[News] Black Study, Black Struggle
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Mar 7 14:08:04 EST 2016
*http://bostonreview.net/forum/robin-d-g-kelley-black-study-black-struggle#.Vt2qVjhjSuM.facebook*
Black Study, Black Struggle | Boston Review
Robin D. G. Kelley March 7, 2016
In the fall of 2015, college campuses were engulfed by fires ignited in
the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. This is not to say that college
students had until then been quiet in the face of police violence
against black Americans. Throughout the previous year, it had often been
college students who hit the streets, blocked traffic, occupied the
halls of justice and malls of America, disrupted political campaign
rallies, and risked arrest to protest the torture and suffocation of
Eric Garner, the abuse and death of Sandra Bland, the executions of
Tamir Rice, Ezell Ford, Tanisha Anderson, Walter Scott, Tony Robinson,
Freddie Gray, ad infinitum.
That the fire this time spread from the town to the campus is consistent
with historical patterns. The campus revolts of the 1960s, for example,
/followed/ the Harlem and Watts rebellions, the freedom movement in the
South, and the rise of militant organizations in the cities. But the
size, speed, intensity, and character of recent student uprisings caught
much of the country off guard. Protests against campus racism and the
ethics of universities’ financial entanglements erupted on nearly ninety
campuses, including Brandeis, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Harvard, Claremont
McKenna, Smith, Amherst, UCLA, Oberlin, Tufts, and the University of
North Carolina, both Chapel Hill and Greensboro. These demonstrations
were led largely by black students, as well as coalitions made up of
students of color, queer folks, undocumented immigrants, and allied whites.
What I offer here are a few observations and speculations about the
movement, its self-conception, and its demands, many of which focus on
making the university more hospitable for black students. I am not
opposed to this. Nor am I questioning the courageous students who have
done more to disrupt university business-as-usual than any movement in
the last half-century. Instead I want to draw attention to the
contradictory impulses within the movement: the tension between reform
and revolution, between desiring to belong and rejecting the university
as a cog in the neoliberal order. I want to think about what it means
for black students to seek love from an institution incapable of loving
them—of loving anyone, perhaps—and to manifest this yearning by framing
their lives largely through a lens of trauma. And I want to think about
what it means for black students to choose to follow Stefano Harney and
Fred Moten’s call to become subversives in the academy, exposing and
resisting its labor exploitation, its gentrifying practices, its
endowments built on misery, its class privilege often camouflaged in
multicultural garb, and its commitments to war and security.
It is fair to say that most black students have minimal interest in
joining the current wave of activism. Many are not politically radical,
while others feel that they do not yet have the discernment to know if
they are. Others fear that an activist past may haunt them in the
future, while the majority is simply trying to get through school and
join the ranks of professionals. This essay does not attempt to offer
such students an invitation to activism, although that would be a worthy
project. Rather, I am interested in speaking to those who are already
activists, specifically about the ideological fissures in their movement
and what these might tell us about the character of contemporary black
movements, the future of the university, and what I believe is a crisis
of political education. And while crises reveal contradictions, they
also signal opportunities.
In particular, I challenge student activists to not cleave their
activism from their intellectual lives or mistakenly believe that
because the university does not offer them the education they crave, it
is beyond their reach. There is a long history of black activists
repurposing university resources to instruct themselves and one
another—to self-radicalize, in effect. This is not to say that today’s
student activists should do exactly as was done in the past, but
historical models may provide valuable insights for those seeking novel
solutions. Moreover, I encourage student activists to carefully consider
the language they use to frame their grievances. In particular, I argue
that while trauma can be an entrance into activism, it is not in itself
a destination and may even trick activists into adopting the language of
the neoliberal institutions they are at pains to reject.
• • •
The epicenter of recent student activism, the University of Missouri,
Columbia, is a two-hour drive from the spot where former Ferguson police
office Darren Wilson ended Michael Brown’s life. In November the
activism of a coalition called Concerned Student 1950 (the year “Mizzou”
admitted its first black student)—coupled with a hunger-striking
graduate student and a threatened strike by the varsity football
team—forced the president and chancellor to resign and the university’s
Board of Curators to acknowledge a long history of campus racism. It was
a victory for students of color at Mizzou and elsewhere, who have been
fighting deeply entrenched racism for years. Since President Obama took
office in 2009, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights has received more than a thousand formal complaints of racial
harassment at colleges and universities.
While students on various campuses have done everything from addressing
racial incidents to criticizing university investments, the national
trend is to push for measures that would make campuses more hospitable
to students of color: greater diversity, inclusion, safety, and
affordability. That means more students, faculty, staff, and
administrators of color; “safe spaces” and mental health support;
reduced or free tuition; curricular changes; and the renaming of campus
buildings and monuments after significant nonwhite figures. Similarly
the Obama administration convened a meeting of administrators, faculty,
students, and lawyers to promote ways to “foster supportive educational
environments.” As former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it,
college should be about “finding a home and a community” and ensuring
that campuses are “welcoming places for learning for every student.”
Indeed, to some extent campus protests articulated the sense of betrayal
and disappointment that many black students felt upon finding that their
campuses failed to live up to their PR. Many students had come to the
university expecting to find a welcoming place, a nurturing faculty, and
protective administration. If they believed this, it was in no small
part because university recruiters wanted them to: tours for prospective
students, orientations, and slickly produced brochures often rely on
metaphors of family and community, highlight campus diversity, and
emphasize the sense of belonging that young scholars enjoy.
Can we acknowledge students’ pain in a culture that reduces oppression
to misunderstanding and psychology?
But while the rebellions succeeded in getting the attention of
administrators and trustees, as well as the national media, students
endured an awful backlash—including credible death threats—that tested
the limits of the family metaphor, which to many now seems both
misguided and disingenuous. Conservatives and liberals alike trivialized
their activism, dismissing the protesters as oversensitive whiners whose
demands for speech codes, dress codes, and mandatory anti-racist courses
threaten the university’s integrity and impede critical thought.
The rancor, however, has obscured fundamental differences /within/ the
movement. Student’s core demands for greater diversity, inclusion, and
cultural-competency training converge with their critics’ fundamental
belief that the university possesses a unique teleology: it is
/supposed/ to be an enlightened space free of bias and prejudice, but
the pursuit of this promise is hindered by structural racism and
patriarchy. Though adherents of this perspective differ in their
assessments of the extent to which the university falls short of this
ideal, they agree that it is perfectible.
I do not. The fully racialized social and epistemological architecture
upon which the modern university is built cannot be radically
transformed by “simply” adding darker faces, safer spaces, better
training, and a curriculum that acknowledges historical and contemporary
oppressions. This is a bit like asking for more black police officers as
a strategy to curb state violence. We need more faculty of color, but
integration alone is not enough. Likewise, what is the point of
providing resources to recruit more students of color without changing
admissions criteria and procedures? Why do we stay wedded to standard
“achievement” measures instead of, say, open admissions?
A smaller, more radical contingent of protesters is less sanguine about
the university’s capacity to change. Rejecting the family metaphor,
these students understand that universities are not walled off from the
“real world” but instead are corporate entities in their own right.
These students are not fighting for a “supportive” educational
environment, but a /liberated/ one that not only promotes but also
models social and economic justice. One such student coalition is the
Black Liberation Collective, which has three demands:
1) that the numbers of black students and faculty reflect the national
percentage of black folks in the country;
2) that tuition be free for black and indigenous students;
3) that universities divest from prisons and invest in communities.
Likewise the demands from protesters at UNC, Chapel Hill are a model for
radical global politics. They include ending ties to prisons and sweated
labor; retraining and disarming campus police; offering free childcare
for students, staff, and faculty; and paying a minimum wage of $25 per
hour for workers, with the addendum “that all administrators be
compensated at the same rate as workers.” Many will say these are not
winnable demands, but winning is not always the point. Unveiling the
university’s exploitative practices and its deeply embedded structures
of racism, sexism, and class inequality can be profound acts of
demystification on their own.
But still, a common thread runs through both the more modest and more
radical critics of universities. Both demand that universities change in
ways that we cannot expect them to change. The first group asks
universities to deliver on their promise to be post-racial havens, but
that will not happen in a surrounding sea of white supremacy. The second
sees universities as the leading edge in a socially revolutionary fight.
While I share the transformative aims of the latter, I think that
universities are not up the task. Certainly universities can and will
become more diverse and marginally more welcoming for black students,
but as institutions they will never be engines of social transformation.
Such a task is ultimately the work of political education and activism.
By definition it takes place outside the university.
*Fugitive Study*
Black studies was conceived not just outside the university but in
/opposition/ to a Eurocentric university culture with ties to corporate
and military power. Having emerged from mass revolt, insurgent black
studies scholars developed institutional models based in, but largely
independent of, the academy. In later decades, these institutions
were—with varying degrees of eagerness—incorporated into the university
proper in response to pressure to embrace multiculturalism.
In 1969 Vincent Harding, Stephen Henderson, and William Strickland, Jr.,
founded the Institute of the Black World (IBW) at Atlanta University in
order to mobilize the “collective scholarship” of black intellectuals to
confront racism and colonialism, here and abroad. A year later black
students, artists, and activists at the University of Chicago founded
the Communiversity, offering courses in African history and Marxist
political economy to community members on Chicago’s South Side. Less
than two decades later, the United Coalition Against Racism, a student
organization at the University of Michigan, established the Ella Baker –
Nelson Mandela Center for Anti-Racist Education (BMC). The center was
never conceived as a safe space for students of color but rather as a
resource for anti-racist struggles “dedicated to the principle of
thinking in order to act.” The BMC offered leadership training,
sponsored cultural and educational events, provided rare anti-racist
literature, and served as a radical place for study and critical
engagement open to everyone, especially nonuniversity working-class
residents.
Universities will never be engines of social transformation. Such a task
is the work of political education and activism.
In fact, it was during a talk held at IBW that the Guyanese historian
Walter Rodney, some six years before he was martyred, urged radical
black scholars to become “guerrilla intellectuals.” By this he meant
freeing ourselves from the “Babylonian captivity” of bourgeois society,
moving beyond disciplinary imperatives, and “grounding” with the people
so as to engage, act, and think collectively in terms of social
movements. Recently, Rodney’s notion of the guerrilla intellectual has
been resuscitated and transformed in Stefano Harney and Fred Moten’s
/The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study/.
Harney and Moten disavow the very idea that the university is, or can
ever be, an enlightened place, by which I mean a place that would
actively seek to disrupt the reproduction of our culture’s classed,
racialized, nationalized, gendered, moneyed, and militarized
stratifications. Instead they argue that the university is dedicated to
professionalization, order, scientific efficiency, counterinsurgency,
and war—wars on terror, sovereign nations, communism, drugs, and gangs.
The authors advocate refuge in and sabotage from the undercommons, a
subaltern, subversive way of being in but not of the university. The
undercommons is a fugitive network where a commitment to abolition and
collectivity prevails over a university culture bent on creating
socially isolated individuals whose academic skepticism and claims of
objectivity leave the world-as-it-is intact.
Unlike Rodney’s guerrilla intellectuals, Harney and Moten’s guerrillas
are not preparing to strike, planning to seize power, contesting the
university (or the state; the difference isn’t always clear)—at least
not on the terms they have set. To do so would be to recognize the
university and its legitimacy and to be invested in its regimes of
professionalization. Instead Harney and Moten argue that the
university’s power over our lives is illusory. It lulls us into
believing that politics—to lobby for access to, or control over, such
institutions—is our only salvation. The book is a clarion call to
/think/ together, to plan together in undisciplined assembly. When /The
Undercommons/ hit the Internet—first as a 2008 essay and then as a 2013
collection of essays—it spread like wildfire among the PhD precariat and
radical-thinking graduate students. For many young scholars cobbling
together a life adjuncting, Harney and Moten’s critique of the
university spoke an essential truth: “It cannot be denied that the
university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the
university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions
one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can.”
Contrast this with black student protesters who appeal to the university
to “repair a broken community,” to make students “feel safe, accepted,
supported and like they belong,” and to remedy their sense of alienation
through “intense ‘inclusion and belonging’ training for all levels of
students, staff, faculty, and administration.” Why black students might
seek belonging and inclusion over refuge is understandable, given their
expressed sense of alienation and isolation, combined with the
university’s liberal use of the family metaphor. It also explains why
students are asking the university to implement curriculum
changes—namely, the creation of cultural-competency courses, more
diverse course reading lists, and classes dedicated to the study of
race, gender, sexuality, and social justice. They not only acknowledge
the university’s magisterium in all things academic, but they also
desperately wish to change the campus culture, to make this bounded
world less hostile and less racist.
But granting the university so much authority over our reading choices,
and emphasizing a respect for difference over a critique of power, comes
at a cost. Students not only come to see the curriculum as an oppressor
that delimits their interrogation of the world, but they also come to
see racism largely in personal terms.
*The Personal Is Not Always Political*
Second only to a desire for increased diversity, better mental health
services were a chief priority for student protesters. Activists framed
their concerns and grievances in the language of /personal/ trauma. We
shouldn’t be surprised. While /every/ generation of black Americans has
experienced unrelenting violence, this is the first one compelled
to/witness /virtually all of it, to endure the snuffing out of black
lives in real time, looped over and over again, until the next murder
knocks it off the news. We are also talking about a generation that has
lived through two of the longest wars in U.S. history, raised on a
culture of spectacle where horrific acts of violence are readily
available on their smartphones. What Henry Giroux insightfully
identifies as an addiction does nothing to inure or desensitize young
people to violence. On the contrary, it anchors violence in their
collective consciousness, produces fear and paranoia—wrapped elegantly
in thrill—and shrouds the many ways capitalism, militarism, and racism
are killing black and brown people.
So one can easily see why the language of trauma might appeal to black
students. Trauma is real; it is no joke. Mental health services and
counseling are urgently needed. But reading black experience through
trauma can easily slip into thinking of ourselves as victims and objects
rather than agents, subjected to centuries of gratuitous violence that
have structured and overdetermined our very being. In the argot of our
day, “bodies”—vulnerable and threatening bodies—increasingly stand in
for actual people with names, experiences, dreams, and desires. I
suspect that the popularity of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s /Between the World and
Me/ (2015), especially among black college students, rests on his
singular emphasis on fear, trauma, and the black body. He writes:
In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body—it is
heritage. Enslavement was not merely the antiseptic borrowing of
labor—it is not so easy to get a human being to commit their body
against its own elemental interest. And so enslavement must be
casual wrath and random manglings, the gashing of heads and brains
blown out over the river as the body seeks to escape. It must be
rape so regular as to be industrial. . . . The spirit and soul are
the body and brain, which are destructible—that is precisely why
they are so precious. And the soul did not escape. The spirit did
not steal away on gospel wings.
Coates implies that the person /is /the brain, and the brain just
another organ to be crushed with the rest of the body’s parts. Earlier
in the book, he makes the startling declaration that enslaved people
“knew nothing but chains.” I do not deny the violence Coates so
eloquently describes here, and I am sympathetic to his atheistic
skepticism. But what sustained enslaved African people was a /memory of
freedom/, dreams of seizing it, and conspiracies to enact it—fugitive
planning, if you will. If we reduce the enslaved to mere fungible
bodies, we cannot possibly understand /how/ they created families,
communities, sociality; how they fled and loved and worshiped and
defended themselves; how they created the world’s first social democracy.
Trauma is real. But reading black experience through trauma can lead to
thinking of ourselves as victims rather than agents.
Moreover, to identify anti-black violence as heritage may be true in a
general sense, but it obscures the dialectic that produced and
reproduced the violence of a regime dependent on black /life/ for its
profitability. It was, after all, the resisting black body that needed
“correction.” Violence was used not only to break bodies but to
discipline /people/ who refused enslavement. And the impulse to resist
is neither involuntary nor solitary. It is a choice made in community,
made possible by community, and informed by memory, tradition, and
witness. If Africans were entirely compliant and docile, there would
have been no need for vast expenditures on corrections, security, and
violence. Resistance is our heritage.
And resistance is our healing. Through collective struggle, we alter our
circumstances; contain, escape, or possibly eviscerate the /source/ of
trauma; recover our bodies; reclaim and redeem our dead; and make
ourselves whole. It is difficult to see this in a world where words such
as /trauma/, /PTSD/, /micro-aggression/, and /triggers/ have virtually
replaced /oppression/,/repression/,//and/subjugation/. Naomi Wallace, a
brilliant playwright whose work explores trauma in the context of race,
sexuality, class, war, and empire, muses:
Mainstream America is less threatened by the ‘trauma’ theory because
it doesn’t place economic justice at its core and takes the focus
out of the realm of justice and into psychology; out of the streets,
communities, into the singular experience (even if experienced in
common) of the individual.
Similarly, George Lipsitz observes that emphasizing “interiority,”
personal pain, and feeling elevates “the cultivation of sympathy over
the creation of social justice.” This is partly why demands for
reparations to address historical and ongoing racism are so antithetical
to modern liberalism.
Managing trauma does not require dismantling structural racism, which is
why university administrators focus on avoiding triggers rather than
implementing zero-tolerance policies for racism or sexual assault.
Buildings will be renamed and safe spaces for people of color will be
created out of a sliver of university real estate, but proposals to
eliminate tuition and forgive student debt for the descendants of the
dispossessed and the enslaved will be derided as absurd. This is also
why diversity and cultural-competency training are the most popular
strategies for addressing campus racism. As if racism were a
manifestation of our “incompetent” handling of “difference.” If we
cannot love the other, we can at least learn to hear, respect,
understand, and “tolerate” her. Cultural competency also means reckoning
with white privilege, coming to terms with unconscious bias and the
myriad ways white folks benefit from current racial arrangements.
Powerful as this might be, the solution to racism still is shifted to
the realm of self-help and human resources, resting on self-improvement
or the hiring of a consultant or trainer to help us reach our goal.
Cultural-competency training, greater diversity, and demands for
multicultural curricula represent both a resistance to and manifestation
of our current “postracial” moment. In /Are We All Postracial Yet?/
(2015), David Theo Goldberg correctly sees postracialism as a neoliberal
revision of multicultural discourse, whose proposed remedies to address
racism would in fact resuscitate late-century multiculturalism. But why
hold on to the policies and promises of multiculturalism and diversity,
especially since they have done nothing to dislodge white supremacy?
Indeed I want to suggest that the triumph of multiculturalism marked a
defeat for a radical anti-racist vision. True, multiculturalism emerged
in response to struggles waged by the Black Freedom movement and other
oppressed groups in the 1960s and ’70s. But the programmatic adoption of
diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism vampirized the energy of a
radical movement that began by demanding the /complete/ /transformation/
of the social order and the eradication of all forms of racial, gender,
sexual, and//class hierarchy.
The point of liberal multiculturalism was not to address the historical
legacies of racism, dispossession, and injustice but rather to bring
some people into the fold of a “society no longer seen as racially
unjust.” What did it bring us? Black elected officials and black CEOs
who helped manage the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich and
oversee the continued erosion of the welfare state; the displacement,
deportation, and deterioration of black and brown communities; mass
incarceration; and planetary war. We talk about breaking glass ceilings
in corporate America while building more jail cells for the rest. The
triumph of liberal multiculturalism also meant a shift from a radical
anti-capitalist critique to a politics of recognition. This means, for
example, that we now embrace the right of same-sex couples to marry so
long as they do not challenge the institution itself, which is still
modeled upon the exchanging of property; likewise we accept the right of
people of color, women, and queer people to serve in the military,
killing and torturing around the world.
At the same time, contemporary calls for cultural competence and
tolerance reflect neoliberal logic by emphasizing individual
responsibility and suffering, shifting race from the public sphere to
the psyche. The postracial, Goldberg writes, “renders individuals solely
accountable for their own actions and expressions, not for their
group’s.” Tolerance in its multicultural guise, as Wendy Brown taught
us, is the liberal answer to managing difference but with no
corresponding transformation in the conditions that, in the first place,
marked certain bodies as suspicious, deviant, abject, or illegible.
Tolerance, therefore, depoliticizes genuine struggles for justice and power:
Depoliticization involves construing inequality, subordination,
marginalization, and social conflict, which all require political
analysis and political solutions, as personal and individual, on the
one hand, or as natural, religious, or cultural on the other.
Tolerance works along both vectors of depoliticization—it
personalizes and it naturalizes or culturalizes—and sometimes it
intertwines them.
But how can we embrace our students and acknowledge their pain while
remaining wary of a culture that reduces structural oppression to
misunderstanding and psychology?
*Love, Study, Struggle*
Taped inside the top drawer of my desk is a small scrap of paper with
three words scrawled across it: “Love, Study, Struggle.” It serves as a
daily reminder of what I am supposed to be doing. Black study and
resistance must begin with love. James Baldwin understood love-as-agency
probably better than anyone. For him it meant to love ourselves as black
/people/; it meant making love the motivation for making revolution; it
meant envisioning a society where everyone is embraced, where there is
no oppression, where every life is valued—even those who may once have
been our oppressors. It /did not/ mean seeking white people’s love and
acceptance or seeking belonging in the world created by our oppressor.
In /The Fire Next Time/ (1963), he is unequivocal: “I do not know many
Negroes who are eager to be ‘accepted’ by white people, still less to be
loved by them; they, the blacks, simply don’t wish to be beaten over the
head by the whites every instant of our brief passage on this planet.”
But here is the catch: if we are committed to genuine freedom, we have
no choice but to love all. To love all is to fight relentlessly to end
exploitation and oppression everywhere, even on behalf of those who
think they hate us. This was Baldwin’s point—perhaps his most
misunderstood and reviled point.
To love this way requires relentless struggle, deep study, and critique.
Limiting our ambit to suffering, resistance, and achievement is not
enough. We must go to the root—the historical, political, social,
cultural, ideological, material, economic root—of oppression in order to
understand its negation, the prospect of our liberation. Going to the
root illuminates what is hidden from us, largely because most structures
of oppression and all of their various entanglements are simply not
visible and not felt. For example, if we argue that state violence is
merely a manifestation of anti-blackness because that is what we /see
and feel/, we are left with no theory of the state and have no way of
understanding racialized police violence in places such as Atlanta and
Detroit, where most cops are black, unless we turn to some metaphysical
explanation.
For my generation, the formal classroom was never the space for deep
critique precisely because it was not a place of love. The classroom
was—and still is—a performative space, where faculty and students
compete with each other. Through study groups, we created our own
intellectual communities held together by principle and love, though the
specters of sectarianism, ego, and just-plain childishness blurred our
vision and threatened our camaraderie. Still, the political study group
was our lifeblood—both on and off campus. We lived by Karl Marx’s pithy
1844 statement:
But if the designing of the future and the proclamation of
ready-made solutions for all time is not our affair, then we realize
all the more clearly what we have to accomplish in the present—I am
speaking of a ruthless criticism of everything existing, ruthless in
two senses: The criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions,
nor of conflict with the powers that be.
Study groups introduced me to C. L. R. James, Frantz Fanon, Walter
Rodney, Barbara Smith, Angela Davis, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels,
Vladimir Lenin, Chancellor Williams, George E. M. James, Shulamith
Firestone, Kwame Nkrumah, Kwame Turé, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci,
Chinweizu Ibekwe, Amílcar Cabral, and others. These texts were our
sources of social critique and weapons in our class war on the bourgeois
canon. As self-styled activist-intellectuals, it never occurred to us to
/refuse/ to read a text simply because it validated the racism, sexism,
free-market ideology, and bourgeois liberalism against which we railed.
Nothing was off limits. On the contrary, delving into these works only
sharpened our critical faculties.
Love and study cannot exist without struggle, and struggle cannot occur
solely inside the refuge we call the university. Being grounded in the
world we wish to make is fundamental. As I argued in /Freedom Dreams/
nearly fifteen years ago, “Social movements generate new knowledge, new
theories, new questions. The most radical ideas often grow out of a
concrete intellectual engagement with the problems of aggrieved
populations confronting systems of oppression.” Ironically I wrote these
words with my students in mind, many of whom were involved in campus
struggles, feeling a bit rudderless but believing that the only way to
make themselves into authentic activists was to leave the books and
radical theories at home or in their dorms. The undercommons offers
students a valuable model of study that takes for granted the
indivisibility of thought and struggle, not unlike its antecedent, the
Mississippi Freedom Schools.
The Mississippi Freedom Schools, initially launched by the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee as part of the 1964 Freedom Summer,
were intended to create “an educational experience for students which
will make it possible for them to challenge the myths of our society, to
perceive more clearly its realities and to find alternatives, and
ultimately, new directions for action.” The curriculum included
traditional subjects that publicly funded black schools did not offer,
but they were never designed to be simply /better/ versions of the
traditional liberal education model. Rather, students examined power
along the axes of race and class. Students and teachers worked together
to reveal how ruling whites profited from Jim Crow, and they included in
their analysis the precarious position of poor whites. Rural black kids
of all ages learned to distinguish between “Material Things and Soul
Things,” developing a trenchant critique of materialism. The freedom
schools challenged the myth that the civil rights movement was just
about claiming a place in mainstream society. They didn’t want equal
opportunity in a burning house; they wanted to build a new house.
Perhaps one of the best historical models of radical, collective,
grounded intellectual work was launched by black feminists Patricia
Robinson, Patricia Haden, and Donna Middleton, working with community
residents of Mt. Vernon, New York, many of whom were unemployed,
low-wage workers, welfare mothers, and children. Together, they
organized and read as a community—from elders to children. They saw
education as a vehicle for collective transformation and an incubator of
knowledge, not a path to upward mobility and material wealth. Influenced
by Frantz Fanon, they interrogated and critiqued racism, sexism,
slavery, and capitalism, emphasizing the ways in which racism produced a
kind of psychosis among poor black people. Their study and activism
culminated in a collectively written, independently published book
called /Lessons from the Damned/ (1973). It is a remarkable book, with
essays by adults as well as children—some as young as twelve, who
developed trenchant criticisms of public school teachers and the
education system.
Although they acknowledged the unavoidability of addressing trauma, they
understood that one’s activism could not stop there. In a section titled
“The Revolt of Poor Black Women,” the authors insisted that a genuine
revolution requires the overthrow of capitalism, the elimination of male
supremacy, and the transformation of self. Revolution, they argued, is
supposed to usher in a brand new beginning; it is driven by the power of
freed imagination, not the dead weight of the past. As Robinson, Haden,
and Middleton wrote, “All revolutionaries, regardless of sex, are the
smashers of myths and the destroyers of illusion. They have always died
and lived again to build new myths. They dare to dream of a utopia, a
new kind of synthesis and equilibrium.”
At UCLA, where I teach, these same insights are taking a new form. A
group of graduate students launched their version of the undercommons in
January 2016. Based on the Freedom School model, UCLA’s undercommons
holds weekly outdoor meetings featuring activists from groups such as
Black Lives Matter, Critical Resistance, and the L.A. Poverty
Department. Faculty and students lead discussions. These events have
drawn as many as 150 students, and the community continues to grow. The
primary organizers—Thabisile Griffin, Marques Vestal, Olufemi O. Taiwo,
Sa Whitley, and Shamell Bell—are all doctoral students who see the
university as a site of contestation, a place of refuge, and a space for
collective work. Their vision is radical and radically ambitious: they
are abolitionists committed to dismantling prisons and redirecting their
funding to education and the repair of inequality. Their ultimate goal
is to create in the present a future that overthrows the logic of
neoliberalism.
These students are demonstrating how we might remake the world. They are
ruthless in their criticism and fearless in the face of the powers that
be. They model what it means to think through crisis, to fight for the
eradication of oppression in all its forms, whether it directly affects
us or not. They are /in/ the university but not /of/ the university.
They work to understand and advance the movements in the streets,
seeking to eliminate racism and state violence, preserve black life,
defend the rights of the marginalized (from undocumented immigrants to
transfolk), and challenge the current order that has brought us so much
misery. And they do this work not without criticism and self-criticism,
not by pandering to popular trends or powerful people, a cult of
celebrity or Twitter, and not by telling lies, claiming easy answers, or
avoiding the ideas that challenge us all.
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20160307/6b6b47da/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list