L OS MEDIOS IMPRESOS/DIGITALES COMO REFERENTE IDIOMÁTICO

interacting with racial diversity led to difficulty in, inability to, or refusal to engage in deep discussions about race. The most commonly reported aspects of White preservice teachers’ difficulty in engaging deeply in discussions about race were in talking about race, differentiating empathy versus pity, awareness versus advocacy, and global versus local issues related to race.

Race as a topic. Approximately half of the participants reported race to be the most

difficult diversity-focused topic for White preservice teachers to talk about. Ron noted that race was such a difficult topic for his White preservice teachers because, for the most part, they did not have experience with racial diversity and they were not used to having to talk about race. Penelope, Ginny, and Luna reported that their courses were often one of the first times their White preservice teachers were expected to think about and “talk about race as a social identity” (Penelope). Molly noted that difficulty in discussion was a result of many White students not having accurate understanding of concepts or language to use related to race.

Most participants who talked about race as a difficult topic, however, qualified that while some White students were not comfortable talking about race, other White students were. Many participants attributed the differentiating factor between those comfortable talking about race and those not to be previous experience with racial diversity. Participants reported that because White students generally did not think about, talk about, or interact with race, they had difficulty in seeing the societal implications of race. Penelope noted that it was challenging to have “White people become racially literate and [be] able to see race and all of its implications.”

Participants reported that White preservice teachers’ lack of interest or willingness to interact either intrapersonal or interpersonally in issues related to race resulted in low comfort thresholds during conversations about race. For example, Ginny reported her White students avoided talking about race during certain activities. Ginny used Harvard University’s (2011) “Project Implicit” tests, which were designed to reveal implicit bias in specific areas. She reported, nevertheless, “They never pick the race one. They pick age, religion; they pick really safe stuff.” Ron reported his White students’ disinterest in talking about race because they did not believe their future classrooms would really be racially diverse. Sybill and Luna’s

discussions included more nuanced explanations of their White preservice teachers’ thresholds while discussing concepts relating to race. Luna said, “The Black/White issue is always difficult . . . they’ll talk about every other race, but when you get to the Black/White issue it becomes difficult.” Sybill gave a similar report saying, “Where they have the hard time is with the African American issue. That somehow is harder [than discussions about other races].” Molly theorized that the feelings of guilt and shame often attached to conversations focused on race made it one of the most difficult diversity-focused conversations to engage in.

Empathy versus pity. Almost all of the participants discussed the importance of their

White preservice teachers having empathy for students of color in their future classrooms. Many participants, however, reported White preservice teachers’ superficiality in understanding the difference between empathy and pity. Approximately half of the participants discussed White students’ difficulty in understanding the difference between pity and empathy.

In the online focus group, Sybill expressed frustration that many of her White preservice teachers’ experiences, particularly international experiences, with poor people of color, caused them to develop feelings of pity and a White Savior complex rather than empathy. Participants

reported White preservice teachers’ superficiality in thinking about empathy versus pity came from inability or disinterest in deeply exploring content related to race. Several other

participants responded to Sybill’s discussion in the focus group with similar experiences. Lily, however, pointed out that the program at her university specifically engaged preservice teachers in trainings and debriefings regarding empathy and pity before and after experiencing racial diversity. Participants reported a paradoxical ability for White preservice teachers to remain engaged in a racially diverse experience, but lack depth in critically examining their own racial identity in connection to society and social positioning. Sybill suggested,

[White preservice teachers have] a bit of Derrick Bell’s [1980] “interest convergence” (the idea that White people will only support social justice when there’s something in it for them) going on, albeit subliminally . . . serving others in another place during a missions trip reinforces [White preservice teachers’] view of [themselves] as kind, giving individuals, without requiring [them] to examine how [their] position of social privilege has benefited [them] at the expense of those in [their] own community.

A few participants discussed even more nuanced aspects of empathy and pity. Ginny, for example, noted that her White preservice teachers “express compassion and empathy, but they don’t really get it.” Half of the participants reported White preservice teachers’ ability to have empathy for poor people of color, especially children, without engaging in more critical or personal reflection of race issues.

Global versus local. A similar aspect to White preservice teachers’ superficiality in

differentiating empathy versus pity, is the superficiality in the way White preservice teachers engaged in global versus local race issues. Sybill, Molly, and Ginny discussed White students’ ability to engage with race issues from global perspective but not from a local perspective. In the

online asynchronous focus group, six of the eight participants reported experiencing the disparity between White students’ engagement with global race issues versus local race issues. In the online focus group, Sybill wrote,

Many of my students travel extensively during their time at the university through mission trips. Although these junkets are highly beneficial in broadening their global understandings, what they learn on the trips doesn’t always transfer to their beliefs about racism in the U.S.

The thread of responses to Sybill’s comment regarding the disconnect between race issues globally versus locally was the most in-depth discussion during the focus group. Six of the eight participants responded to Sybill’s comments and agreed that when international experiences for White preservice teachers were unmitigated and unfacilitated, implicit bias and stereotypes were often reinforced. Molly noted that while her White preservice teachers could see and engage in race-related issues from a global sense, “many . . . White students often have a hard time seeing” race-related issues in a local sense. For instance, Molly shared an example of a White preservice teacher who was skeptical of bilingual education in the United States, but during a school trip to Italy, which was mitigated and facilitated with discussions and reflections, the student realized they had been harder on immigrants in the United States than they were on those in Italy.

Both self and societal reflection connecting global and local race-related issues were difficult for White preservice teachers. Participants noted that because White preservice teachers were often superficial while talking about race, experiences with racial diversity had the potential to be harmful rather than beneficial. Ginny, who tried to include international educational norms into class discussions about racial diversity, noted White students often exhibited deficit

diversity-focused professors put “so much hope . . . in these brief [diversity] experiences when they often end up being counter-productive, emphasizing the ‘White savior’ perspective or solidifying deficit thinking.”

Awareness versus advocacy. The ability to feel empathy without a sense of advocacy

was the final area where participants reported superficiality in their White preservice teachers’ discussions about race. All of the participants reported White preservice teachers’ increase in empathy and awareness related to race as a result of diversity-focused courses. However, several participants noted empathy and awareness were not sufficient. Ginny summed up several

participants’ frustration saying, “They’ve been exposed and I think if that’s where I get them, I guess I’m happy with that. Not really, but I have to be.” Half of the participants reported the disparity between White preservice teachers’ awareness of race issues and their advocacy in race issues.

For some participants, advocacy versus awareness was an issue of maturity. For example, Lily differentiated between graduate and undergraduate students saying, “With grad level classes, I get a little more into advocacy and action, however I just think developmentally [undergraduate students] are more at an awareness phase than they are ready to go beat the world.” Additionally, during the focus group, Lily admitted, “At the level I teach it is difficult to get past [awareness] to that of action.” Participants reported White preservice teachers became more aware of issues regarding race and racism throughout their diversity-focused course, but qualified that awareness did not always lead to advocacy. Several participants mentioned the superficiality of awareness in contrast with the depth of social action. Penelope noted that it was challenging for White preservice teachers “to be able to recognize their own role as advocates, potential advocates in schools.”

Theme 3: White Preservice teachers’ spectrum of responses to discussions about