a bridge between the two. It often feels like I’m alone in this space because it is rare for a person to have such unfiltered access to one group while also holding an understanding of the other. This author may not have first person experience in both sects but she is sensitive to both sides in a way I haven’t seen before. To say that I appreciate her & her work feels like an understatement. I hope that other people of color read this & not only feel “seen” but also take the opportunity to see the other side & see that, while it isn’t an excuse, sometimes people really just don’t know any better. At the same time, some DO know better so they’re doing better and it does show in the next generation. I’d also love to see white people, particularly those that are or plan to be parents, read this to (hopefully) check the bias & open their eyes to the ways in which they are shaping their children both consciously & subconsciously. It would be an amazing read for parents of multiracial children or children of another race to get an idea of the ways in which the world may look or feel different to your child than it does to you. In other words, White Kids is a must read for everyone.... but don’t forget your highlighter.

The author did a great job of summarizing how white kids become biased about people from other races. It was interesting to read about families that were close in proximity, but had completely different views. I highly recommend this!

WHITE KIDS by Margaret A. Hagerman is a newly published academic work. Its subtitle is "Growing Up with Privilege in a Racially Divided America" and the author begins powerfully with quotes from middle school students about their perceptions of race. Hagerman, an Assistant Professor of Sociology, continues by sharing results of her studies based on two years of research with white, affluent, Midwestern students. She asks: "How do white kids learn race? What role do parents play in shaping children's racial views?" It may not be surprising that many white parents consider themselves "anti-racist," but Hagerman explores further, focusing on key differences in the outcomes of white racial socialization across families, neighborhoods, and schools. She argues that all children growing up in the United States have lives that are structured by race and provides numerous examples (education, law enforcement, family relationships, opportunities) while trying to better understand how "some of the children in this study thought the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a grave violation of human rights and ... other children did not even know Trayvon's name." Hagerman deftly examines the political and cultural segregation that we also have been contemplating (e.g., living in a bubble); hopefully, her work will spark more conversation. While perhaps too scholarly for most students, our teachers, administrators and parents will find much to contemplate and discuss.

Thank you for making WHITE KIDS by Margaret A. Hagerman available via NetGalley. Overall, I do think it is probably too academic for our students (except maybe AP Psych), but I will purchase a copy because I know there is a very high level of interest amongst teachers, administrators and some parents. Thank you.

Free LibraryThing Early Reviewer book. Hagerman studies wealthy white kids from three Midwest neighborhoods, one of which was basically my neighborhood even though it’s halfway across the country. There’s the conservative suburb where many white parents use private schools even though they ostensibly moved there for the quality of the public schools; there’s the liberal suburb where many white parents move heaven & earth to get their kids into the “good” public school whose racial diversity is (wrongly) perceived to come from the children of immigrant PhD students from the local university; and there’s the progressive city neighborhood where many white parents are ideologically committed to public schools, agonize over whether it’s fair to give their children outside experiences like trips and tutors, but do it anyway. I felt very seen: that last neighborhood was populated by two types of cars: hybrid cars and cars over 10 years old, often with political bumper stickers (i.e., our last two cars). Part of this story, then, is increasing residential segregation among groups of white people, based on political/cultural differences.

Hagerman argues that kids don’t receive racial ideologies unchanged and unchallenged from their parents, but rather do a lot of the work of race-thinking themselves and with peers (and also influenced by media). Especially for the first two groups of white kids, their parents rarely mention race and may even teach that speaking about race—noticing race—is itself racist, even though they also often use racially coded or even explicit language (“ghetto” kids, Hispanic “gang members”). Those kids usually advocated color-blindness but also asked Hagerman lots of questions about race when their parents weren’t around, like whether blacks had different muscles that made them better at sports. “Racism” is the worst accusation many white kids can imagine, and it’s therefore also a joke (you asked for a marker of a particular color and that makes you racist!). The conservative parents teach color-blind ideology that ends up blaming minorities for their own subordination; the liberal parents teach that discrimination was a problem historically and remains in existence today, but as a matter of individual prejudice rather than structure; and the progressive parents teach that race is one of a number of linked axes along which power and subordination may operate, even as they also teach their kids that they are powerful and entitled to a good life in ways that can reproduce white dominance. There are no good answers, though I have to admit I was impressed by the progressive white kid who talked about protests of Trayvon Martin’s death by basically saying that whites’ role as allies was to listen and support, not to stand in front trying to lead the protest. I hope there’s a lot more of that kid out there.

Interesting take on how white people view us African Americans. However, I do feel that most of the subjects in this book subscribe to stereotypical images of us. And that "white privilege" is a real thing. I read this book to get some insight into why certain individuals think the way they do. Back in the 1980's, I was in junior high school, the school was in a "white" neighborhood. 90% of the kids were mean and racist. They were prone to saying the M word, monkey, jigaboo. I've always wondered why they were the way they were. They had to learn it from somewhere as they were still young. Then there was the other 10% of kids who genuinely wanted to be your friend and di not care about the color of your skin. So like I said, interesting insight on how the so-called privileged raise their children. I voluntarily read this book via NetGalley in exchange for my honest opinion.

White Kids: Growing Up With Privilege In A Racially Divided America By Margaret Hagerman
July 29, 2018/8 Comments/in Racism /by Ed Walker

The young people from Parkland who led the gun violence protests are shocking. Instead of piling up teddy bears and flowers and disappearing back into anonymity, they insist that something be done and if politicians can’t figure that out, they need to be replaced. Even more astonishingly, they reached out to other young people whose voices are just as powerful, but are not heard. For example, Emma Gonzalez came to Chicago to meet with Black and Brown kids who live under the misery of gun violence every day (the South Side for short).

The Parkland kids are from relatively affluent families. The teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School support their aspirations and hone their skills so that they are articulate and prepared to act. It is sickening that the kids from the South Side are unheard despite their own powerful voices and their best efforts. The Parkland kids recognize that disparity. How did it happen that the Parkland kids were both prepared and aware? Why are they heard when others aren’t?

Affluent white kids live in a different world from that of the poorer members of their age cohorts. They travel more, their houses are different, they have more and better things, their daily lives are different, and the expectations of their parents are different. One more thing: the kids they see every day are mostly white, and most of the parents of those kids are also affluent and white. This is the world that Margaret Hagerman studied for White Kids.

She starts by stating the obvious: our society is racialized. All social issues seem to be tied up with race, now more than ever as the right wing descends into Trumpian white nationalism expressed not only in our national politics but in our foreign policy. It has always been racialized. Stamped From The Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi is an excellent history of race in the US; I highly recommend it.

Hagerman identified three separate white and upper middle class neighborhoods in a Midwestern city which she calls Petersfield. She interviewed a number of families, ten closely, talking to the kids and their parents and siblings, sometimes separately and sometimes together. The kids in this ethnographic study are in middle school, mostly 10 to 13 years old. Their parents are professionals and middle to upper middle management level business people.

One community is largely conservative, one is left/liberal, and one center blue. All of the parents want to raise decent caring children, and importantly for this study, they absolutely don’t want their kids to be racists. They all want their kids to succeed academically and as adults to have the same kind of life they do; and they give the kids everything they think the kids need to achieve those goals. All of them appear to be good parents, involved in the daily lives of their children and on good terms with them.

She identifies three strategies the parents have adopted in socializing their kids, and gives us a picture of their thinking on race. The parents of the conservative community adopt a strategy of raising their kids to be color-blind, that is, they themselves believe, and want their kids to think, that racism is a thing of the past. They don’t discuss race, and when they do it’s in the context of equal opportunity. In the liberal community, the parents try to instill anti-racism in the kids, as well as awareness of their good fortune in having access to a life of privilege, and talk with their kids about what can be done. In the more centrist community, the parents talk about race and social status, and try to show their kids that race is a problem and that the kids have advantages over other children but there is more emphasis on the need to succeed academically and less on responsibility to in confront the problem.

Hagerman gives a detailed picture of those strategies in action. She reports on how the kids view race and their own privilege. The kids are bright and articulate, and forthright in explaining their views. The parents are equally forthcoming.

Several things seem especially relevant.

1. Hagerman makes it clear that the US race problem are institutional, and will not be solved by individuals. This raises questions about how change could come about which are beyond the scope of this book.

2. The color-blind strategy doesn’t work. If you teach kids that race isn’t an issue, that everyone is equal and has equal opportunities, you leave your kids poorly prepared to face the real world where there are utterly unfair racial differences. Hagerman sees a tendency among kids raised color-blind to attribute those differences to personal failings of the kids or their parents. That is certain to perpetuate the racialized structures of the US.

3. Hagerman emphasizes the agency of the kids. Their attitudes about race are informed by parents and teachers, their peer groups and siblings, and their own interactions with not-white kids. They work out solutions to the questions they have with each other, and privately. The agency of the kids is salient with some of the parents, not so much with others.

Hagerman generally approves of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, but places more importance on the agency of the kids than he does. The parents and teachers worked to instill a habitus in the kids, but there are many other people and events involved in the formation of that habitus. The Parkland kids and most of the kids in Hagerman’s study were taught from an early age to examine those lessons and encouraged to think about them for themselves. They aren’t blank slates. They are active participants in shaping their lives, even in middle school.

Hagerman says that the attitudes toward race present in middle school persist and strengthen as the kids get to high school, which seems to support Bourdieu’s assertion that habitus is learned at an early age.

If you substitute gun violence for race, you can see this in action after the Parkland murders. It seems to me, although of course I don’t know, that the Parkland kids thought that they had a responsibility to do something about gun violence. This was shocking to the right-wing pundits and their disciples. partly because they didn’t play their part in the repulsive NRA charade of grief but mostly because white kids aren’t supposed to be uppity. They are supposed to enjoy their privilege without regard to anyone else.

4. Bourdieu devoted his life to studying how the dominant class reproduces its dominance across generations so that everybody accepts it as natural and unthreatening. The Parkland kids and the kids in this study are likely to join the dominant class and are being socialized to do so. We don’t talk about domination in the US. But it seemed natural to most of us that the Parkland kids spoke out and were heard. It’s going to take so much more for the kids on the South Side to enter the dominant class, and on the whole, people seem comfortable ignoring them. The different treatment of these voices arises in large part from the structure of our racialized society.

This is an academic study, but every parent will benefit from thinking about the three strategies and the impact they have on children.
image_print
Tags: anti-racism, Bourdieu, color-blind chile rearing, Emma Gonzalez, Margaret Hagerman, Parkland, White Kids
Share this entry

Share on Twitter

8 replies

Eric S says: (Edit)
July 30, 2018 at 4:14 am

Interesting, clear, and I think accurate.

Brooks this week wrote an opinion (July 26/NYT/Where American Renewal Begins) in which he describes a volunteer program called Thread, situated in a poor section of Baltimore. Underachieving black kids are swooped up by a strongly concerted network of educated and privileged adults who work within a highly ethical, intelligent, and responsible framework to help them, not only through school, but into early adulthood. Lots of genuine success.

Presumably, the commenters on a NYT opinion piece, like the groups compiled by Hagerman, think of themselves as having socially positive and responsible positions about race. They broke down very much like they do in this article.

Everyone recognized that the program was exceptional.

About a third liked the program but asked, in a way that seemed to me unkindly, why the parents of the children weren’t taking care of their own kids. They were ticked off that children exist, whose parents aren’t taking enough care, for them to succeed in school. Some even seemed to feel okay about looking away, because it wasn’t their problem.

A bulky third unquestioningly thought the program was amazing and said it gave them hope, the stars in their eyes crowd, glad that someone out there was helping, and seemingly, that’s the end of it.

The final third liked the program too, but imagined that the parents of the poor children might have liked to have been able to have the leisure time, dollars, jobs, and power, to take care of their own children, instead of having them swooped up, by compassionate people with more luck in the entitlement game. This group also questioned some of the assumptions in the article, which had said, for example, that Thread essentially dissolved distinctions between the “haves and the have nots,” as being untrue.

The person with real power and influence, Mr. Brooks, thought that by announcing a program which helps a handful of kids in one city, he’d made a significant contribution, because private sector charity contains the only philosophy by which we can save our society. That this was the solution.

Within the writing, he did not use the following words: race; racism; black; African American; white; privilege; wealth; rich; money; or connections.

No big point here, I just thought it was congruent.
Pete says: (Edit)
July 30, 2018 at 8:54 am

Outstanding Ed! I live within 2 miles of MSD where the murders happened in the adjacent city of Coral Springs. My three kids are a generation older than those affected at MSD. Through a family business I have had many interactions with Parkland parents and didn’t have a clue.

I now think the “skills” developed by these young adult students supported by their parents and teachers have always been there, but hidden from obvious view only brought to the forefront by the MSD tragedy.

There is reason to be hopeful, but so many more are needed – like them and those that raised and support them.

Pete
bmaz says: (Edit)
July 30, 2018 at 11:19 am

It is not fair that every child doesn’t have the same facilities, teachers and opportunities as the MSD kids. But, darn, what they are, and long have been doing at that school is pretty impressive. How should things be done? That is how.
Watson says: (Edit)
July 31, 2018 at 8:48 am

In poor neighborhoods the kids commit the crimes; in rich neighborhoods, it’s the parents. /s
Trip says: (Edit)
July 31, 2018 at 9:15 am

You forgot about affluenza. Rich kids commit crimes, but their richness is a mitigating factor in crimes, because it’s so hard being rich. While being poor, apparently, is a lucky cakewalk and choice.
Martin Velasques says: (Edit)
August 1, 2018 at 1:36 pm

Ah, how fiercely we cling to the late capitalist chimera of egalitarianism theory!
Tracy says: (Edit)
August 1, 2018 at 4:00 pm

Thank you for reporting on this important issue!

A related issue, in my mind, is segregation of schools and communities. I have always found it (anecdotally) interesting that some of the most liberal places are also segregated: NYC, San Francisco, for instance. The people are often pro-equal-opportunity, yet also (in general), I see them not doing much to integrate and interact with minorities and minority communities themselves. I also (in general) have not see them particularly open to de-segregating their schools when it comes to their own kids, nor keen to integrate their own communities. The phenomena of “white flight” and gentrification are well documented.

For ex, I’ve heard one woman say that she supports school desegregation, but when asked if she’d send her grandkids to the local African-American school, she’s like: no way. People have to be willing to do this – to walk their talk. I don’t have kids so I know it’s easy for me to say, but I have heard of parents who make this difficult choice, and do so b/c it’s the only way to change things. Nikole Hannah-Jones is really good on this topic, for instance.

This goes back to what you’ve reported about having agency. Research shows that mere exposure is not enough for different groups to accept one another – there have to be interactions that allow people to see that out-group members have the same wants/ hopes/ fears/ dreams as they do – the minority groups need to be humanized through interaction. Social psychology studies show, for instance, that when groups who hated each other are forced to work together to solve a puzzle/ issue, then they cooperate and integrate (ex from my memory: Robbers Cave experiment, conducted with summer camp kids).

A study I read about earlier in the year (conducted by Ryan Enos, Harvard political scientist and author of “The Space Between Us”) showed that mere exposure can be deleterious. Spanish-speaking confederates were planted at train stations in wealthy, majority-white suburbs outside Boston, MA for a few weeks. Versus the control, the exposure group later expressed more negative views about immigration; this showed how even a very tiny “demographic change” (of two people) can negatively impact attitudes. This study shows the steep challenges that we face to finally desegregate our society:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/opinion/trump-racism-liberals-suburbs.html

Thanks for drawing attention to these issues, I appreciate your reporting! :-)
Ed Walker says: (Edit)
August 1, 2018 at 7:35 pm

Hagerman’s groups seem to confirm this view. Some of the parents tried to send their kids to neighborhood schools with large numbers of non-affluent kids, largely kids of color, and most decided that the atmosphere and the level of services for bright kids would not help the kids reach the level of learning the parents wanted.

I'm a teacher, and in my years in the classroom, I have taught in wildly different environments. A couple of my schools had mostly black students by design, but the others were heavily white. All were private schools. I'm black, so I've navigated these varied spaces with my own form of privilege: I don't need to see people who have the same color skin as I do to feel like I belong, and yet I know that racial "color blindness" isn't a thing. I might be comfortable in white spaces, but that doesn't mean I don't know those spaces are white.

White people may not usually face racism to the extent that non-white people do, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't apply to them. Being the racial majority affords its own obvious privileges, which Hagerman does an excellent job of detailing and cataloguing. For middle-schoolers, the task of identity formation is even more difficult than it might be otherwise. Because they live in a world where—like it or not—race matters, they also have to figure out how race factors into their identities. I was intrigued to read the detailed stories and quotations in this book from people are in the majority and are still making choices and building lives in a racially-driven society.

I found myself nodding along through much of the book. It's a shame that some white people who inhabit mostly all-white spaces think that the mere act of discussing race is racist in and of itself. It's a paradox that the people who benefit the most from racial structures in society (such as generational wealth) have the most interest in protecting those structures (to maintain their wealth) as well as the most agency to change them (which might threaten their wealth or opportunities). It's understandable to want what's best for your kids and to do whatever is necessary in order to help them prosper, but it makes a big difference when you started out with a lot yourself.

Hagerman doesn't offer many solutions to the problem of building race-consciousness in early adolescents, but she paints rich pictures of real people's lives. Racial stereotypes are caricatures, so they can only carry the discussion so far. Her work offers us round characters from the white side of the tracks in a world where more minority actors are stepping into the spotlight. Let's see how the action unfolds.