Does anti-racist’ training work? I’d like to offer an answer to that question based on my experiences of anti-racist facilitation in South Africa and abroad, one that differs from that of Profs Nicoli Nattrass and Jeremy Seekings (“Does ‘anti-racist’ training work?” Daily Maverick, 7 October 2020).

It is also to share my disappointment in what I believe is a missed opportunity by the esteemed professors to build solidarity with professionals who continue to make great personal sacrifices to do emotionally draining work with the expressed understanding that it is for the greater good. Few like Robin DiAngelo achieve “stardom”. It is not to speak on behalf of DiAngelo; she does not need me to do that.

The authors start by asking what I thought are important questions to consider. This piqued my interest given the work that I do. What followed got me questioning the motives of the authors. I expected the authors to draw on a cross-section of research that addresses both “for” and “against” arguments. This is standard practice, for example, when students embark on research projects as it eliminates (or at least aims to) researcher bias.

It soon becomes apparent that the questions are rhetorical. The authors already knew the answers and supported their findings by doing desktop (secondary) research and carefully selecting publications of like-minded authors. While I questioned their motives, it was apparent that they had some serious beef with DiAngelo!

They essentially assert, rather confidently, that “anti-racist” training, in particular the “crude” kind peddled by DiAngelo and others like her, does not work (substantiated). 

What is interesting to note is that the research used as evidence that anti-racist training does not work, never included DiAngelo’s work as part of the sample studied. In fact, the authors explicitly state “the recentness of DiAngelo’s stardom means that there has been little research on her particular style of anti-bias training”. 

This statement re “the recentness” is also at odds with DiAngelo’s self-reporting that she has been doing the work for a rather long time now. Her book “White Fragility” was first published in 2016. It is therefore quite baffling that her work was, according to the authors, never subjected to research scrutiny, yet we are told it does not work.

Instead, it is argued that we should focus on building solidarity and follow the example set by trade unions with their emphasis on structural forces and civil society with their “solidaristic response… to lockdown hunger” (unsubstantiated). 

They further state that the emphasis on race is inherently divisive and harmful with the only benefit accruing to DiAngelo who has been able to dupe millions to part with their money and join her cult. 

The professors then disqualify the South African supporter of DiAngelo’s work as an authoritative voice above theirs, by letting us know that he has a degree in theology. So while it may even have been unintentional, theology was sent packing.

Does it work?

I have been involved in designing and facilitating diversity, equity and inclusion workshops across various industries for many years now, and my answer is, “it depends”.  

It is the same as asking “does high-flow nasal oxygen therapy work in the treatment of Covid-19?” If you were to pose that question to the undertakers who have been struggling to keep pace with their work, or the children of the frontline workers who lost their parents, you would get a different answer to, for example, the 105-year-old who walked out of hospital with much jubilation and fanfare. 

If you had to ask the medical professionals administering fast-flow oxygen, the answer would likely be, “it depends”. There are so many factors (known and unknown) that impact the efficacy of the intervention that one cannot categorically conclude “it works” or “it doesn’t work”. At best you can say the data shows that on average “it works” when these (known) conditions are met, keeping in mind there are some things we don’t know.

To get back to my answer, I would first make my subjective position clear. You need to know that I (much like DiAngelo) facilitate anti-racist work. This is important, so that you may critically evaluate my contribution, as no response is value-free. Then I would be obligated to point out that the framing of the question is problematic. 

I would direct your attention to how a question like that assumes the answer can be generalised to all anti-racist work, making no distinction between content, facilitators, participants etc. We would talk about the criteria for generalisability that generally include quantitative research with a large enough sample size that may be deemed representative of the research community. And even then, the importance of controlling for variables that may have an undue influence on that being studied.  

Then I will share stories of the many rewarding times when the process oriented anti-racist work I facilitated “worked”. My assessment of it having “worked” is based on my experience of what I observed in the space, as well as feedback from participants.

The work is primarily based on personal transformation or healing, and depending on the context, an organisational impact may be added to the goals. 

For example, I can speak about the white male who returned to Day 2 of the workshop reporting that he had had an epiphany and lay awake the whole night. The epiphany he reported is that he now realises he is white! Prior to that he self-identified as human and said he didn’t see himself as white. 

The content and discussions shifted something for him and he spent the night awake, reflecting on the many experiences where the social construction of whiteness benefited him. And contrary to the caution of “pitying” people of colour, the participant expressed sincere compassion. 

The atmosphere in the venue that day was electrifying, as the group was able to engage with difference in a way that they never had the opportunity to do before.

I will also confirm that as observed with DiAngelo, I too had “white colleagues squirm, especially when discussing their privilege and implicit biases”. 

The process is painful and challenging. However, I can also say that those experiences of sometimes intense discomfort resulted in depths of understanding that have been truly transformative.

As Victor Frankl, the author of “Man’s Search for Meaning” said, “between a stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

I have been witness to many making courageous choices to lean into their pain and grow. Individuals who, in the words of Peggy McIntosh, recognised their white privilege and used it to fight inequality. My experience also confirmed another of McIntosh’s teachings that “studying privilege systems can strengthen compassion”.

Then I will share the many stories of people of colour who welcomed the opportunity to talk about what, for some, had been excruciatingly painful – who for the first time felt validated. Many felt validated and expressed no longer feeling like the crazy one, doubting and dismissing experiences that they found difficult to articulate when those in positions of power didn’t believe that in 2020 unconscious bias was a “thing”. 

Many people of colour chose as their “action plan” to seek professional help to heal from internalised racism. So did it work for them? Hell, yeah.

I will also share that I had, mostly though not exclusively, white participants who share the same views of Nattrass and Seekings. And like the authors, those participants rubbished both the content and my skills as the facilitator. 

So to the question then – it works for some and not others. And as facilitators we understand that, and despite the many challenges inherent in doing this work, we continue to strive to do our bit. While this is our area of expertise, it is not used as a deflection from other supposedly more important work. 

All contributions, no matter how small, are necessary to address injustice in all its forms, inherited from our political past and sustained by self-serving interest. It is the sum of the parts that will turn the tide toward justice and social cohesion, and collaboration is crucial.

And to their final question, if it is a question at all: is unconscious racism today – in 2020 – the only or even primary cause of injustice?

The answer is no, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that it is. It is however today, in 2020, still one of the many devastating causes of injustice (ask any number of your colleagues of colour or do a quick desktop search). 

That you even ask the question is telling: it means you are clearly not on the receiving end of the type of unconscious bias many people of colour will attest to. You also make the assumption that those of us who choose to focus our careers on deconstructing unconscious bias means that we don’t understand the complexity of injustice. It is simply using our areas of expertise to make a difference.

I agree with Nattrass and Seekings that it is truly a disgrace that we still have enduring racism in South Africa. 

Dealing with racism is a complex issue and requires a collective effort of Herculean proportion to dismantle. It is imperative that we apply our minds and critically evaluate initiatives aimed at helping – however, we also need to do so reflexively. 

We are in great danger as a society if our esteemed professors – who also serve as role models, influencers of young minds – choose to invest their brilliant minds in destroying rather than building. DM