Last week I took a version of the Implicit Association Test. The aim of the test is to look at perhaps hidden bias in our own minds by looking at the difference in ability to associate positive terms with or negative terms or positive terms with a given race or identity, in this case not my own. I did quite poorly. I’m not even really sure I want to admit this. How comfortable am I admitting this result with my friends? Is that a conversation I want to have? Would it be hurtful to do so? Or is it only my own ego I would hurt?

So in short the survey was a really a horrible experience. I am grateful for the experience, but to be blunt I found it sickening. Have you ever felt self-conscious around yourself? Have you ever found yourself wondering what you might be thinking? A little tempted to squirm out of your own consciousness, and find some meaningless distraction? Have you ever attempted to eavesdrop on the conversation in your head as though looking for gossip? This week I have found myself questioning myself. I want to know if this is true in my interactions with people. Or at least I want to find out. It’s hard to say if I really want to know.

From the experience, I think there were two kinds of factors playing in on the unconscious mind – the mind on autopilot. The first a bias against another group, and the second a bias toward myself. The first is hard for me to wrap my mind around. The second is easier. What I have never noticed before is how many of my mnemonics are based on some system of ranking, of doling out importance. When I memorize numbers I use tricks like noticing when the digits add to 10, patterns and symmetry, and – conspicuously – a competition between the “good” even numbers and the “bad” odd numbers. I’ve done this for as long as I can remember without ever consciously deciding to do so.

What’s scary is how often I use “likeness to me” as a mnemonic. I’ll use my age, my initials, my favorite color, my “favorite” number, whatever it takes as a tag. And if I am trying to remember an ordered list or associate numbers with terms, I find it easier to remember when the more “me-like” is the greater. For example, potassium is “my” element because it’s abbreviation is “K.” My initial. The concentration of potassium is high inside the cell (I get to be the “insider”), and the Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase that maintains this gradient only pumps 2 K⁺ in for every 3 Na⁺ out (because I can’t be pushed around like so much sodium…). I use all sorts of mnemonics and the crazier the better. My memory is pretty horrible. Repetition hardly helps. My spelling skills are remedial (if anyone bothered to recognize that there is such a thing). But I don’t think I am off the mark when I say my memorization skills – the conscious ability to memorize what I set out to memorize – are very good. It’s something you practice as a biology major. But I’ve never pieced this together before; good at what cost? Have I trained myself to be quickly and instinctively egocentric?

And then there is the other factor that I have to wrestle with. The idea that with these results there is inherently a bias against. That’s the way this works. What do I do with that? I really like the concept so the hidden brain introduced by Shankar Vedantam. In effect he says that one of the best ways to get back control form the autopilot in my mind is to admit that the autopilot is there. To be aware of it.  That’s what this assassination test did for me.  Kind of like when a real pilot can be tricked into believing they are flying level between two layers of clouds, when if fact the clouds are not level at all.  We need some instrumentation and hard and fast numbers to identify the false horizon.  In the interview with Shankar Vedantam they talked about the idea of which person the autopilot of personal default or the conscious pilot is the “real you.” I really think it depends of which one is flying the plane. David Foster Wallace: “Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think.” Whether his long bout with depression and eventual suicide gives him credibility here or the lack of it could be taken either way; I fundamentally agree with this quote. So I will take it as a good thing: not getting a poor score on the Implicit Assessment Test, but having taken it and gotten a score at all. And I hope that this exercise will build into my arsenal and allow me to help facilitate similar experiences in the classroom and continually in my own life.

This week’s topic is something that is near and dear to me, something that always get me in trouble at family dinners, something that has forced me to enter into social media rants and arguments shedding years off of my life. Diversity! And the issue implicit within that topic–privilege.

Privilege can be a difficult thing to talk about, whether it is in the company friends and family or strangers. I come from a largely homogeneous area of Appalachia. We are overwhelmingly white and Christian. There were only 10 people of color in my high school and the families of all but 3 of them owned and operated ethnic food restaurants (Because in my neighborhood, the balm of tolerance was dependent on the desire for authentic egg foo young and carnitas fajitas). My hometown and many of the surrounding communities are also overwhelmingly working-class, meaning that poverty and other socioeconomic struggles are not uncommon. How do you have a conversation with a poor white person about how the color of their skin, their very identity, provides them with unearned privileges, when all they know is living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to feed and support their families, and God forbid the car break down or someone need medical care? It’s a difficult conversation to have.

And yet, it is necessary in order for us to move forward as a society, to ensure that people of all walks of life, from every demographic be it race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic and ability status, etc. are treated as equals. We have to recognize our privileges in order to eliminate their existence in our culture, because denying privilege, ultimately perpetuates it.

Last semester I wrote a paper regarding the potential implementation of privilege pedagogy (i.e. the inclusion of instruction about privilege) in the composition classroom. I wanted to explore the idea that privilege pedagogy can be communicated both explicitly and implicitly through composition curriculum, which I chose for a few reasons: First, at most institutions, composition is a general studies requirement, therefore all students must take and pass at least one section of it. This would mean that, if successful, it would reach as many students in the institution as possible. Second, privilege pedagogy tends to lend itself to the humanities, though it should be ubiquitous to all disciplines (considering that privilege is).  Thirdly, composition is a flexible enough discipline so as to allow such diversions with minimal distraction from the overall curriculum (focusing largely on texts and on the individual). And lastly…well quite frankly it’s the only course I’ve ever taught, so I figured it was my best and easiest entry point for me. What I found was that composition seems to be a great choice for implementing privilege pedagogy, because, in many cases, it’s already being implemented albeit implicitly, due to readings from diverse authors, from a variety of backgrounds. Students are often encouraged to talk about their own identities in writing, sometimes comparing their experiences to others’. Focusing on the individual throughout the writing process does more than improve a writer’s confidence; given the proper subject matter, it promotes empathy.

There are a couple of activities that can introduce the concept of privilege in the classroom that I’ve used to positive results. The first, called the paper toss is illustrated in the following video:

The other activity is called Privilege Bingo. You provide each student with a copy of the game board below. Whoever has the most marks (or gets a Bingo) has the most privilege and “wins.”

I’ve found that in both cases, students seem to connect with what privilege is, as well as its effect in our culture, while alleviating the awkwardness of the conversation. This is key to a successful discussion about privilege. We want to be inclusive, not only because we want students to feel as safe and comfortable as possible, but also because the way to tackling privilege is through a collective effort.

Feel free to let me know what you think int the comments below. Do you have any privilege exercises that you’d like to share?

Before I begin, there are a few things that you should know about me. I am quiet, goofy, kind, caring, shy, outgoing, creative, and bubbly. And I am an engineer.

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I am currently working on an MEng in Mechanical Engineering and a PhD in Engineering Education. I want to improve the way engineering is taught and help to change the “chilly climate” that is synonymous with engineering. Engineering is not always a welcome setting for women and minorities. But how do we change this?

I came across this TEDx talk by Debbie Sterling on inspiring the next generation of female engineers. She talks about getting girls excited about engineering and changing the narrative for young girls. And she is working to accomplish this through the creation of GoldieBlox, toys that introduce girls to engineering at a young age, to change the narrative of what girls can be and what they can do.

In Whistling Vivaldi, Claude Steele talks about giving people “information that enables a more accurate and hopeful personal narrative about their setting” (Whistling Vivaldi, p. 169). So maybe we can give young girls a narrative about engineers that is broader than “train conductor” or “antisocial nerd” (because, let’s face it, I am neither of those things and engineering is much broader than that).

And that got me thinking. Can letters by engineers to future engineers help change the stereotypical narrative of what an engineer is?

Below is my letter. What would your letter say?

Dear current and future creator, builder, developer, dreamer, problem solver, world changer:

My name is Amy and I love learning about the world around me. I love exploring and seeing new things. I love creating new things and making things better. I love hearing other people’s stories and learning about other areas and cultures and perspectives. And this is why I love engineering.

I always thought that engineering was just about math and science. I thought engineers sat alone in a dark, dingy rooms starting at computer screens. But engineers get to do really cool things. Engineers get to help find cures for cancer, help explore outer space, help people learn, help improve the way we live, and so much more! Engineers use math and science to solve problems and find creative solutions to those problems. And engineers work with people to do this. Engineers are creators, builders, developers, dreamers, problem solvers, and world changers. Just like you!

Engineering is really fun and amazing, and it is also really challenging. But that is because engineers are constantly learning about new things and trying to see problems from a new perspective. But one cool thing about people is that we are always learning and growing. We don’t stop learning when we are done with school. We all constantly learn about the world around us, and engineers get to do this every day!

So I encourage you — creators, builders, developers, dreamers, problem solvers, and world changers — consider engineering as a way to realize dreams, learn about the things around you, and change the world. We need you!

Sincerely,

Amy

Hello. My name is Cody, and I….

• …am white.
• …am a male.
• …am married.
• …am a father to a wonderful son.
• …come from an extremely impoverished, agricultural community in rural Alabama.
• …am a student loan statistic, living with unbelievable student debt.
• …am the first generation of my family to graduate from University.
• …am the first of my family to finish an advanced degree.
• …am an agriculturalist, ecologist, biologist, botanist.
• …spent three years working in the field before pursuing a PhD.
• …am a follower of Christ.
• …come from a broken family with continued rocky relationships.
• …am neither Republican nor Democrat, conservative nor liberal.
• …have worked with members from more cultures than I can count.
• …drive a Subaru.

And so much more.

In talks concerning inclusivity and diversity, more often than not, the first two items on my list of descriptors are all that matter. According to these discussions, I am the pinnacle of society, and therefore, am not a concern of progressive thought. However, if one of the first two items in my list of descriptors could change, I would be viewed as the object of progressive thought. It is here, that I want to draw our attention to a video I related with this week:

In all our talk about how to move forward with inclusivity and diversity within the university, it feels as though we are always looking for the nouveau approach (if for no other reason than to remain relevant). Now, it is currently apropos to announce our pronoun preferences (as unique and specific as they may be), if not to further advertise more of our personal identifiers (e.g., gender). Why this is now important in the classroom is beyond me. More importantly, I feel this movement trivializes so much.

Let me ask: If, in an attempt to be inclusive, we implement pronoun announcement in class, why do we not also seek to know more of the individual? Why is it not important that I announce my life experience in poverty? Isn’t my learning framed by that experience as much as someones gender? My point is not to denigrate the gender spectrum revolution, but instead to point out how I feel our progressive steps are misguided. We are taking one step forward, and three back.

Referring to the video, searching ancient knowledge, and visiting the creased pages of history, I am reminded of how important a mere assertion was for relationships of past centuries: Are you friend, or foe? Would not our classroom benefit more from a similar model of camaraderie amongst the students? Of course our society has become one of individuality, in which the parts are greater than the sum. Here’s hoping we can again be sojourning learners and citizens, instead of each vying for our place, first identifying with a group that does not pertain to the purpose of the classroom.

In the classroom, we should first be learners. Then we can hope for common ground with everything else.

Hello. My name is Cody, and, in the classroom, I….

• …am a learner, and a facilitator of learning.

Where do I start? Since Wednesday night I have been asking myself this question and I still do not have an answer. At least it is by no means a perfect answer or even an answer at all. At this time it is like a puzzle so I plan on describing a few pieces and hopefully it will result in something meaningful in the end. Bear with me.

When I saw that the readings for this week included Claude Steele’s work I instantly consulted my teaching notes from a year ago and found that while teaching a Social Psychology lesson I had used one of Dr. Steele’s videos as a way to introduce the topic of Bias, Stereotype, Prejudice and Discrimination for my students. You can find it on YouTube here. Much of what he talks about in this video is summarizing what we read in the chapters from his book Whistling Vivaldi. A few things that stood out to me in Dr. Steele’s work were:

1. The explanation of what makes a social identity important “if you have to deal with things in situations because you have the identity then that identity is likely to become very important to you…” (approx. 14 minutes in his talk)
2. How “Identity Contingencies” become central to how one functions on a daily basis.
3. “a question that makes you aware that you’ve got an identity” (approx. 16 minutes)
4. Contingencies that threaten us become more important… caring makes you vulnerable (approx. 35 minutes)

I will deliberate on the third point here just to provide perspective. Somewhere along the path of life we all realize that we are individuals, that we are different from other people in a particular way. This could be anything like Dr. Steele explains. It could be gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, metal health status or ability to name a few but a differential status that makes a person vulnerable from the get-go is what is central to how we feel about it and how we function with it day in and day out. Growing up in a majorly male chauvinistic society in India I always knew as a female child that I would not be treated equally. It was an awareness that I did not argue with till later in life. My gender being a part of my identity and having lived with it for numerous years and being discriminated against for it never really came to me as a shock. Something else however came as a shock…eventually.

One particular situation that comes to mind happened in 2005. I was in U.K. based in a small town high up north neighboring the Scotland border. It was 4am on a crisp August morning and I was waiting to catch a bus to London so as to fly back home to India for good. Eventually another individual, with a similar situation I’m sure, came up to me and started making small talk – weather, sports and what not but the question that made me realize something about myself apart from what I already knew and that I had never thought of before was “what country are you from?” and soon after that came “so you are a Hindu, right?” No harm done just as long as they were questions based on curiosity. We all get curious. Just to add a little context to that situation though this was the time when U.K was in upheaval, upset and torn by the London Tube blasts that had unfortunately taken place not even a month ago. Not sure what the next question would have been or how this situation would have ended but the bus pulled up at that very time. As I boarded the bus I realized something I had never thought of before – I walk with every single one of my identities. Some are overt and some covert but still every single day, I enter situations in which other individuals have the opportunity to form an opinion about me even when they do not know my name or what kind of person I am.

I used Bias, Stereotype, Prejudice and Discrimination together in a sentence earlier as I have always arranged them in my mind on a continuum. Bias – showing an inclination or preference for one over the other. Stereotype – a generalization about a group of people or social category, usually incorrect or presumptuous in nature. Prejudice – an unjustified attitude towards an individual, usually a result of stereotyping. Discrimination – behavior or actions towards an individual, usually negative and usually a result of prejudiced ideas or stereotypes. So it makes sense if you arrange the four concepts on a continuum, right?! Now was it bias, stereotype, prejudice or discrimination that was exercised in the aforementioned story? Can you tell? Maybe it was one or maybe it was neither. I still cannot decide but it lends perspective on the fact that identity contingencies that fire up our fight or flight response become important.

Dr. Rick Hanson in his book with Dr. Richard Mendius called Buddha’s Brain explain simply that any incident that triggers fight or flight or the limbic System or the primitive brain as it is sometimes called will result in the prefrontal cortex or our thinking brain to shut down. Therefore, no matter what we know through our prefrontal cortex, the area that is responsible for higher level thinking and reasoning, we are not thinking with that part of the brain anymore. Everything at that time and in that moment is about survival. Thus, it would make complete sense if I were threatened or felt threatened due to one or two identity contingencies that those contingencies would then be extremely important to me and any time, any single time one of those identity contingencies were threatened, they would trigger a fight or flight response in me. How simple does that sound on a cognitive prefrontal cortex level. On the level or our primitive brain however, it sounds horrifying.

If I learned anything on my journey to becoming a counselor it was to treat every individual as…wait for it…an individual. Even while considering them in various roles and different social contexts one always has to try and understand the individual. This takes time. After listening to numerous stories, and mind you real, horrifying, heart wrenching life stories, and trying understand how it feels like to be in my client’s shoes, I can say that it has been the most humbling experience of my life. One has to make a deliberate shift from forming an opinion to forming an understanding. Carl Jung in his famous work The Undiscovered Self says:

“Judged scientifically, the individual is nothing but a unit which repeats itself ad infinitum and could just as well be designated with a letter of the alphabet. For understanding, on the other hand, it is just the unique individual human being who, when stripped of all those conformities and regularities so dear to the heart of the scientist, is the supreme and only real object of investigation.” (p. 10)

Stepping into the role a teacher then we have to decide – what is the real object of our investigation? If the object of our investigation is what inspires learning in our students then we would need to know who the student is. In order to know the student then, we would need to understand their identity contingencies. If we are neglecting to understand our student’s identity contingencies we are neglecting to understand the student and therefore in turn neglecting to understand what really inspires learning in our students.

Lastly, I know I am a dreamer, but even I know that a perfect world does not exist. I know that even an ideal world is difficult to create. Just like years ago I knew that in the Indian society a female child is a liability and as I mentioned before, would never be treated equally. Is it however, too much to dream that every individual could be, should be and has the right to be treated with equity?!