Forum: Reflections on White Racial Identity in the ABE Classroom - Part 4 of 4 - Response to Edith Gnanadass and Shantih E. Clemans

Oct 15, 2026

Response (Part 4 of 4) engages with critiques by Edith Gnanadass and Shantih E. Clemans regarding reflections on white racial identity in adult basic education (ABE) classrooms. Stephen D. Brookfield argues for centering intersectionality and structural inequities, warns against defaulting to whiteness as a category, and explains how binary assumptions of white supremacy sustain legitimacy. He describes teaching and staff development approaches, including narrative disclosure and audience polling, to help white educators recognize how racial identity shapes teaching and assessment practices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

Forum: Reflections on White Racial Identity in the ABE Classroom

Part 4 of 4

Response to Edith Gnanadass and Shantih E. Clemans

ADULT LITERACY EDUCATION Fall 2019 Forum: Reflections on White Racial Identity in the ABE Classroom (Part 4 of 4) Response to Edith Gnanadass and Shantih E. Clemans Stephen D. Brookfield, University of St. Thomas I want to thank my two colleagues for engaging so passionately and accurately with my work, and for problematizing all the omissions and blindnesses I carry. Their critiques are spot on and add nuance and context to a “fast and furious” analysis! As a 70-year old who is currently battling his employer for his speaking out on institutional racism, Iam aware that my time for action is limited. The perception of time slipping away certainly fuels a tendency to strip things down to essentials. So I love how these two critiques illustrate why questions of identity are best addressed in conversations between those representing as much intersectionality as can be arranged. Oneof my core beliefs as a teacher is that introducing the question of race in a predominantly white institution (and indeed in any context) is best accomplished by a multiracial teaching team. That’s pretty much the only way that all the complexities of racial identity can be addressed. And the context within which whiteness is named and critiqued is so crucial. Although my piece contains some broad strokes advice, I am quite prepared to reverse or contradict these if something about the situation requires me to experiment radically with methodology. But, of course, as Edith Gnanadass so pertinently points out, a full explanation of structural inequities requires the permanent reality of intersectionality to be centered; otherwise “we as ABE researchers and practitioners, will once again default to centering whiteness and the white experience while pushing all other racial identities and experiences to the margins and reducing racial relations and racism to the “white-and” binary paradigm of race.” In fact, one of the ways that white supremacy maintains its power is by creating such a binary. The central idea of white supremacy is that only whiteness confers superior reasoning ability and calm, logical analysis, and that’s why whites should always be in the position of making decisions for the rest ofthe collective. Once that essentializing idea is challenged, decentered and displaced, then the structures based upon on it start to seem less automatically legitimate. Both Edith Gnanadass and Shantih Clemans point out my tendency to speak in broad brushstrokes as I essentialize the notion of whiteness. I love this correction. In a fully realized analysis, intersectional identities would be at the center of conversation. In the predominantly white contexts in which I work, getting people to even acknowledge whiteness as a category of racial identity is the hardest part of my work. So a pretty unremitting focus on whiteness as a category is needed if anyone is going to even consider the possibility that they have any kind of racial identity. Correspondence: Stephen Brookfield, [sdbrookfield@stthomas.edu](sdbrookfield@stthomas.edu) 66 The audiences I spend most of my time working with are teachers from across the disciplines indifferent 2-and 4-year colleges. Usually I’m asked to speak on diversity or inclusion, which is usually framed by the institution as widening access to bring more bodies of color on campus. Whilst I agree that this is obviously crucial, my concern is that when students, faculty and staff of color arrive in a white racialized environment, they experience the marginalization and alienation so well described in Feagin’s (2013) white racial frame. Denying the reality of white supremacy and perpetuating the myth that we are all good white people (Sullivan, 2014) who don’t see color and treat everyone the same, is a typical way that predominantly white institutions address racist incidents on campus. If anyone is interested to read my analysis of how institutions manage diversity so as to avoid focusing on institutional

FAQs

What is the main purpose of Brookfield’s response in Part 4 of 4?

Brookfield responds to Edith Gnanadass and Shantih E. Clemans, addressing how their critiques sharpen questions of identity, structural inequities, and the risks of centering whiteness in ABE classroom discussions.

Why does the document emphasize centering intersectionality?

It argues that structural inequities require intersectionality to be permanently centered; otherwise ABE researchers and practitioners tend to default to centering whiteness and marginalize other racial identities and experiences.

How does Brookfield propose helping a predominantly white audience acknowledge racial identity?

He describes using narrative disclosure, ideally through a panel of white instructors, and notes practical staff development steps such as conducting a poll to surface attendees’ reactions and beliefs.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Chumphorn