Translate

Showing posts with label White privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White privilege. Show all posts

Sunday, November 09, 2025

Whose Truths Are Told: From Canada's Parliament Hill to Texas Classrooms

This exchange with reporters happened on June 29, 2017. It was part of a four-day “reoccupation” protest around Canada Day that takes place annually on the first day of July, Canada's independence day. As you view the video that I share, it is important to understand the context.

First, this exchange unfolded after Indigenous demonstrators erected a teepee on Parliament Hill—and, even more importantly, in the shadow of an ongoing national tragedy: the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls whose cases remain unresolved, their families’ pleas too often ignored by authorities. This crisis, rooted in the intergenerational trauma of the boarding school era and the broader legacy of colonial violence, has been extensively documented not only in Canada but across the United States, as well.

A reporter expresses why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is to blame for this, incensing the women who then accuse the media of disrespect and demanding that the reporter asking the question leave the room.

Without a doubt, their anger was more than a reaction to one reporter's disrespect. It was a lesson on white privilege and white fragility. That act of refusal is not hostility—it’s sovereignty. It's also inescapably about the agonizing loss of their loved ones. It insists that Indigenous peoples control their own stories, their own truths.

In the larger scheme of things, it means naming genocide and dispossession, and restoring not only land but decision-making power. Journalists and educators alike must ask: do our institutions create space for Indigenous truth, or do we stage reconciliation as a feel-good narrative like Thanksgiving itself that leaves power untouched?

From Parliament Hill to Texas classrooms, the struggle is shared: whose histories are told, whose truths are silenced, and whose comfort determines the limits of justice. In case you're interested and available, the Texas State Board of Education is addressing Social Studies standard this Wednesday as follows:

 

Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025

Time: 9:30am – 11:00am

Location: William B. Travis building located at 1601 N. Congress, Austin,  TX, 78751

Room Assignment:  Ground floor room G-100B

Registration:  Social Studies TEKS Review: Information Session Registration.

 

**Due to construction in the lobby of the building, it will be necessary to enter from the back entrance located on Brazos St. Parking information will be provided to registered participants prior to the meeting.

As educators, advocates, and community members, we have an obligation to stand where truth is being told—even when it unsettles. Our task is to insist that our schools, our histories, and our public institutions reflect the full truth of who we are.

With respect and solidarity,

-Angela Valenzuela

Reference

Vice News. (2024, February 17). Why Are Indigenous Women Disappearing Across Canada?


Indigenous demonstrators accuse media of being disrespectful in heated exchange with reporters (on June 29, 2017).

Indigenous demonstrators who led a protest and erected a teepee on Parliament Hill on Wednesday held a press conference this morning, in which they accused media of being disrespectful, rejected Justin Trudeau's reconciliation efforts with indigenous communities, and called for the UN to prosecute federal leaders

Saturday, May 24, 2025

"A Trojan Horse for the Affluent: House Bill 3041 and the Resegregation of College Admissions in Texas," by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Friends,

I will always remember that today is the anniversary of the horrific killings in Uvalde, Texas, because it is also mine and my husband's wedding anniversary.

As I contemplate violence against children in our schools, I urge us to also think about the symbolic, institutional violence that H.B. 3041 represents.

I often wonder what bills are getting passed while the advocacy community is focused on other critical fronts—like fighting SB 37, SB 12, and the ongoing battle against vouchers. H.B. 3041 is one of these, and it is VERY consequential to the future of children and youth in Texas.

What concerns me even more is the noticeable absence of critical perspectives or in-depth analysis of this bill in major news outlets or academic circles. Outside of endorsements by pro-homeschooling groups and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, there has been virtually no public scrutiny of its impact on equity, public education, or financial aid. That silence is itself telling—and dangerous.

Thank you for reading,


–Angela


A Trojan Horse for the Affluent: House Bill 3041 and the Resegregation of College Admissions in Texas

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

May 24, 2025




The University of Texas at Austin tower on July 16, 2020. Credit: Allie Goulding/

Well on its way to becoming state law, H.B. 3041 —authored by Reps. Dennis Paul and Terry Wilson—masquerades as a measure to expand college access. In truth, it codifies a deeply inequitable double standard in admissions and financial aid. The bill creates a separate pathway for students from “nontraditional secondary education” backgrounds—such as homeschoolers and those from unaccredited private schools—allowing them to bypass class-rank requirements and qualify for automatic admission based on standardized test scores set by each institution. 

It goes further by amending the Texas Education Code, meaning statute, to make these students eligible for state-funded financial aid programs like the TEXAS Grant—resources already stretched thin. This carveout, cloaked in the language of fairness, opens a back door for students who are disproportionately white, affluent, and well-resourced, while further narrowing the front door for historically underserved students in Texas public schools (Knox, 2024).

This isn’t just unfair—it’s a form of institutional violence. At a time when children of color in Texas schools are already being targeted by book bans, curriculum restrictions, racial surveillance, and chronic underfunding, H.B. 3041 inflicts yet another wound. The violence may not be physical, but its effects are just as real. When the state systematically redirects opportunity away from the vulnerable and toward the already privileged, it signals that some lives—and futures—matter more than others. That, too, is a kind of assault: quiet, calculated, and devastating.

The bill attempts to simulate class-rank-based admissions for students without one by substituting standardized test scores. Although the benchmarks must be recalibrated annually using institutional data, this approach is fundamentally flawed. Standardized tests are not neutral indicators of merit—they mirror access to wealth, tutoring, and stable learning environments. Consequently, H.B. 3041 disproportionately benefits students from nontraditional, affluent backgrounds—many of whom also stand to gain from newly passed school voucher legislation. Together, these measures constitute a systematic redirection of public support toward those already advantaged.

Meanwhile, students in public schools must compete through class rank in an increasingly narrow funnel (Dey, 2024). At UT Austin, for example, automatic admission once applied to students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class; by Fall 2026, only those in the top 5 percent will qualify—due to legislative provisions that cap automatic admissions at 75 percent of the freshman class. The rest are admitted through holistic review. In this context, H.B. 3041 is not just inequitable—it’s egregious. While public school students, disproportionately Black, Latino, and low-income, face rising barriers, nontraditional students gain a separate route designed around their strengths.

As McNeil (2005) and Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley (2001) have shown, so-called “color-blind” policies often obscure structural racism, reinforcing systems that reward those already equipped with social and economic capital. Berliner and Glass (2014) add that standardized test scores track family income more reliably than academic ability. H.B. 3041 reflects what Valenzuela (1999) calls subtractive schooling—policies that devalue the knowledge and experiences of marginalized students while privileging dominant norms. It rewards those in individualized, resource-rich settings while burdening public school students with mounting obstacles. This is not equity; it is privilege masquerading as reform.

The bill’s provision for “equal access” to dual credit courses is equally deceptive. While it requires institutions to treat all students the same in admissions to dual credit, it ignores the reality that many public schools—especially in rural and low-income areas—lack the infrastructure, staffing, and partnerships to offer these courses in the first place. Texas is a deeply rural state, yet rural schools remain underrecognized in policy. This formal equality masks material inequality. As Berliner and Glass (2014) warn, when laws ignore structural disparities, they don’t close gaps—they widen them.

Finally, by expanding financial aid eligibility without increasing funding, H.B. 3041 threatens to dilute resources for those who need them most. This is not an expansion of access—it’s a redistribution of opportunity upward: from public to private, from the underserved to the already advantaged.

In sum, H.B. 3041 is not a policy of inclusion—it is a Trojan horse. It offers the appearance of equity while reinforcing race, class, and geographic privilege. With UT Austin and other public institutions narrowing their admissions thresholds, this bill ensures that the gate remains open to the few and closed to the many. Texans must see H.B. 3041 for what it is: a backdoor policy that elevates the already elevated—at the cost of justice, access, and the democratic promise of public education.

References

Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America's Public Schools. Teachers College Press

Dey, S. (2024, Sept. 16). UT-Austin tightens automatic admission threshold to 5% of Texas’ top high schoolers: The current threshold is 6%, Texas Tribunehttps://www.texastribune.org/2024/09/16/ut-austin-top-five-percent-threshold/

Knox, L. (2024, Dec. 16), The longhorn long shot, Inside Higher Education

McNeil, L. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57–111). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Valencia, R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. (2001). Let’s treat the cause, not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(4), 318–321, 326. 

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. State University of New York Press.


© Angela Valenzuela, May 24, 2024

Sunday, November 17, 2024

DEI Attacks Are Widening the Racial Wealth Gap | Bloomberg

Friends:

An expanding middle class is so obviously important to our economy and society. And this is what DEI helps accomplish. This is an excellent opinion piece by Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman that relies on research. I have actually read the research on California that she cites and Opoku-Agyeman is spot on. Please read.

I came across it on BlueSky, a new app that folks are using as an alternative to Twitter. I just joined. My handle is @vlnzl in case you're joining. For lots of progressives, X (or Twitter) has gotten too toxic. I hope this becomes a platform and space for productive conversations.

-Angela Valenzuela

DEI Attacks Are Widening the Racial Wealth Gap

Taking away policies that help qualified Black and Latino people secure economic gains through selective colleges and high-paying jobs is counter-productive.




DEI and affirmative action initiatives shouldn’t be controversial.Photographer: Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

November 14, 2024 at 7:00 AM CST
Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is a doctoral candidate in public policy and economics at Harvard Kennedy School. She is the editor of “The Black Agenda” and the author of the forthcoming book “The Double Tax.”


Voters have given Donald Trump a second chance and put diversity, equity and inclusion programs in further danger.

The DEI backlash was strong even before Trump won the 2024 presidential election, and he is clearly hostile to most programs that seek to create an even playing field. That’s a shame, and not simply on moral or social grounds. DEI offers a path to real, lasting wealth generation, helps create a bigger consumer class, and it’s good for the economy.

Wealth creation in the US is typically rooted in three factors: education, well-paying jobs and profitable investments. Historically, White people have had disproportionate access to all three of those things, yet opponents of DEI and affirmative action insist, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that it was all achieved through merit.

Again, studies and history books tell us that’s a farce. But the myth persists. That’s not to discount the gains people make through hard work and talent or the financial and social rewards they deserve for their skills. DEI isn’t meant to come at the expense of either of those virtues. In fact, when DEI is thoughtfully implemented, it complements — and doesn’t overshadow — industrious, creative work.

Still, we hear it endlessly: Merit should be the only deciding factor when it comes to college admissions and hiring practices. It’s a compelling sales pitch on the surface. But look a little closer. At its core, attacks on race-conscious policies are a Trojan Horse.

In practice, those biases can push Black and Latino people into career pathways that are divorced from wealth-building. As a result, underrepresented minorities remain a substantial part of America’s permanent economic underclass, even as they comprise an increasingly larger part of the US population.

Opponents of diversity initiatives are surely aware that selective colleges and universities have often served as vital pathways for closing socioeconomic gaps and building wealth through high-paying jobs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard against the strategic expansion of who gets access to those institutions — and using “merit” as a cover.

It may take several years to see the full trickle-down effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to dismantle affirmative action, but data following bans at the state level years prior have already painted a devastating picture.

California, for example, voted to end the measure in its public universities in 1996 with Proposition 209. Princeton economics professor Zachary Bleemer found that it led to a 7.6-percentage-point decline in the likelihood that qualified minority applicants enrolled in selective University of California campuses. Perhaps feeling deterred, these high school students were much more likely to apply and enroll in less selective state schools. Over time, minority applicants, mostly Hispanic, experienced a 5% average annual decline in wages. The pay decrease worsened overall inequality by reducing the number of early-career minority Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 3%. This, in a state where 40% of the population is Latino.

What Bleemer found is further corroborated by the work of economists Raj Chetty, David Deming and John Friedman. They discovered that attending highly selective or Ivy Plus institutions triples a student’s chances of securing jobs at prestigious firms and increases their chances of joining the top 1% of earners. The work of Ellora Derenoncourt, a Princeton economics professor and director of the Program for Research on Inequality, further underscores why this access matters.

Her research shows that, between 1980 and 2020, capital gains on investments — one of the primary drivers of wealth accumulation — have disproportionately benefited White households. Those in high-paying professions usually have access to corporate stock awards, which add to those gains.

This is why legal challenges against programs that create pathways for families from historically disadvantaged backgrounds could have lasting economic repercussions for future generations of Black and Latino individuals. Those populations already have, on average, less wealth than White families. In 2022, the Urban Institute reported that White families had an average wealth of $1.4 million as compared to Hispanic ($227,544) and Black families($211,596).

While much of the racial wealth gap can be attributed to White Americans benefiting from what Michelle Obama has called “affirmative action of generational wealth,” the pervasive attacks on DEI only exacerbate the problem.

Currently, the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at the New York University School of Law is tracking lawsuits against companies and schools related to DEI efforts. In every region that the program analyzes, at least one lawsuit has been filed involving anti-DEI initiatives — resulting in more than 100 lawsuits.

Despite widespread calls to shutter DEI efforts across corporate America and higher education, evidence clearly shows that they are needed. They offer counterweights to biases that have led to hiring discrimination and increased turnover and lower promotion rates of qualified non-White individuals. One Harvard University study that analyzed new hires from a professional services firm found that Black employees were 32% more likely to leave positions within two years. The largest gap in that cohort — 51% — existed between Black and White women.


If this was all about “merit,” such findings would likely be less racially stark. The data also raise a question: Who benefits when qualified minorities are systemically shut out from entering academic and career pathways that facilitate wealth-building?

It’s wildly counter-productive. Consumers generate two-thirds of the gross domestic product in the US. An expanding consumer class — the foundation of America’s middle class — has always supercharged the economy and the lives of all Americans, regardless of their gender or the color of their skin. Sabotaging programs that help create wealth sabotages the economy as well.

The ban on affirmative action and the decline of DEI efforts represent a cold and calculated attack on what economic prosperity, well-being and opportunity could look like for all Americans, undermining the very fabric of equity and justice in our society.


More From Bloomberg Opinion:White Men Are Still Kings of the Job Market. Here’s Proof: Sarah Green Carmichael
An Exodus of Black Women in Academia Hurts the Workforce: Anna Branch
‘DEI Hires’ Don’t Lower the Bar. We Raise It: Laura Morgan Roberts

Want more Bloomberg Opinion? OPIN <GO>. Or subscribe to our daily newsletter.


This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is a doctoral candidate in public policy and economics at Harvard Kennedy School. She is the editor of “The Black Agenda” and the author of the forthcoming book “The Double Tax.”

Saturday, January 06, 2024

The ‘Southlake’ Podcast Is a Troubling Look at the Race Debate Tearing Apart a North Texas Suburb by Ian Dille

Friends:

Here is an honest reflection by author, Ian Dille, in the Texas Monthly on both his experiences as a white person growing up in Southlake public schools and the award-winning podcast, "Southlake." The series is centered on the virulent racism in this affluent, north Texas Carroll Independent School District that is undergoing demographic change. This is the same district that got national headlines for exposing a public school leader to balance the book on the Holocaust with opposing views. 

I concur with Dille's assessment of the podcast as "riveting and disturbing," taking the listener into the inner world of the district's school board politics that are in turn, about unabashed, unapologetic racism that has gotten so normalized that use of the "n-word" is simply how these wealthy kids talk. I don't know about you, but I grew up in conservative West Texas and I don't even think this way.

Did I hear it growing up? Yes, I did. And it was upsetting to me. Mexicans like myself grew up with racial slurs and we, too, were always made to think by white teachers and white people, generally, that we were inferior. It was baked into a school curriculum that excluded us—and largely excludes us today. 

In some reflections, I've referred to this as "the rejected self," born out of what I have termed, "subtractive cultural assimilation." My book, Subtractive Schooling, is fully about how these racial dynamics, albeit in a Houston high school, where I view these as features of everyday life for youth that work to disempower, as opposed to empower, them.

"Southlake" gives me that unsettling feeling that we're headed backwards as a society. I counterbalance that sentiment with the knowledge and awareness that we are nevertheless making positive strides and how this is good for Texas and the nation even if places like Southlake belie this. 

It would be incorrect to derive any conclusion that these racial dynamics are unique to Southlake, CISD. Rather the research suggests this to primarily be the case in middle-class, affluent districts undergoing rapid demographic change. 

I'll be focusing my own work this semester and in one class I'm teaching on school board and school district politics and policies and posting on the matter continuously. I'll have more to share. 

The podcast consists of 6 episodes that are between 30 and 42 minutes in length. It is well worth everybody's time. My husband and I listened to it in its entirety on a road trip we took a year ago. My students will listen to it, too. It's great for the college classroom.

A final comment is that it's hard for many white people to hear the truth of racism from Black and Brown people. They think we exaggerate or have a chip on our shoulder. It really does matter for writers like Ian Dille to put a face on white privilege and unaware racism.

We need more Ian Dilles in the world. Many more.

-Angela Valenzuela


The ‘Southlake’ Podcast Is a Troubling Look at the Race Debate Tearing Apart a North Texas Suburb

I grew up in Southlake and was mostly blind to the racism all around me. The NBC series changed my perspective.

By Ian Dille, Oct. 20, 2021 Texas Monthly

Host and NBC News correspondent Antonia Hylton reporting for the Southlake podcast.


In the fall of 1996, when I was a junior at Carroll High School in the North Texas suburb of Southlake, our football team faced off against Grapevine, the cross-town rival. Our team was all white; the Grapevine team was led by a Black wide receiver who would go on to play in the NFL. At the game, a group of Carroll students did something terrible: they began chanting the letters T-A-N-H-O, and one of them held up a sign bearing the same message. The acronym stood for “Tear a n—–’s head off.”  Only the student who held the sign was disciplined, and the punishment was mild: a two-week suspension from after-school activities and three days’ detention, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

NBC News reporters Mike Hixenbaugh (a former investigative reporter at the Houston Chronicle) and Antonia Hylton uncovered this incident during their research for the riveting, disturbing new NBC News podcast, Southlake. The six-part show documents a bitter conflict, dating back to 2018, over efforts to implement diversity education in the Carroll Independent School District. Last week, Southlake was in the news for its latest scandal: as Hixenbaugh and Hylton reported, a high-ranking district administrator suggested during a training session that teachers include “other perspectives” on the Holocaust. Similar debates over how (or even if) to teach about race and religion are raging across the state and the country; in the podcast, Southlake comes across not so much as an extreme outlier, but as Anytown, USA. Listening to the series was an uncomfortable experience that forced me to reconsider my own privileged upbringing in Southlake and the racism around me that I’d been blind to as a white kid. The podcast also helped start long-overdue conversations with my family and friends. As so many Texans grapple with these painful issues, Southlake is a must-listen.  

My family moved to Southlake in 1990, from Berkeley, California. During my eight years in Carroll public schools, I became a proud Dragon, the school district’s mascot. My experience at school was positive: I ran for the high school cross-country team (today a national powerhouse) and adored our coach. My journalism teacher inspired me to pursue the field professionally. 

As I grew up, I also watched Southlake transform from a relatively rural area with working-class roots into a gilded suburb. On the farmland that became Southlake Town Square—a throwback “Main Street” now lined with high-end restaurants and shops—my friends and I once drove four-wheelers and rode horses. The community is now wealthier—the median household income is more than $240,000—and less white than it was during my time there. Over the last ten years, Southlake Carroll schools have seen an increase in Asian and Hispanic students and a decline in white students, from 88 percent of the school population in 2008 to 67 percent in 2018. During that time, the population of Black students has remained between 2 and 3 percent. The average SAT score at Carroll High School in 2019 was 27 percent higher than the state average, and according to the school’s website, “approximately 98 percent of Carroll’s seniors go on to attend a college or university.” I still look back on my time there fondly—but listening to Southlake helped me see how the comfort of this privileged bubble shaped some elements of my own cultural ignorance. 

Case in point: I don’t recall hearing about the T-A-N-H-O incident during my time in Southlake, nor did I notice other racist jokes or slurs. However, in the podcast, Black students and parents attest that such experiences have been commonplace for decades. Carroll ISD’s efforts to implement a diversity education plan began in 2018, after a viral video showed white Southlake students chanting the N-word. In response, the school board hosted an open forum at which Black residents gave painful testimony, explaining how the video exemplified a pattern of racist abuse. In one clip from Southlake, a mother describes a sixth-grade boy joking to her child, “How do you get a Black out of a tree? You cut the rope.”

For decades, Black residents in Southlake (and in other towns across the state and nation) had endured such comments. But now it seemed that real change might occur. The district selected a 63-person committee and tasked it with drafting a Cultural Competence Action Plan. The plan aimed to better educate Carroll ISD’s students and staff on issues of race, culture, sexual identity, gender, and more. It also called for accountability, evaluating the district’s progress on cultural literacy. A newly hired head of diversity would help implement the plan. After more than a year of work, the district released a first draft of the plan in the summer of 2020—amid a global pandemic, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, and at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign. 

The reception was rocky, to put it mildly. Some parents praised the plan, saying it prepared students to succeed in an increasingly diverse world. A much more vocal group accused the school district of attempting to implement critical race theory and indoctrinate students with liberal and Marxist ideologies. Two school board trustees were indicted for violating the Texas Open Meetings Act—because they discussed an upcoming vote via text message—and a judge placed a temporary restraining order on the plan (an appeals court lifted the order last week). The formation of a well-funded conservative PAC, Southlake Families, turned a local election in May 2021 into a referendum on the Cultural Competence Action Plan—and Southlake’s future. Every candidate backed by the PAC won.

Through in-the-moment reporting, heartfelt interviews, and secret recordings, Hylton and Hixenbaugh weave an engrossing, troubling saga. A variety of compelling characters, including Black Dallas Cowboys players, lend emotional depth to the series. The first episode focuses on the experience of Robin Cornish, the wife of former Cowboys center Frank Cornish. Following Frank’s unexpected death from a heart attack in 2008, the city of Southlake honored his legacy of community engagement by naming a park after him. But in 2017, a memorial plaque at the park was defaced with the message “KKK w[ill] get You Black People.” That incident, along with numerous other racist indignities, led Robin to become a champion of the school’s diversity plan.

The Cowboys’ former defensive tackle and Super Bowl champion, Russell Maryland, also appears as a key member of the District Diversity Council, the group tasked with crafting the school district’s plan. Maryland is measured but passionate in discussing the cultural challenges facing Southlake. “The work is going to continue,” he says in episode five. “It has to, because our kids are reliant on us, and they’re the ones who are suffering. And if we don’t, they’ll continue to suffer.”

Listening to Maryland and Cornish speak up and describe their efforts to help Southlake do better, I felt inspired. It was also incredibly frustrating and heartbreaking to listen to them recount the vitriolic opposition to the diversity plan that they and others had worked so hard on. That same sense of heartbreak comes through in the voices of students who advocate for the plan. 

In episode two, we’re taken inside the Carroll High principal’s office. It’s 2019, and a seventeen-year-old student, Raven Rolle, who’s Black, has reported a white student for using the N-word. Fed up with the lack of support from school administrators, Rolle secretly records the meeting.  

The Texas drawl of principal Shawn Duhon gave me an odd sense of comfort, taking me back to my own—um, multiple—trips to the Carroll High principal’s office. Duhon attempts to provide a teachable moment, but clearly lacks the training, tools, and language to effectively address the conflict. In the principal’s office, the white student tells Rolle, “To me, it’s just a word.” Rolle is understandably upset, replying, “Because you’re white!” Instead of immediately correcting the offending student, Duhon tries to calm Rolle and advises her on navigating future racist incidents. “When you see ignorance like that, you can’t let them take your joy,” Duhon says.  

The notion that Black residents should assimilate to Southlake’s culture, and not the other way around, comes to the fore in episode three, when impassioned parents speak out against the district’s proposed diversity plan at a school board meeting. They echo points made by some Black scholars, such as linguist John McWhorter, who’s argued that singling out people of color as victims diminishes them and their ability to succeed. In the podcast, we hear from many well-meaning parents (from a range of ethnic backgrounds) who insist that race is not a barrier, to an extent that limits further conversations about race, diversity, and culture. One father tells the school board that his eight- and eleven-year-old-children “have never heard the N-word,” and expresses concern his kids will learn a bad word as part of Southlake Carroll’s diversity-education efforts. “You know where they’re going to hear the N-word from? You. You guys. You guys are going to teach my kids what the N-word is,” the father says. He doesn’t seem to have considered the possibility that he could use the debate as an opportunity to talk with his kids and teach them himself.

That’s what I tried to do, however imperfectly and awkwardly, with my own family after listening to the Southlake series. As I discussed the podcast with my mom while prepping for a Sunday dinner, my eight-year-old son lifted his head from his Legos and asked, “Dad, what’s the N-word?” Later that evening, my wife and I told him about the word, what it meant, and why he shouldn’t use it. Talking to my sister, who is Black, ten years older than me, and never lived in Southlake, I learned she “never felt comfortable” when she came to visit. She reminded me that when I was eleven, the owners of a Southlake horse-riding school gave me a Confederate flag to carry in a town parade. My parents politely requested a different flag.

Southlake effectively shows how the Texas Republican party helped sow divisions over the diversity plan. In a speech to Southlake residents, former Texas GOP chairman Allen West urged the audience to welcome new neighbors with a pecan pie, and then inquire about the newcomers’ political ideologies, asking, “Now, why are you here?” In another secret recording in episode five, the Southlake Families PAC vets school board candidates. The questions, including “Who did you vote for in the 2020 presidential election?” are unrelated to the nonpartisan duties of the school board. 

But it’s not just political parties that have something to gain from this divisive framing. The dramatic tone of NBC’s storytelling forced me to reflect on the role of the media in fanning the flames of so-called culture wars. The series frequently uses the language of war to characterize the conflict as a “fight” or “battle,” casting those for the diversity plan and those against it as “warring parties.” Winners are pitted against losers, with little discussion of how to find common ground. This problem is bigger than any one podcast or news report.

There are signs of progress, however. Sources ranging from Harvard professors to PBS Kids are offering guidance on educating children about race. In the spring of 2020, the Texas State Board of Education unanimously approved African American Studies as a high school elective, exposing thousands of students to a more complete view of Black history.  

Whether progress is happening in Southlake is less clear. If anything, the district may be continuing to veer toward the far right. In the podcast’s bonus episode, a school board member who recently stepped down reveals that a revision of the diversity plan removed much of the language around “microaggressions,” a term many Southlake residents opposed. A judge lifted the temporary restraining order on the Cultural Competence Action Plan last Thursday, and sent the lawsuit alleging that school board members violated the Open Meetings Act back to trial court for further review. The current Carroll ISD school board can now move forward with revisions, approval, and implementation of the diversity plan. However, such movement appears unlikely.

In the May election, candidates endorsed by the Southlake Families PAC won school board seats by a seventy-to-thirty margin. Rather than working to increase students’ cultural literacy, the school district has begun restricting educational materials available to students.

A parent holds a sign during a meeting of the Carroll ISD school board on May 3, 2021. Some attendees protested the district’s diversity plan.Courtesy of NBC News


At the start of the 2021 school year, the newly installed school board members formally reprimanded a fourth-grade teacher after a student checked out This Book Is Anti-Racist by author Tiffany Jewell from the classroom library. The incident created confusion and concern among Southlake teachers, who were told to close their classroom libraries until their books could be vetted. In protest, some teachers strung caution tape and black paper across their bookshelves. 

Resistance to conversations about race is nothing new to Southlake. Back in 1996, following the T-A-N-H-O incident, one of my few Black classmates and his family members called out the school district in an article that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The family banded together with 26 other Black families in Southlake, and the group requested a meeting with the superintendent. But the superintendent refused to meet with them collectively, saying, as summarized by the Star-Telegram, that “the incidents were isolated and do not reflect the attitudes of all Carroll High School students.”

During my time at Carroll, teachers rarely discussed race and privilege in class. Lessons about Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement were presented in historical context, divorced from our current reality—for example, the 1991 beating of Rodney King. Representation in the form of Black educators and administrators was minimal to nonexistent. And after graduating, I entered the world lacking empathy. When I initially failed to get into the University of Texas at Austin, I felt wronged by the state’s newly enacted “top 10 percent” rule (a replacement for affirmative action), and complained that kids from poorer, less-competitive school districts got an advantage. 

There’s a telling moment in the final episode of Southlake, when Hylton interviews newly installed superintendent Lane Ledbetter, the son of legendary Southlake football coach and athletic director Bob Ledbetter. Hylton asks him, “Is there racism in Southlake, and in Carroll ISD?” 

Ledbetter is caught off guard, momentarily speechless. “I didn’t know that was going to be asked,” he says, and then pivots to an unrelated talking point. It’s clear that he, as well as Southlake more broadly, still isn’t quite ready to answer that simple query.

Thursday, August 10, 2023

Have Democrats reached the limits of White appeasement politics? by Perry Bacon, Jr. WAPO

Such an insightful piece by Bacon (2021) in the Washington Post. It's helpful to conceptually juxtapose white appeasement—or white privilege and comfort—to white grievance. It shows up in the concept of "electability." Another good example is when Obama chose Biden as his running mate to allay white fears of a browning America about which Phillips (2018) and others (e.g., Perez Huber) have written.

White appeasement also shows up in bills like Senate Bill 3, Texas' anti-Critical Race theory bill, where school teachers, administrators, and school staff are expected to not make any individual feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex."

First of all, to the extent that this is happening, if it is happening, this would be an equity issue that school leaders need to address. My larger point is how the politics of white comfort are real and that politicians, in particular, need to be aware of these dynamics so as to not shut out the very voices from whom they receive support.

Much food for thought.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Perez Huber, L. (2016). Make America great again: Donald Trump, racist nativism and the virulent adherence to white supremacy amid US demographic change. Charleston L. Rev.10, 215.

Phillips, S. (2018). Brown is the new white: How the demographic revolution has created a new American majority. The New Press.


Have Democrats reached the limits of White appeasement politics?

By Perry Bacon, Jr. November 11, 2021 | Washington Post
(Neil Jamieson for The Washington Post)

There is a flip side to the White grievance of the right — and it’s one of the most important but under-discussed aspects of American politics.

In the decades since the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 1960s, the Republican Party has embraced a strategy of White grievance, perennially pushing policies and rhetoric that imply that the United States has gone too far in supporting civil rights causes and people of color. The 2021 version of this strategy is Republicans attacking how public schools teach about race and racism, with conservatives often falsely suggesting that White students are being told that they should be ashamed of their race.

The Democratic Party, to its credit, has remained committed to civil rights. It wants to be aligned with people of color. But Democrats also want to win elections in a White-majority country. So, party leaders for decades have informally adopted a strategy of White appeasement — by which I mean they have frequently taken actions, often subtle, to demonstrate to White Americans that they aren’t too tied to civil rights causes and people of color. Sometimes this means Democrats taking a stance on a racial issue to align with views of moderate and conservative White people; other times it is Democrats avoiding a stance on a racial issue for the same reason. The Democrats’ White appeasement is their countermove to the Republicans’ White grievance.

But the questions of if, when and how Democrats pursue White appeasement politics have always been contested within the party. And right now, that debate is perhaps more relevant than ever before.

Certainly, there is a real case that Democrats need to prioritize wooing White voters — and by whatever means necessary. The Republican Party is growing increasingly radical, raising the stakes for the country in the 2022 and 2024 elections. Even as the United States becomes more racially diverse, White Americans remain about 70 percent of voters overall and make up an even larger bloc in key swing states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats can’t win presidential elections or control of the Senate if they lose too many White voters to the GOP.

At the same time, the limits and dangers of Democratic White appeasement are serious and substantial. Past policies adopted by party leaders to appeal to White voters have hurt people of color in deep and lasting ways. And many of those moves didn’t actually attract many White voters, either. Centering White voters now could push the Democrats away from a recent positive trajectory that includes increasingly embracing candidates of color and aggressive efforts to address racial inequality. Further, such a shift might not even be necessary. In 2020, Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency with their coalition of people of color and White Americans with more progressive views on racial issues.

Look for it, and you can see that many debates within today’s Democratic Party are at core about how much the party must appease moderate and conservative White people vs. how far those same Whites can be pushed to accept the goals and aspirations of people of color before switching their votes to Republicans.

The nomination of Joe Biden, a White man in his 70s, was in many ways a concession to America’s White majority — but he was a package deal that also included the Black and Indian American Kamala D. Harris, and later the most racially diverse Cabinet ever and an administration that regularly consults with the young and diverse “Squad” in the House.

President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill in part can be seen as an attempt to appease more moderate and conservative White people — while his reconciliation package, with its child care and preschool provisions, is targeted at vital party activists who are women and people of color.

Until recently, Biden was strongly defending the Senate filibuster, an anachronism that empowers senators from small, disproportionately White states to prevent policy from shifting too much — but he has shifted and now favors reforming the filibuster for legislation on voting rights, an issue of deep resonance among Black voters.

Biden vs. the Squad. Infrastructure vs. preschool. The filibuster vs. voting rights. These aren’t cleanly White vs. Black, but these are racialized issues nonetheless. They capture a fundamental question: How White does the Democratic Party need to be?

From Sister Souljah to Title 42.

The idea of White appeasement is certainly not new, even if it is often not acknowledged directly or referred to with a pejorative such as “appeasement” — the term “electability” is often invoked instead, obscuring that the swing voters at issue are almost all White. This is in part because American political coverage has traditionally involved White reporters covering White politicians and strategists as they seek to win over those White voters. All three groups might not notice examples of White appeasement and, if they did, have little incentive to describe them directly.

The story of the post-1960s Democratic Party is in some ways the story of a party trying to precisely calibrate the levels of White appeasement necessary to win and hold power.

In the 1970s, Democratic officials, including Biden as a senator from Delaware, started echoing concerns from White Americans that aggressive school integration policies (“busing”) had gone too far. In the 1980s, a bloc of centrist and mostly White, male Democrats created the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization that sought to develop candidates and policies who in their view would help overcome the perception that the party was too dominated by what was described back then as “special interests” (code for Black civil rights activists, the labor movement and other left-leaning constituencies). Democrats also altered their presidential nomination process during this period, creating superdelegates and a “Super Tuesday” of primaries in the South, moves intended to block very liberal candidates and boost those who might appeal to more conservative Whites.



Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton speaks at a Rebuild America conference in Washington in June 1992. At right is Jesse Jackson, whose Rainbow Coalition sponsored the event. During the speech, Clinton criticized rapper and activist Sister Souljah. (Greg Gibson/AP)

Those changes helped steer the party to then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton was careful to make clear that he was not too closely aligned with Black people and causes. During the campaign, at a conference sponsored by the Rev. Jesse Jackson — the leading Black political figure of that era — Clinton sharply criticized rapper and activist Sister Souljah for an inflammatory comment she had made, as well as Jackson for inviting her to speak. The target was as much Jackson as Sister Souljah, as centrist Democrats felt the party needed to distance itself from the civil rights leader. As president, Clinton signed into law limits on welfare benefits and substantially increased punishments for some crimes. Those moves were intended to signal to White voters that Democrats, like Republicans, viewed some of America’s racial inequalities as rooted in self-inflicted problems in Black communities, as opposed to discriminatory policies and systemic racism.

After losing with another Southerner (Al Gore in 2000) and a war veteran (John F. Kerry in 2004), neither of whom appealed to White swing voters as much as Democrats hoped, party leaders and voters for the first time embraced a non-White candidate in Barack Obama.

But Obama’s rise and presidency certainly didn’t come without some White appeasement. During his 2008 campaign, Obama gave a long speech explaining that he did not share some of the more controversial racial stances of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who conducted Obama’s wedding. Looking to make the prospect of his presidency less jarring to conservative Whites, Obama only really considered White men for his running mate. Biden’s record of being not particularly liberal on racial issues made him an ideal fit.


President Barack Obama, right, and Vice President Joe Biden, left, have a beer with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., second from left, and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley in the Rose Garden of the White House on July 30, 2009. (Alex Brandon/AP)

During his first year as president, Obama famously held a “beer summit” media event to essentially apologize for criticizing police officers who arrested Black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in front of Gates’s house. His administration carried out a huge number of deportations of undocumented immigrants. He spoke about race much less than his predecessors had during his first term. He declared in 2012: “I’m not the president of Black America.”

The Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016, again not choosing a White man. But she, too, seriously considered only White men for her running mate, settling on Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine. When Clinton lost, many in the party spent four years casting about for a White male candidate to run in 2020, looking at people who likely would not have been considered presidential material but for their race and gender (former congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas, for instance) before settling on Biden. “A substantial faction of the Democratic Party reliably blames any loss on the party’s commitments to diversity and civil rights,” said University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket.

Biden has actually been more racially liberal than his Democratic predecessors, but he has also done his share of White appeasing.

During his general election campaign, the president repeatedly condemned rioting amid the George Floyd protests. The overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful, and almost no one actually favors rioting, but Biden felt compelled to reassure White Americans that he didn’t like violent protests. As president, he initially refused to increase the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States from Trump-era levels. He has kept in place a harsh Trump-era policy of using a provision called Title 42 to block some migrants from seeking asylum within the United States, on the grounds that covid-19 is a public health crisis and that migrants could exacerbate it.

“There’s been this hierarchy of what battles to fight and which ones to avoid, and this is guided by White appeasement — what policy will not offend White swing voters,” said Steve Phillips, a progressive activist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “It very much dominates policy and political strategy among Democrats.”

“The Democrats have been doing these kinds of things for a long time,” said Stanford University political scientist Hakeem Jefferson.

All of these moves aren’t normatively bad, or indefensible. Democratic officials likely took some of the steps above out of conviction as much as or perhaps even more than political calculation. Many Democrats in the 1980s wanted the party to increase jail sentences because they felt it would be a deterrent and reduce crime, electoral considerations aside. It was probably politically wise for Obama to distance himself from the idea that he should be especially beholden to Black people, but I have no doubt he wanted to be thought of as a leader of all Americans, not just Black ones. Some Democratic appeasement moves have been strong on the merits (Biden was the most experienced of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates). A few of them might have been truly electorally necessary (Obama picking a White male running mate and distancing himself from Wright in 2008), although presidential elections are complicated, and the winner is determined by a range of factors.

It’s important to note, too, that sometimes non-White Democrats acknowledge the electoral virtues of White appeasement and at times participate in it themselves. For example, many of the Black Democratic voters who embraced Biden during the 2020 primaries openly stated that they backed him in part because they believed he would appeal to White voters. And it’s in the interests of Democratic Party leaders for prominent non-White figures to take the lead on some appeasement. For example, it’s harder for pro-immigration advocates to slam the Biden administration’s policies when Vice President Harris and Cuban American Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are so heavily involved in implementing them.

Finally, while White appeasement is largely about race, it intersects with other identity issues as well. When Democrats try to appeal to conservative White voters, they often end up playing down the interests of women, LGBTQ Americans and non-Christians in addition to people of color. The 2008 vice-presidential selection process was not going to end with a female running mate for Obama, even if she were White. Twelve years later, with Democratic primary voters looking for the presidential candidate who would appeal most to White people with conservative views on racial issues, Harris in particular was disadvantaged. But I’m not sure that candidates such as Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) had much of a chance, either.

“The conventional wisdom is that we have a racially conservative party and a racially liberal party,” said LaFleur Stephens-Dougan, a Princeton University political scientist. “But in reality, we have one party that is explicitly racist and another party that is to the left of the other party, but certainly not a party of racial liberalism.”

Is it time for a new approach?


Let’s ask the question directly: Don’t the Democrats have to do some appeasement of White voters to win in America? I think they probably do, because White people are the majority of voters. But Democrats should be really careful about when and how they do it.

First, and most important, Democratic officials need to avoid White appeasement, particularly on policy issues, that will have long-lasting and damaging effects on people of color. American schools remain deeply segregated by class and race and students who attend heavily segregated schools usually do worse academically. So Democrats who embraced the pullback from aggressive school integration helped cause profound damage. The Clinton-era crime bill was part of a broader set of tough-on-crime policies enacted by Democrats and Republicans that has left Black men significantly more likely than White men to have served time in jail. The Clinton-era welfare bill made it harder for low-income families to get public benefits if the parents weren’t working, punishing children for adults’ actions. The Obama-era deportations reached unnecessarily high levels. They also did not help Obama get Republican votes for his broader immigration agenda.

“For the last 50 years, Democratic politicians who believed that their campaigns’ dog whistling was an unfortunate, but harmless necessary expedient to win election found themselves having to walk the talk when they were in office,” said Michael Podhorzer, a senior adviser at the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation.

Democrats are now trying to get money to children in households where the parents don’t have jobs, make the criminal justice system less punitive and deport fewer undocumented immigrants, correctives that are a clear sign that past White appeasement in these areas went too far.

They are also in danger of making the same mistakes again. Trying to rebut the charge from Republicans that they are anti-police (and thereby in effect anti-White) that emerged from last year’s protests, Democrats in some cities and states are opposing aggressive efforts to reform law-enforcement practices. This is a mistake. Democrats could end up stopping police reform before it gets going, perpetuating corrosive and abusive practices and potentially resulting in more horrible police killings like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor last year.

Second, even if an act of White appeasement isn’t going to have a clear negative policy impact, Democrats need to stop trashing people of color, their leaders and their causes as part of their strategy. Party officials may not be able to say publicly, “We are making Decision X to appeal to White voters with conservative views on racial issues.” But they shouldn’t lose sight of the actual problem, either — that many White people aren’t comfortable with vocal people of color and civil rights causes. Instead, Democrats often go beyond giving White people a pass for their racism; they frequently seek out opportunities to criticize people of color. It’s morally abhorrent to punch down at less powerful Bill Clinton should have found a way to demonstrate that he was more conservative than Black activists that didn’t involve rebuking Jackson, highlighting a month-old comment from a rather obscure figure (Sister Souljah) and likening her to white supremacist David Duke. The Democrats of today who go out of their way to rebuke members of the Squad should stop doing that. After the 2020 election, Democratic officials shouldn’t have rushed to blame activists who advocated defunding the police for the party’s underwhelming results in congressional races, rather than scrutinizing the performance of the party’s candidates and leaders.

If the Biden administration doesn’t want more immigrants to enter the country because too many voters oppose immigration, the administration could acknowledge that political reality. But it should not invoke a public health crisis such as covid-19, effectively reinforcing the racist trope that migrants are disease carriers.

Third, the Democrats should just do less White appeasement because the electoral benefits of the strategy are much smaller now than they were in previous eras.

A woman holds a sign opposing U.S. immigration policy at a migrant-led protest in Nogales, Mexico, on Nov. 8. (Caitlin O'Hara/Reuters)

American voters are much more polarized by party than they were two or three decades ago, and there are many fewer swing voters. Much of the partisan polarization is about racial views — Democrats, including White ones, are well to the left of Republicans on questions such as whether they support the Black Lives Matter movement. So it would be hard for the party to move far enough to the right on racial issues to swing many GOP-leaning voters to their side. “Everybody knows where the parties stand on these issues,” said University of Washington political scientist Jake Grumbach.

And that racial polarization is reinforced by leaders in the Democratic Party (as well as the GOP) taking clear stands in terms of race. Yes, Bill Clinton had some genuine and strong ties to the Black community. But Biden was Obama’s vice president; promised during the campaign to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court; won the Democratic primary in part because of overwhelming support from Black voters; strongly embraced the protests after the police murder of George Floyd; and picked a woman of color as his running mate. There is a reason Biden specifically thanked Black voters in his victory speech once he was declared president-elect.

Because the Democratic Party of today takes such pride in its embrace of people of color and civil rights causes, it would be very politically dicey for Biden or another major party leader to single out, say, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) for criticism.

“Clinton was able to pick a fight with Jesse Jackson and show the racists that he was willing to put a Black leader in his place,” the Nation’s Elie Mystal wrote recently. “But in 2021, I don’t know whom Biden is supposed to pick a fight with and win. William Barber? Ayanna Pressley? His own vice president, Kamala Harris? … It’s not as easy to isolate and denigrate Black leaders for white applause as it used to be.”

Increased racial polarization means that Democrats often don’t get many political benefits when they make White appeasement moves, and the costs they incur from prioritizing civil rights and people of color aren’t as high as they might have been a few decades ago. Hillary Clinton’s choice of Kaine as her running mate in 2016 didn’t help her win White voters. In last year’s presidential election, despite specifically choosing a candidate (Biden) for his potential appeal to White voters without college degrees, Democrats won a smaller percentage of the White non-college vote than in 2008.

After decades of running White candidates in key races in the South, Democrats embraced Raphael G. Warnock for the Senate race in Georgia, even though Warnock is a Black pastor with a history of fairly blunt comments on race. There is little evidence Warnock’s race cost him votes — he actually did slightly better than Jon Ossoff, the White Democrat who also won a U.S. Senate seat in the state in January. The Georgia results, and others in recent elections, suggest Democrats should once and for all stop seeking out White candidates and sidelining Black ones on a theory that the former will help them win White voters.



The Rev. Raphael G. Warnock speaks during a campaign rally in Jonesboro, Ga., on Nov. 19, 2020. Warnock was elected to the U.S. Senate in January. (Kevin D. Liles for The Washington Post)

Finally, Democrats should consider alternatives to constantly trying to ignore racial issues or move to the right on them. “We don’t really know what an alternative strategy [to White appeasement] would be and if it would work,” said Princeton’s Stephens-Dougan, “because the Democrats haven’t ever really tried it.”

What might such an alternative look like? Democrats could embrace more non-White candidates like Obama and Warnock, in part because they are likely to be more knowledgeable about race-based issues such as critical race theory and therefore better able than White candidates to combat GOP grievance tactics. They could emphasize that lots of ideas that are often lumped in the “civil rights” or “Black” bucket, such as voting access, integrating schools by class and race, and reducing police killings, will benefit large numbers of White people, too, particularly those with lower incomes. They could become even more closely aligned with the labor movement, as there is evidence that union membership pushes White people to be more supportive of policies that benefit people of color. They could, instead of sidestepping issues such as critical race theory when Republicans bring them up, take them on directly.

“Instead of ignoring race while Republicans beat us silly with it, Democrats must confront it and explain that powerful elites and special interests use race as a tool of division to distract hard-working people of all races while they get robbed blind,” Democratic strategists Tory Gavito and Adam Jentleson argued in a recent New York Times op-ed. “Then pivot back to shared interests.”

Opinion by Perry Bacon Jr.: Raphael Warnock, the freshman senator not playing it safe

2022 and 2024

In last week’s Virginia gubernatorial election, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe in a somewhat surprising setback for Democrats, considering that Biden won the state by 10 points last year. Youngkin ran in part on White grievance, attacking critical race theory in particular, along with the broader idea that America is too fixated on racial division. McAuliffe accurately criticized Youngkin for using a “racist dog whistle” in running on critical race theory.

Youngkin blew out McAuliffe among White voters, which has stirred conversation about whether the Republican won because he appealed to White racial anxieties and McAuliffe did not.

What lessons to take away from the Virginia results is an important question because of where American politics is headed in the next few years. The 2022 elections are likely to be difficult for Democrats, both because the president’s party usually struggles in midterms and because of Biden’s declining approval rating. Republicans will campaign in 2022 by casting Democrats as too beholden to people of color — that’s what they always do, after all. Then, 2023 will start the Republican presidential nomination process, during which GOP hopefuls will employ a White grievance strategy — assuming of course the party doesn’t simply give the nomination to former president Donald Trump, a constant and effective practitioner of White grievance politics.


Supporters of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin in Chantilly, Va., on election night on Nov. 2. Youngkin defeated Democrat and former governor Terry McAuliffe. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

To do well in 2022 and 2024, the Democrats need to win a lot of White voters, including some who have less-than-progressive views on racial issues. The temptation will be strong to go over the top, perhaps even unconsciously, in terms of White appeasement, essentially running a 2020s version of Bill Clinton’s campaigns. After all, given Republican anti-democratic radicalism, the stakes are extremely high. And Biden, his inner circle and other top officials in the Democratic Party generally are White, older people who embraced the Democrats’ White appeasement in previous eras.

I would be dismayed to see Democratic congressional candidates or Biden, in the run-up to 2022 and 2024, publicly attacking the Squad or Black Lives Matter, walking back commitments to address racial inequality and reform policing, or adopting more anti-immigrant rhetoric or policies. If Biden opts not to run in 2024, I would be sad to see the Democrats give only White male candidates a real chance at the nomination.

The Virginia race is instructive here. Democrats nominated McAuliffe over several other candidates in the Democratic primary, including two Black women. During his general election campaign, McAuliffe reversed his previous support for a key plank of police reform — getting rid of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that limits civil suits against officers. So Virginia Democrats took steps right out of the White appeasement playbook — run a White male candidate, move right on racial issues — and lost.

Looking beyond Virginia, some Democratic White appeasement is probably still necessary in a country where a person like Trump won the presidency once, nearly did so a second time and remains a viable candidate. Even with a heavily polarized electorate, there are swing voters whom Democrats could lose (and did in Virginia). There are also conservative Whites and Latinos who aren’t frequent voters but could be motivated to turn out by an effective GOP grievance campaign — something that may have happened last year, when Trump won millions more voters than he did in 2016. So while it’s impossible to say precisely how much appeasement is needed, a Democratic candidate for president or statewide office in a swing state probably can’t advocate reparations or drastically cutting police funding and expect to win. When Harris was asked this year if America is a “racist country,” the only answer she could give and remain a viable future candidate for president was no — the one she gave. In this era, the pressures for White appeasement likely do not end up with Democrats taking racist actions like they have in the past, but rather limit how anti-racist they can be.

And that’s a real problem. White appeasement leads to policies that hurt people of color. It incentivizes public humiliations of prominent people of color. It results in civil rights causes and candidates of color being sidelined. And it’s of limited and diminishing electoral value. The party needs to stop and think hard — every single time — before it turns to this deeply troubling, increasingly outmoded reflex.

Democratic White appeasement should be narrow, careful and, most importantly, rare.