Secrets in Plain Sight - McDaniel

families seeking opportunities for economic prosperity in the Gold Rush of 1858;it was the men, women, and children of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, andUte nations as weli as the tribes of the Pueblo, Shoshone, Comanche, Kiowa,and Navajo who lived in and governed over the Colorado territory (native.org) asit was referred to before it received statehood. This was likely the first momentColorado had been faced with dynamics of intercultural communication betweengroups with such vastly different epistemologies and cultural identities. Thesenegotiations of difference between whites, their institutions, and indigenouspeople ushered in a new era of complexities. It was the alluring promise of gold that motivated Whites to build townsand settle on the land. Their native neighbors were cautious but tolerant. Theyseemed to have a commitment to this new order of intercultural communal living.When Denver City was founded Arapahos and Cheyenne were seen daily on thestreets or in camps near town (Hoig, 1961). Arapahoe Chief Little Raven \"had atalk with the people of Denver and \"pledged his word for the preservation ofpeace and order by his people\" {Hoig, 1961, p.5). And that attitude seemedreciprocal by the new arrivals. But as the numbers of White immigrants grew, the laws of theirgovernment were insufficient to control the increasingly aggressive and overtactions of its people; aggrieving Natives in acts of rape, murder and larceny. OneArapahoe and Cheyenne agent in 1859 wrote: \"the concourse of Whites istherefore constantly swelling, and incapable of control or restraint by the 92

government\" (Hoig, 1961, p.7). The response to the growing tension from theexpansion of Whites and their accompanying racialized aggression were a seriesof negotiations between governmental institutions, its agents and Natives. As the infrastructures of White society were constructed; Army bases,government established Indian Affair Bureaus and newspapers such as TheWestern Mountaineer and the Rocky Mountain News; the institutional narrativesof prosperity, Western expansion, White privilege and increasing intolerancetoward al! cultures and its people who were perceived to stand in the way of theideology of White life or Manifest Destinyxlx began to take shape. Onecorrespondent from The Western Mountaineer reporting on the progress ofanother negotiation between government and focal tribal authorities said that, \"ofcourse, settlers would object\" to the new land divisions proposed by Natives asan accommodation to Western expansion. \"And if any arrangement is made, theIndians will probably be put over on the Republican, or in some other localitywhere they will not interfere with 'our Manifest Destiny'\" (Hoig, 1961, p.12). With limited resources of land, limitations of culturally established normsand social boundaries of acceptability at play, each group labored to get theirneeds met and engaged each other in moments of everyday talk where they intheir best moments communicated through dialogue, collaborated, andcompromised in order to maintain peaceful living. Between them, at their worstwas incogitable psychological, spiritual, and physical violence. The issues always 93

centered on human rights and cultures epistemologically disparate, struggling toshare natural resources. Reading these historical narratives in parallel, illustrate a picture of theway in which White culture locally began a tradition of discursively constructingviolence, a common pattern in institutional covert discrimination, it was this tacticthat ultimately led to the bloody end of extended interculturai negotiationsresulting in the domination and proliferation of whiteness as a hegemonic andprivileged culture in Colorado. With Native people out of the way Whites did infact establish civilization, expand territories and built cities infused with theirculture. Tired of negotiations that prohibited total cultural domination, onNovember 29, 1864 in unabashed disregard for established peaceful agreementsand legal treaties, Whites in Colorado launched a military and civilian assaultagainst the Cheyenne and Arapahoe. The assault against, included Natives livingin Colorado territory and those who specifically took refuge on land said to beunder the protection of the U.S. government. This day referred to as the SandCreek Massacre, was under the leadership of Colorado Governor John Evansand Colonel John Chivington. Motivated to assure White interests, these mencoordinated and executed an 'Indian hunt' to exterminate every Native theyencountered. Leading up to the Massacre was the construction of Native people assavages that allowed whites to consider themselves as living in unknown danger 94

where their women and children could be brutally murdered and accosted at anygiven moment. The general sentiment was that their livestock and property werein peril and most certainly their way of life, freedom, and civilizationcompromised. The 'Indians' in their eyes were strange people who lived ashunters, moved about the land, spoke foreign languages, and lived in community.They favored a life of a hunter-gatherer (Shepard, 1998) and would notappropriate land from the community to the individual, which was a rejection ofWhites values of land ownership and individual prosperity. In White society there were social pressures placed on each other to resistintercultural living and advance racial superiority. Their everyday languagechoices shamed and socially admonished anyone who resisted. One Coloradomilitary regiment was made fun of for never having the blood of 'Indians', Aftertorching a village of men, women, and children one commanding officer sent hiscongratulations: \"[on] the signal punishment meted out to the savages onyesterday...although I regret the loss of so many brave men. The third regimentcannot any longer be called the 'bloodless third\" (Hoig, 1961, p.158). Anyone in dialogue with 'Indians', held respect for, or who honored theboundaries of intercultural negotiations were constructed as traitors to whitenesswhich was essentially traitors to their fellow brethren and their God given way oflife. Governor Evans not wanting to be seen as such stalled any attempts atsuccessful intercultural negotiations by Natives. And in a transcription of aobligated negotiation (of which he originally wanted no part of) leading up to the 95

massacre, Governor Evans in dialogue with muitipie military officers, Indianagents, and seven main chiefs of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes demandedevidence and answers to accusations of his constructions of the 'Indians' assavages and wanting to kill and harm White men, women, and children. His chiefclaim was that Indians held elaborate plans to have Whites exterminated fromthe land. When the tribai leaders presented evidence to the contrary insisting thatit wasn't true, that they were peacemakers and have lived as peacemakersGovernor Evans refused their testimony, not wanting to make peace for fear ofmisrepresenting himself to Washington where he had built a case for militarypresence and resources in order to launch an assault. Upon approval from the U.S. government Governor Evans recruitedadditional civilian military support from ordinary citizens to launch his attackthrough a proclamation: authorizing ail citizens of Colorado, either individually or in such parties as they may organize, to go in pursuit of all hostile Indians on the plains, .. .to kill destroy, as enemies of the country, wherever they may be found, all such hostile Indians. And further, as the only reward I am authorized to offer for such services, I hereby empower such citizens, or parties of citizens, to take captive, and hold hostile Indians that they may capture, and to receive for all stolen property recovered from said Indians such reward as may be deemed proper and just ...I further offer to all such parties as will organize under the militia law of the territory for the purpose to furnish them arms and ammunition, and to present their accounts for pay as regular soldiers for themselves, their horses, their subsistence, and transportation, to Congress, under the assurance of the department commander that they will be paid. The conflict is upon us, and all good citizens are called upon to their duty for the defence of their homes and families (Hoig, 1961, p.69). 96

Chivington, the commander leading military exploits in a campaign againstIndians' was characterized by a colleague as an Inhuman monster' (Hoig, 1961,p.164). He had made clear, then good on his intention to \"kill all Indians [hecame] across...\"(p.90), an intention that had become a part of his everyday wayof talking about 'Indians'. Particularly problematic here and common ininstitutional covert discrimination was talk that treated ail tribes and nations asone collective savage group, making it impossible to humanize those with whomyou are in communication with and to know and understand cultural differences,nuanced communication, specific needs, terms of negotiation or behaviors. Part of the extermination strategy was a careful stripping of Native culturethrough assimilation, dependency on external resources and then subsequentdenial. Natives essentially wanted to live near the buffalo so that they would notstarve, and given those provisions after some negotiation were willing toassimilate to a small degree to white culture in order to keep friendly. Whitesultimately used tactics of isolation, trickery, and starvation by forcing them ontoland (reservations) where they could not provide sustenance for themselves andwere forced to rely on the good will of the Whites for provisions. Ultimately theprovisions were withheld in order to force the hands of the tribes and nations andforce starvation causing aggression stemming out of survival. When thataggression surfaced Whites then pointed to that aggression as evidence ofsavagery. The negotiation demands by Whites included land, and also called forthe civilization of Indians, which included a commitment to ending their \"wild life\" 97

that they would turn toward settled agriculture. Discursively lacking considerationfor an intercultura! communal way of life that had earlier been committed to, aracial binary of White v. savage was constructed, providing a justified logic thatsanctioned acts of violence and aggression authorized by a moral ethic. Withnarratives of Colorado's story beginning with the arrival of Whites solelyconsidered, it became possible to disregard Native spiritual cosmology andidentity in order to make salient Christianity, and Western expansionism. Completing the operation of extermination, Governor Evans and ColonelChivington aggressively pursued the brutal murders of hundreds of Cheyenneand Arapaho men, women, and children. Evans was ultimately brought before aspecial committee who had conducted a 4-year investigation of the Massacre. Hewas censured for discursively constructing race-incited hysteria and usingextractions to justify the use of military resources in order to accomplish his planfor Indian' extermination. They pointed out that he did so in spite of the fact thathe was fully aware that the Indians massacred at Sand Creek, were then, andhad been, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward the Whites, and haddone all in their power to restrain those less friendly disposed\" (Hoig, 1961,p.166). Despite widespread national denunciation, Colorado citizens wereshockingly proud to have initiated and been the benefactors of violence. Theyperceived Sand Creek to be a victory that they secured. After the Massacre, tothe special committee Colonel Chivington defended their position as aggressors 98

consistent with his past rhetoric, stating that, \"he believed it to be right orhonorable to use any means under God's heaven to kiil men, women andchildren, and 'damn any man that was in sympathy with Indians', and such men...had better get out of the United States service\" (Hoig, 1961, p. 142-143). Andin the afterglow of the Massacre, that same year in 1864, Chivington and Evansfounded Denver Seminary, renamed the University of Denver, The Colorado Klan Era... with the exception of Indiana, there was no bigger or brighter star in the Klan flagthan Colorado.L.C. SpeersNew York Times, September 26, 1926 as quoted in Goldberg....p. 163 Another influential cultural narrative relational to a reading of Coloradoeducation in its revelations of the rise and the deep roots of Whiteness within itsinstitution is the story of the Ku Klux Kian's reign of state power. The evils of thisnarrative, often not fore-grounded but silently affirmed in our present day throughour silence and in our rituals such as naming structures at the University ofDenver, city airports, or business and residential developments after Klanmembers. It's telling can make unnatural an institution's everyday. In anunnaturalized state you can visibly see orientations, embedded organizationalnorms and assumptions inconsistent with higher standards of justice andequality. The years following the Sand Creek Massacre were replete with citizenefforts to realize a Manifest Destiny. Previous problems of government law and 99

policy being unable to harness citizen compliance persisted 61 years later. Whenthe Klan arrived |n 1921- Denver struggled with problems of bootlegging,prostitution, gambling, and general increase in crime. Also uncomfortable formany Whites and later vocalized as problematic was the influence of raced,ethnic, and religious heterogeneity on state culture and its institutions. Denverhad a small Black population who progressively organized the community inadvancing their civil rights. Jewish and Catholic communities were wellestablished and occupied important positions throughout the community andstate government. To Colorado citizens committed to a so-called traditional codeof morality these realities felt like chaotic violations of a normative world order. The Denver Post echoed the sentiments of many of Its readers: 'When the law is not enforced, when it is disregarded spurned and trampled upon ... when its lack of enforcement and its delay fail to protect the citizen and the taxpayer, he has but one immediate recourse, and that is to enforce the laws himself.... The zero point is just about reached in this community' (Goldberg, 1981, p.7). The Klan movement was the promise of a restoration of law and order andreclamation of Whiteness. The political machine of the Ku Klux Klan (Invisible Empire) enteredColorado politics in 1921 and remained until 1940 (active in Denver until 1934).The strength of the Klan reached every county in the state. Not a \"pathologicalassembly of deviant men and women\" but rather a \"formally organized group,which consciously sought to promote or resist change through collective action\"(p.xiii). Recruiting first through prominent Denverites, this national, southernfounded organization sold themselves as a \"patriotic organization dedicated to 100

the preservation of America's institutions and ideals\" (p.7). Their recruitmentefforts targeted White, Native born, Protestant males, eighteen and older.\"Completely excluded from \"100 Per Cent Americanism\" and depicted as threatsto the nation's ideals and values were Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and Blacks\"(P-8). Part of the Klan's political agenda included a concern for schools. Theyfelt strongly that the Catholic Church had an agenda to subvert the public schoolsystem by Romanizing students through curriculum, the placement of Catholicson school boards, and employing Catholic teachers. In their politic of schools asessential to the creation of a loyal and intelligent citizenry, schools and theirorganizational structural power became a site of contestation. First Klan efforts ataddressing these problems were overt and unsophisticated, \"in 1924 eight publicschools were burned\" (p. 10). With no official party held responsible, the Klanused these incidents as evidence to underscore to White Colorado citizens theimminent and real threat upon them. The leaders of the Denver Klan were\"sufficiently attractive, socially and economically\", primarily business andprofessional middle aged men with families, as \"models of decorum [they were]quite convincing when they voiced parental fears for the future of Denver's youth\"(P-37). Klan constructions also \"exploited white fears of a 'new Negro' emergingfrom World War I demanding political, economic, and social equality\" (p.10). 101

Rumors were spread of orchestrated efforts by Blacks to interracialiy marryWhites. Citing the Bible and 'scientific evidence', of jungie environment, ... they believed that 'their birthright was imperiled by the Jew, 'his eye ... on the prosperity, wealth and resources of America'; the Roman Catholic, who would 'have us bow down our heads in worship to his foreign pope'; and the Negro, 'the untaught wouid fain be teacher' 'Should they gain sway' ... no more wouid America be a land of liberty, justice and equality, a land of resources and opportunity, the land of virgin hope, the land of the ideals and aspirations of our forefathers' (p. 10).Satisfied and committed to the cause, nearly 17,000 protestant ministers, opinionmakers, leading figures, and business people in Denver aione, formerly receivedmembership. They became half of the state's hooded population. \"Commitmentwas not difficult; with ten dollars or a vote for a Kian candidate, any man orwoman in any community could battle the forces of evil\" (p.165). In Colorado the Invisible Empire in a sophisticated move structured itselfas the everyday organization for the everyday man. And discursively influenced,it became normal for average citizens to adopt the ideology, rhetoric, and politicsof this White Supremist Movement. Using this blueprint, the Denver Kianorganized themselves in mimicry of local and national society. They had paidstaff, a sales force who recruited new members and a hierarchy culturallyfashioned after the United States Army. Organizational agents held voter drivesand ran campaigns to promote candidates for public office, legislation, orconsensus. Through their concerted efforts Clarence Morley a graduate of the 1899Denver University Law School and Kian member was elected governor. This 102

former district judge believed that God sent John Galen Locke, the Klan leader ofthe state \"to lead [Denver] out of its terrible condition of chaos and trouble\"(p.85). His slogan was \"every man under the Capitol Dome a Klansman\" (p.86).He supported the Klan machine's entrenchment into the administrative bodies ofstate government. In this movement, all members had a role, mothers marched in streets toshow their support of family values, women like Denver Children's Hospitalfounder and eugenist Dr. Minnie C.T. Love authored legislation - one of whichattempted to abolish sectarian and institutional schools maintained wholly or inpart by \"public moneys\" (p.88). Klansperson E.S. Hawkins called for the repeal ofColorado's civil rights laws, which guaranteed persons of all races, and religionsequal access to public accommodations ... (p.89). As a tactic of intimidation and influence, Colorado's schools wereexploited for political gain. Across the state Klan members sought school boardseats, in 1925, 11 communities in the Greely and Denver areas chose theirboard members from Klan ranks. And at one point governor Moriey \"used theappropriations for the University of Colorado as a bargaining counter. ... thegovernor ordered university president Dr. George Norlin to dismiss ail Catholicand Jewish professors or suffer a drastic cut in funds. ..the same tactics wereused to influence the University's friends in the Senate. Any non-cooperative inoffice was coerced. Such individuals were publicly politically and sociallyclassified as \"KNOWN ENEMIES OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS\" (p.76). 103

In a domino move the Klan supported the election of Denver mayor andKlan member Benjamin F. Stapleton in the Denver mayoral election of 1923.Addressing a Klan gathering on South Table Mountain in a stump speech hesaid, \"...and if I am re-elected, I shall give the Klan the kind of administration itwants\" (p.34). ... After he won the Denver Post remarked, \"The victory yesterdayproves beyond any doubt that the Ku Klux Klan is the largest, most cohesive andmost efficiently organized political force in the State of Colorado today\" (p.34). Henamed fellow Klansman manager of safety after first serving as manager ofrevenue, \"Klansmen filled the offices of cierk and recorder, manager ofimprovements and parks, and city accountant, among others\" (p.30). The policedepartment was heavily infiltrated with seven sergeants and dozens ofpatrolmen, all card-carrying Klansmen. The Klan influenced the court system;Stapleton designated two Klansmen as justices of the peace who joined anotherKlansman already on the bench, District Judge Clarence Morley. Jury tamperingwas practiced and juries were drawn from Klan membership lists. Withgovernment offices infiltrated Klansmen were protected from governmentretaliation. Stapleton also named KKK brother William Candlish, having no policeexperience, Denver's new chief of police. \"Candlish asked all Protestantpolicemen to fill out Klan membership applications; those who were acceptedwere rewarded with choice assignments, shorter hours, and promotions\" (p.33). At the height of its power in the winter of 1924-25 the Klan won control ofthe statehouse and multiple county courthouses. Klan supported candidates 104

were elected to the offices of lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorneygeneral, superintendent of public instruction, and state supreme court justice.Offices of the senate, mayor and factions of this administration were also won. InColorado the Klan was the invisible government. Colorado's Wild West and other narratives presently influence educationin Colorado. Any negotiation between local institutional identities and othercultural identities include the negotiations of relational narratives, Whiteness inColorado has long been fought for in its establishment and in its maintenance ofpower. Evidence of the fastness of whiteness in this landscape is the variety oforganizations, its roster of changing players and stories over a century and half,yet the reign of power of whiteness, constant. University of Denver The University of Denver (DU) is a private university founded in 1864.Considered widely to be an institution of wealth and privilege, the market value oftheir endowment portfolio sits at $279,409,537 (University of Denver - Controller,2009). In the fall of 2009 its total student enrollment was at 11,644; 6,301 ofthose students were from its graduate programxx. Collectively there are 14graduate schools and colleges. In the prior year's count, there were 128 Blackgraduate students in traditional programs with just 6 students in the socialsciences program (University of Denver Profiles, 2008-2009). I'm one of those 6 105

students. Amongst the faculty, 14% are \"minorities\" or non-White (University ofDenver - Institutional Research Faculty, 2009). it's heipfu! to track knowledge about the enrollment of African and MexicanAmerican student enrollment and faculty over time. This is one way to gaugeaction rather than intention, behind the rhetoric of inclusiveness and racialequality and access in higher education. While this information cannot itselfprovide evidence leading to firm conclusions ... it can certainly reach beyond theappearance of diversity where some identities seeking the benefits of multi-cultural education image and branding, symbolically displaying Black and Brownbodies to feign inclusion and where possible commodify those bodies forinstitutional economic gain. For example, a literature review of published storiesof African American lived experiences and voices at the University of Denver arescarce and difficult to come by. But in January, 2007 an article was written in aprimary campus magazine titled \"Volunteer welcomes minority students to DU\".The article discusses the important connection she has to the school and detailsher difficulties as a Black undergraduate student at the University in the mid1950's. She recalls, \"there wasn't any diversity. You could count maybe 10[Black] undergraduates in a period of four years\" (Gillen, 2007). Remembering the covert nature of intercultural interactions with Whitestudents, she stated that \"White students weren't openly hostile, but generallyignored her\" (Gillen, 2007). This article was written on the heels of a publicannouncement that a major donor had established a considerable endowment for 106

Denver Public school students that they hoped would reach $200 million within 5years of its inception. Eligible students, would be given full tuition to attend anyone of Colorado's 33 participating higher education institutions, including privateschools such as the University of Denver (Denver Post.com, 2006). The DenverPublic School District's racial make-up includes 70.3% Black or Latino students(DPS Communications). In the three high schools that piloted this program, therepresentation of Black students in two of the three schools is significant. Prior tothis announcement, it appears that the University had demonstrated little interestin a public relations campaign that stressed for the purposes of studentrecruitment, a value for diversity as an important component of its brand andpublic image. The tracking I describe can also more accurately know the seriousnesswith which education institutions are engaging inclusion work. In addition tocounting their bodies, tracking knowledge of these students must also includetheir retention, inclusion, experiences, and respected contributions to thecommunity. And for some bodies there should be included measures tounderstand their costs. To my knowledge, the University of Denver has nocurrent mechanisms in place that has produced such historical knowledge, and itis unknown what plans they have for future tracking. Because the University has done no substantive historical tracking ofpeople of color, available information on student's of color's experiences arescant. From research in the special collections department of the University 107

(historical archives), as far as 1 can teli, the first Slack student to graduate fromthe school was Mabel Grace Andrews, in 1908 (University of Denver Archives -Special Collections), At this time nothing is known about her experiences at theUniversity. But it seems from Ms. Andrews as the only student of color at theUniversity in 1908, to Bayonne Smith Holmes interview with DU Today (2007)describing her experience as a Black student (graduating in 1958) as being oneof invisibility and isolation and as one of the few Black students in her four yearsof attendance, to the limited number of students of color today - we can see thateven in the counting of bodies, little inclusive action has been taken over the last100+ years. Connecting to my experience, i know the pain of isolation andinvisibility Holmes speaks of from my four years at the University (2006 - 2010)and can testify to a culture of Whiteness at the University of Denver. Cherry Creek School District The Cherry Creek No. 5 public school district ranks as Colorado's 4thlargest out of the state's 183 districts, (Colorado Department of Education, 2010)serving a student population of just over 50,000 (Cherry Creek School District,2008). The district was organized in 1950 through a reconsoiidation of 8 smallArapahoe county schools™ and have since expanded to include 42 elementary,13 middle, and 7 high schools located within two cities (Aurora, Englewood) inthe Denver metropolitan area. In 2008-2009 their general fund revenue was$399,302,400 with $184,480,309 of that amount from local revenues such asproperty and ownership taxes. 108

Their financial holdings are impressive. Particularly in contrast to otherarea school districts. But if Whiteness is Property (2008) as Cheryl Harrissuggests; their most treasured assets are not necessarily in their considerableholdings of land; 1,175,79 acres, buildings; 6,635,342 sq. f t , reserves, or annualrevenues but rather in their perceived public image and reputation within thestate as the leader in Colorado's public school systems. They are active in\"maintaining the district's excellent reputation\" (Cherry Creek School District,2008, p.4) through a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated internal andexternal communications program. CCSD boasts that \"85% of graduates pursue post-secondary educationalopportunities\" (p.4). They recognize their organization's stakeholders as thestudents and their parents, providing them preparation for admissions intopostsecondary opportunities and good jobs; business people, providing them aneducated workforce; and district residents, providing them \"strong propertyvalues, stable taxes, and young people who are responsible citizens andcontribute to [the] community\" (p. 4). Meeting these objectives through providingan exceptional educational experience to students is what they mean when theysay that they are \"dedicated to excellence\", their vision and a mission of\"inspiring every student to think, to learn, to achieve, to care\" (p.3). Part of the capital that this district wields comes from their geographicboundaries of their school district. In 2009 the school district was 'Accredited withDistinction', the highest rating possible under The Colorado Department of 109

Education's new accreditation system. This rating is the latest acquisition for thedistrict in its impressive arsenal of politica! and social capital. It has a long andsuccessful history of using its capita! to compete for financiai, social, and politicalresources. The results have been its ability to leverage these resources in orderto produce measurably, widely recognized, high achieving schools. The districts raced demographics of their student popuiations are asfollows; as of Oct. 2009, there are enrolled 51,005 students. Of that number,62.11% are White, 14.78% Black, 14.02% Hispanic, 8.5% Asian & PacificIslander, .58% American Indian/Alaskan (Cherry Creek Dept. of Planning andinternal Agency, 2010). In order to explore the intercuitural space between Black bodies andinstitutional bodies, in the following chapter I position an embodied Black identityas offered through my own narrative as a mother and doctoral graduate studentand my son, Dominique pursuing his K-12 education. In my Black body I had tonegotiate an intercuitural space between education institutions staked inWhiteness, my own Black body and its Mestiza identity and the Black identity ofmy son. These counter-narratives use the language and experiences ofoppression™' to compose a fabric of communication that reverses a gaze ofpower to expose the political and social problematics that obstruct and aim tocollapse social justice efforts at the institutional level, highlighting and makingvisible institutional covert discrimination in the everyday. 110

Section Two: Contestation: The intersections of identityThe whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yetmade to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.... If there is nostruggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yetdeprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, theywant rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awfulroar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be aphysical one; but it must be a struggle. Power never concedes anything withouta demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick DouglasChapter Four: Everyday Institutional Violence When institutions contest embodied non-dominant identities, institutionalcovert discrimination (ICD); a hegemonic power maintenance strategy thattargets cultural identities, which threaten its normativity, results. The presence ofICD markers failed intercultural negotiation as communication. The commoneffect of this phenomenon is insidious violence. Section two's chapter drills downto the everyday violence in institutional discrimination. A theoretical frame ofculture in the everyday through the experiences of a mother and her son revealthe relational dynamics involved in the contestation of Black identities. Negotiating difference within the context of cultural identity is a matter ofdaily living and it is an act of both survival and thrival.xxi\" In a nation who hashistorically wrestled with its racist, socially ordered constructions, my body, myorientation, my person symbolized through its representations, rebelliousness toan established order. While I became skilled at negotiating the politics of my 111

body as it communicated with the politics of other's bodies, I never consideredthat identity existed and reached beyond the individual to the institution. In orderto succeed in the academy, I had to iearn what it meant to negotiate identitybetween individual and institution. As I dared to press my access into the sacredspace of American education, my body became more of a threat and I felt thewrath of the institutional beast. Demanding equaiity in education for my childrenso that they might pursue their liberation through education, I entered dangerousterritory and risked my own wel! being, as well as the well being of my children.Despite the difficulty, I persisted because my ancestors have long believed andfought for the emancipatory potential of education. In this space of conflict 1joined Freire in the belief that all education is political. And when the politics ofmy black body and my children's bodies negotiated the politics of educationinaccessible without engaging institutional cultural identity, a bloody war wasinstigated. This war had gone on nationally since the arrival of African's toAmerica or from a Mexican perspective since the domination of the United Statesin the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - and has gone through phases; firstreconstruction, the second reconstruction, the civil rights movement, the 14thamendment, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Brown v. Board Of Education. In myschooling, I was taught that this matter of my racial and cultural identity ineducation was no longer a problematic. The assumption here is that we now livein a color blind, post-racial society. Through my experiences; with my story, mybody and my spirit as a witness, I am here to testify that we do not live in a post- 112

racial world. As such, it is becomes a critical necessity that we produce everydaytools that are helpfu! in interculturai and interracial living, addressing theinequities and barriers that race logics produce.Institutional Discrimination Discrimination is the act of denying access to power, resources,knowledge, information, social privilege and opportunity on the basis of one'smembership in a group, typically race, sexuality, gender, economic position,nationality, and religion. The aggressor in an act of discrimination can be anindividual, a group, or both, who dominantiy possesses institutionally valuedcultural, social, and political power. Identifying whether or not one has beendiscriminated against has historically been difficult to do because the nature ofdiscrimination is complex and fluid and treatment of it has often been simple andfixed. It often changes its presentation over time and is culturally fitted. But thecore-defining principal on which discrimination lies, the denial of access to anindividual or group because of their cultural membership persists throughout timeand cultural contexts. Social Justice Advocates and victims of discrimination know with painfulintimacy how difficult it is to articulate the dynamics of discrimination and itseffect, to others. To do so well means being able to locate with specificity thelogic and the acts of discrimination while in motion. But it is this identificationwork that can expose discrimination as a structural link in a larger project ofoppression, thereby making it possible to disrupt its reign of terror. Disruption 113

here can serve not on!y to mitigate the effects of discrimination, neutralize itsstrength, and develop space in order to resist for new ways of being to emerge;but will also labor concurrently to dismantle the structure of oppression. I consider discrimination phenomenologically, a social construction of themind. There are structural dissections, which prove helpful to the effort of locationand naming. First, the collective aggressive action of discrimination presents invarious forms but can be reduced along an axis, on opposite sides are theindividual and the institutional. That is to say that the aggressor is either actingalone as an individual or acting on the authority of an institution as an agent. Inthe case of an institution, the aggressor can be inanimate, such as a policy, a lawor an organization's culture. A secondary dissection looks at whether or not the act of discriminationis overt or covert. Overt discrimination can be described as an obvious form ofdiscrimination that is easily identifiable by language or by sight; you can see itand/or you can hear it. In overt discrimination it is clear that an aggressive act isin violation of a socially acceptable normative order. For example, in the year2009 across most cultural groups it is clear that a White person calling a Blackperson a nigger is in violation of what is socially acceptable. Conversely, covertdiscrimination is elusive. You can neither obviously see it, nor hear it. Ourcommon everyday language struggles to name acts of covert discrimination. Covert discrimination can occur individually or institutionally (Miller, 2008).Acts of individual discrimination such as micro-aggressions (Solorzano, Ceja, & 114

Yasso, 2000) can often be dealt with organizationally by either removing theperson who discriminates from their position or by persuading the person to haltthe behavior in question. In a lecture on institutional discrimination, feminist JoFreeman notes: Institutional discrimination is built into the structure itself and is more covert and more tenacious. It can occur regardless of the desires or intention of the people perpetuating it. As institutional discrimination is built into the normal working relationships of institutions, its perpetuation requires only that people continue 'business as usual'.... Since most institutions have been structured to discriminate in the past, the change in policy will not lead to a change in results unless there is also a change in the institutions.Producing and circulating evidence, language, and sophisticated readings ofinstitutional covert discrimination can reposition marginalized identities withininstitutions. Such repositioning can create opportunities to secure political andsocial access and equality for non-dominant cultural identities. The following counter-narratives challenges the discourses of theachievement of equity in education and post racialism and aims to reveal thepervasive force of institutional discrimination. Toid from once voice andpositionality, the following mother and son counter-narratives are juxtaposed andchronologically presented. Mirroring the stones as they were lived, these writingstell of the everyday educational experiences of a mother in her doctoral work andher son, a young Black male in his middle school years (6th, 7th, 8th).La Madre - 1st Year Graduate Student As I read the words \"Congratulations! ... I am pleased to inform you thatupon the recommendation of the faculty, your application for PhD studies has 115

been approved for admission for Fall Quarter 2006\" (Personal Letter), I was filledwith overwhelming joy. 1 felt as if my impassioned prayers were answered and anew wonderful journey was to begin, I was ready to build a serious career associal justice activist. For me, earning this graduate degree was a critical toolneeded to do this work. My hope was that in the acquisition of critical knowledgeI could be healed from the wounds of racialized oppression I had previouslyexperienced - and that I would be prepared to help others who suffered in similarways. I never imagined the fight I was in for in my choice to pursue thiseducation. I never imagined that the pursuit of education would be my praxis ofintercuitural communication work. The first class 1 took was a quantitative research class, a requiredmethods course. Our first assignment was to do a reflection paper where I readan essay and was asked to write a reflection on the reading. The day I got mypaper back, I was puzzled by the professor's disapproving written feedback andafter class I waited to ask him about his comments. As the last person left theroom, we stood alone. Unbeknownst to me I had run into a White culture ofpower (Lisa Delpit, 1995 as cited in WiNink, 2009), when I asked what he meantby his comments, he assaulted me by a screaming attack. As he faced me hetold me that I had no business being critical of an established scholar. \"Who did Ithink I was\" he said, \"as a nobody-graduate student\" offering my thoughts onsomebody of \"his caliber\", i was intimidated and shocked from his aggressionand left our encounter with no words to offer. I was confused about what I was 116

supposed to say in a reflection, if not my thoughts on the materia!. Having noidea why he reacted the way he did and struggled to understand how I was goingto be successfuf on the next reflection that was soon due. Just before the nextclass he looked surprised to see me, \"I thought I had run you off-he said. Iresponded \"no, don't worry. I don't run off that easily. I'm staying\". Thatexperience was the first of many traumas I would face in my time the graduatestudies program. From that point on it was extremely difficult (and still is) to sharemy work that includes personal writings such as my thoughts, reflections orstories. I learned early on that I would feel much safer as a distancedresearcher/scholar and that some knowledge, embodied knowing, and politicswere unwelcome in the academy. I am unlearning this lesson. In each of theclasses that! had from that point on, I would relive the trauma from that moment,often paralyzing me with fear and rendering me non-productive. i felt a lot of pressure to succeed in graduate school. And the threat of notsuccessfully navigating this culture's terrain risked my family's well being. We all(my family and friends) had given up a lot for me to pursue my doctoral work, notcompleting this degree meant great harm to my community, a good deal of thatharm being financial. I wanted to do whatever it took to succeed and wasunwilling to allow this barrier to get in my way. As an intervention, I tried to approach other graduate students who were ayear or more ahead of me to learn more about this new culture. It was difficult toget anybody to speak to me. I attended a gathering and tried to get information 117

through soda! networking but received a cold reception. My failures incommunication in the classroom and in other efforts gave me the distinctimpression that there was another network of cultural knowledge that I needed toaccess. There were informal rules, power structures, and basic culturalinformation that I needed to know. I spend a lot of time trying to survey the landand observe my surroundings, hoping to gain any information that would help meas an outsider get inside the culture. During my first two years I was a work-study in the department office. Iused this opportunity to try to learn more. I approached the professor of mymethods class who was also the department chair and explained that I had cometo understand through my readings and in speaking with people i met that eachgraduate program had a distinct culture with its own set of norms and politics. Iasked him what those were for our department, i was looking for someone whocould translate or explain this culture of power, but as Deipit argues those wellschooled in this culture are least able to explain it. He refused to look at me andtold me no such things applied to our department. But I soon learned that this was untrue. I was a graduate student in adepartment with treacherous and complicated politics in a university setting withits own set of politics and culture that were different and at times in opposition ofmy own as a Mestiza. Everyday I worked in the office; I would sit at a desk facinga wall in the middle of the main hall walkway. For most people to get to theiroffice they needed to pass directly adjacent to my chair. Most of the professors 118

didn't acknowledge my presence by speaking to me or looking at me. As a firstyear student, really no one knew me, but it was alien to my way of being in theworld not to acknowledge someone who is in the same room as you, let aloneright next to you, or better yet who spoke to you first. I had a lot of time to observe because I was given no responsibilities.Every now and then someone would speak to the chair's assistant and in front ofme say, \"can you please have the work-study copy this\". Or they would approachme directly if she was not there and say \"are you the work study\" and give metheir photocopies to make. I had personally gone to every single office to seekwork. They never had any for me. So on the days I worked in the office, i secureda sitter for my children and paid for parking only to sit for hours at a time facingthe wall as the office \"work-study\". \ paid more per hour to be there than I made,but I did it hoping I could learn something, anything that could help me in theprogram. Even though I had managed some success as a financial analyst,business consultant, business owner, senior vice-president, mom of three,teacher, and trainer, my prior knowledges were worth nothing here. After I let thedepartment chair know that I was again available to anyone who neededanything, he sent me on wild goose chases. One time he asked me to godowntown to a government office and photocopy files that he needed for hisresearch. I went, paid for my own parking and stood for hours photocopying files.When I got back I overheard him on the phone talking to the gentleman whose 119

office i had just left. He told him that they felt sorry for me and had to give mesomething to do for \"work-study\". He apologized for my presence and thankedthe gentleman for obliging their charity to me. He also put me on a pretendproject organizing his research. When I actually took the project on and pursuedit, responding to one of my updates to him he told me, in organizing I was doingtoo much and that next time i should consult him before I acted. When I realizedit was a pretend job and that he had no real interest, I decided there was no realproject and stopped doing it. I realized that they believed I had nothing to offer asa \"work study\", so ! sat and faced the wall, I was useless and also nameless, ieven had a mailbox that instead of my name, like all of the other graduatestudents who worked out of that office, mine said \"work-study\". It was the dailyroutine of making me invisible, not acknowledging my presence, inviting me tospeak and then punishing me when I spoke, and rendering me nameless thatslowly robbed me of my worth, self-esteem, and conditioned me for subjugation.It was so odd that I could be invisible as one of only two Black bodies in thedepartment, there multiple days out of the week. I thought I stood out with my bigcheeks and big hair. It was almost comical the way that they pretended not tosee me. If it didn't hurt so much I would have laughed. But even laughter was inappropriate and absent in this culture. 1 learnedquickly from trying it myself that this was not a place where you talked to otherpeople, laughed out loud, listened to music or frankly give the appearance thatyou were joyful. I had the same problem my son Dominique had in school. I was 120

a spirited and joyfu! person who wanted to engage the environments I was in,quickly learning that these behaviors and state of being were culturallyconsidered inappropriate for my body. i soon learned that the nameless, no laughter, do not speak unlessspoken to thing was limited to my body. I hated the way ! felt when I was at theUniversity. In an act of resistance to my conditioning and in a genuine attempt tobridge the cultural differences, I attempted use my own cultural values ascommunity oriented and relational in order to have a place in my department.Determined to build a relationship with my methods professor, everyday I cameto work I stopped at his open doorway to warmly and enthusiastically say \"hi\".Most days he would look up at me, express disappointment, iook down at hisdesk and say a cold \"hi\". A few times he never looked up or spoke at all, Spersisted, telling myseif that this humiliating exercise would pay off in the end.During one of my workdays I brought into the office a box of my favorite cookies,alfajores, a wonderful light shortbread cookie with a thin layer of dulce de leche(caramel). The cookies were a delicate treat from my favorite Peruvian bakeryacross town. I learned from my abuela and grandmother that \"food is love\". And iwanted to show him that I had genuine interest in getting to know him. I showedup at his door, greeted him and offered to share my box of cookies with him. Herefused my offer and later told me him that my actions could be considered abribe and was inappropriate. I was stunned that I was being disciplined for an actof iove. Still I hoped that there would be a moment where he would grant me 121

access as an insider, as a person, a student who had a right to be there. Thatmoment never came, and I remember so distinctly when i forced myself to getthe message that he was sending: I was nobody-a nigger- who shouldn't bethere. I had stopped by his doorway to say \"hi!\", I even asked how his weekendwas? He responded to me with his usual disdain and coldness. I concluded thatperhaps he was busy and that maybe this was just his way, and returned to sit atmy desk facing the wall. As I sat down I heard a professor greet him as shepassed by. He almost fell over himself trying to enthusiastically wave her down tocome back. They spent the next twenty minutes or so talking about basketballand other social conversation. I could no longer ignore that in his eyes I was anigger, not fully a human being. From that point on I faced the wall and became quiet. When otherspassed me I no longer tried to speak. I never really tried anymore to talk to theassistant who sat so close I could lean over and tap her shoulder. I accepted mymarginalization and invisibility as part of the informal culture. What was importantwas that I complete the program and graduate. I was willing to capitulate. But in ashort time I would again unknowingly transgress the space of Whiteness with myBlackness and risk the completion of my degree. There was, in my first year a nasty and contentious faculty search for aprofessor in the department in my area of concentration. Apparently this was thesecond year they had conducted the same search. The search had ended 122

prematurely the year prior because of department politics. The department chairhad asked a student in my area to lead the graduate students in theirparticipation in this search. I was asked to attend several of the functions(lunches, job talks, teaching demonstrations, and breakfasts). S also hadvolunteered to pick up a candidate from the airport. None of these tasks werevery easy for me. My participation in each task meant that I had to be creative infinding additional resources that I normally didn't have (gas, parking, babysitting,time etc.). But I wanted badly to participate as this was the first opportunity I hadto become an insider. I wanted to establish myself as a member within the culture. I attended allof the functions I could, and then attended a gathering of the students to vote onthe candidate we most likely wanted to see hired. This decision was to bepresented to the faculty by our graduate student representative. As asked, Iparticipated in the graduate student deliberations, and wrote a letter of support tothe faculty. As it turned out, there was great political contention amongst thefaculty in their private deliberations. The results shook the entire department andits student body. The process appeared to be unjust, lacked transparency andhad the appearance of a high level of dishonesty. I will never know what reallyhappened behind the scenes, but I do know that 1 was invested in seeing throughmy participation. I witnessed for myself tremendous disrespect to many of thepeople who were involved. Many were hurt in this process and as one whobelieves in community, I saw my role to attend to injustice and to attend to others 123

who had been spiritually and psychologically injured. I did so. I sat with peoplewho were in pain and listened, acknowledged their truths and contributedactivism where I could. 1 attended a meeting where i was invited as a part of thegraduate student body to address the unrest stemming from the hire. And in ameeting between myself and the department chair I shared my concerns aboutsome of the horrors I witnessed. At his invitation and for my own integrity I washonest in my communication with him. I was shocked to hear some of hisadmissions to the inclusion of racism as a part of the hiring decisions. I spoke mytruth for what it was worth and i left. In between these activities, I correspondedabout my political position on the matter with the professor who was personallyaffronted by the search and also to whom I had come to the university to studyand was building a relationship with. With the chair, I built into my discussion a push for inclusiveness,transparency, and respect and used the chancellor's statement of diversity wherehe called on all departments, staff and students to participate in the University'sinclusion efforts. I felt that as a department we were not in compliance with thedesired call of the University and offered him a copy of the statement with myhighlights marking the areas I felt we as a department were in violation. I madesuggestions that I thought could help us like, open departmental dialogues, waysthat we could be more transparent, and bringing in outside inclusivenessconsultants for training. He refused the copy I made for him and told me that hewould have to speak to \"Bob\" (the university chancellor), they sometimes golfed 124

together, he said. He needed to discuss with him this policy on diversity, whichhe saw no way that we as a department could be complicit in its spirit or in thetechnicality of the statement's call. After this conversation he never spoke aboutit with me again... I later learned that his invitations to speak with me were notgenuine attempts at dialogue. They were a tactic of surveillance. I misinterpretedhis requests to talk for genuine efforts to resolve conflicts together. I would soonpay a price for my mistakes and for my visibility and vocality. That term during my class with my methods professor and departmentchair I sat invisible in the room. I had learned my role in the classroom and triedto stay as quiet and as still as I could. I only spoke when I was asked to.Throughout the class I was constantly encouraged by the professor to quit theclass and take an incomplete. Even though I was keeping pace with the classand never complained, he would call me into his office and tell me that therewould be no shame in taking an incomplete or in not finishing. He told me franklythat I was not what they had hoped for in a PhD candidate. I still was confusedabout where I was failing. He would only tell me that I was not hitting the markbut he would never tell me what he wanted or how I could hit the mark. In classhe often didn't teach. We shared information about our projects or his teachingassistant would lead class, but I most often missed getting information from himthat would help me be the student he hoped to see. And he would often provide conflicting information. For example, he wouldsay in class that no interviews were needed for our research projects and then 125

two weeks before the final project was due he told me that I needed interviews inorder to be successful in the project. When i asked how many, he said, \"I don'tknow. One is fine.\" So i got an interview and then a week before the project wasdue he emailed me and said that I would need several more and to meet withhim about it. I remember the day we met. He had nothing to offer, really nothing to say.I asked explicitly what I needed to do in order to be successful. I felt like I waschasing a moving target. He gave me an impossible task to interview severalmore people in a matter of days.! believe in my heart that he was setting me upto fail - though I was too naive to know it at the time. So, I got the interviews andproduced a paper. On the day they were due, he was sitting in the front officewith his teaching assistant. He literally dropped his jaw in disbelief that I hadfinished and kept repeating himself saying, \"You got all of the interviews, this isthe final paper?\" I told him yes and gave him my work. On the last day of finals week, I later learned that I was administrativelydropped from the course. The chair of the department and my professor hadreceived a copy of an email communication about the faculty hiring decision Iwrote to another faculty member. The affronted professor in making a broaderargument about the injustice involved in the search included my email as supportin her written letter. That same day, I was mysteriously administratively droppedfrom my methods course after I had earned an \"A\". 126

I didn't know what had transpired untii the following term when my gradewas stiil missing. After several unreturned phone calls and emails, I intentionallyasked my professor about my grade in front of another faculty member so that hecould not evade me. His response was indifferent, so I began calling around theuniversity seeking help. Not until he was contacted by an outside administrativearm of the university did he respond; \"Jacquelynn - - Egad! The reason you didnot get the \"A\" you earned is that I had not noticed that your name did not appearon the grade sheet. ...\" (personal communication, 2007). It seems he missed me,the only Black student -with the big hair, as one of the seven students in theclass. He later told me in the same breath as he announced his prior activism inthe civil rights movement, that I ought to be careful about what I say and what Iwrite, and linked my previously politically written communication to mymysterious drop in the administrative rolls, eluding to some institutionalconnection another faculty member with \"power\" had. Spring Quarter, 2006 In the final quarter of my first year I took a required quantitative methodscourse with a senior faculty member outside of my area of concentration. As aresult of the department hiring scandal, my mentor the only senior faculty in myarea of concentration, felt she had no choice but to leave the university. She wasa woman of color, a brilliant scholar and a woman of integrity who generouslyinvested in me through her mentorship. Her absence signified a great loss for thedepartment but also for our area of concentration, culture and communication 127

studies. I also suffered a personal loss with her leaving as she was an importantpart of my community, I cared for her and her family and she mine. She saw meas a young scholar with potential and treated me as such. Her classrooms wereone of a few safe places I had at the University, where I couid be sure that noone would be allowed to dehumanize me through race-based discrimination. The methods class I took was from one of three remaining senior faculty.This instructor was the second professor-student interaction I had where I wouldinterface with the senior faculty who held the bulk of cultural power in thedepartment and had large personal investments in building, shaping, andnurturing the politically and socially toxic department environment. The 2nd ofthree senior faculty members she had been one of the individuals who chose notto acknowledge my presence in the office; her norm was to look at me and lookaway or look past me as if I wasn't there. Right before the start of the term, Iattempted to talk to her for the first time. Having heard from other students thatwe would be required to have outside class times, I decided to break myinvisibility and ask her about the details. I had limited resources and planningcare for three children was a careful balancing act. Any extra time I spent awayfrom the kids needed careful scheduling if it was going to happen. But when 1introduced myself and asked her about the details of the class, she refused todiscuss it with me, telling me that I would just have to find out like everyone elsewhen class started. Realizing that there were no alternatives on the table, 1thanked her and went back to being invisible. 128

This theme of being invisible carried over into her classroom. I triedearnestly to engage the quantitative methods material, which was starklydifferent from my critical qualitative work. I was excited to learn what tools ! couldpick up that would help me in the business world. And though she neverdiscussed the politics of quantitative methods, I read some of her politicalsubtexts in her classroom pedagogy. On the first day of class she was publiclydismissive of critical cultural work and targeted myself and one other culturestudent. She asked \"what was it that we were intending to study for the classproject, given the limitations of cultural work including nothing more thanmarginalized people critiquing White's for having power.\" I didn't know how torespond to her. I was clear of her judgment of cultural studies and mycommitment to social justice work through her public display of disapprovingtones and language. 1 recalled what happened earlier in the year when I dared tospeak. I decided to keep my mouth shut and that was how the silencing of mybody in her classroom began. I struggled with the new material, but remained determined to learn howthese methods could be useful in my work. After asking a few questions in classand being embarrassed by her exaggerating non-verbals which let everyoneknow that she thought I was dim, I stopped asking questions. The first fewassignments that I turned in had clear notes on how wrong my work was, but nonotes on how to make things right. I tried a couple of more times to answer thequestions she asked the class, but she would typically ignore my presence. 1 had 129

gotten so used to it; that it became normal to me and others in the room. No onethought it was odd that she ignored my voice and that I was marginal to the othereight people in the room, i had also gotten used to struggling on my own in theprogram and \ began to !ive in such a state fear of psychological blows that mosttimes S didn't want to risk speaking or sharing my work. ! did so only when I wasfeeling extremely confident or when I was forced to. From the first day of class this professor told us all that she didn't want toteach the class but she had been forced to. Most days she either started classlate, ended class early or didn't hold class at all. Despite my enthusiasm andoutside class research, lacking peer and teacher support, I had given up trying tofind out how quantitative methods could serve critical cultural work. Having beentold in her class that raced people like me were most often statistical outliers andnumerically insignificant, I manufactured a class assignment that would leastoffend the other's intellectual and political sensibilities. This was difficult to dogiven that I had to abandon most of what I knew in order to fit their researchparadigm, leaving me with little intellectual resources. The other student'sseemed to neatly fit within White, Western, and positivistic frameworks and didn'tseem to have the trouble I did. One day, about week four of a ten-week term, the professor posed aquestion to the class. Feeling particularly confident in my answer, I decided torespond. As I spoke, she looked at me and said \"no\" and restated her question tothe rest of the class. My White, male peer answered using exactly the same 130

language I had used. \"Yes!\" she responded, \"that is exactly right\". And in thatmoment all of the puzzle pieces fell together for me and ! realized again that forthem I was a \"nigger\", who should be mute and invisible. Breaking myconstructively forced silence violated the norms of Whiteness and each time I didthat i was disciplined through a number of different tactics. I began to realize thatall of the times she had ignored me had been tactical. Like the last puzzle piecesnapping into place, 1 understood with their eyes how my Black body waspositioned in the classroom. In just an octave below conversational tone I blurtedout \"but I just said that, those exact words and you said no?\". She and the classignored my statement, in bewilderment I said \"you ignored me and you always dothat...\" They also ignored those words and as usual continued class with me onthe margins. I sat in my seat running the scenario of what had just occurred through myhead. I had no answers to this new problem 1 discovered, it was a \"huh\" momentfor me that needed more analysis. While taking lecture notes I realized that theparking meter for my car was soon going to expire. 1 had been there five hoursthat day in my work study position and had exceeded the maximum allowabletime on the meter. Concerned because of recently receiving several parkingtickets, I gathered my things to go and feed the meter. As I was doing that, theprofessor told the class that we would be getting out soon and that she wasgoing to wrap up the class early. Modifying class times was consistent with her 131

teaching style so I decided to just leave early rather than to feed the meter, iquietiy packed my things and slipped out of the room. The next morning I showed up to my job of staring at the waii. Thedepartment chair and my former professor asked to hold an urgent meeting withme. Caught off guard at his request to meet with me, which was a break in thesiience and invisibility they insisted 1 keep, I asked if the meeting could wait. Iwanted to prepare myself for potential psychological violence which I knew hehad no shame in perpetrating. He refused my request and insisted that we meet. When I walked into his office, there was a stern look on his face. Heexplained that \"yesterday, after class\", my quantitative professor rushed into hisoffice in a state of extreme emotional distress. He described her as being volatile.He wanted to have a serious discussion with me \"about the prior class events\". Ihad no idea what he was referring to. I told him so and asked him to tell me whatshe was upset about. Her narrative, as she reported it to the department chairwas: \"While holding class, Jacquelynn answered a question I asked that I didn'thear. Then suddenly she screamed at me, calling me a racist in front of the class.She angrily caused a scene in the room and then rushed to pack up her thingsand stormed out of the room,\" Apparently she had convinced the department chair that I was savage like,and my uncontrollable rage frightened her. She requested that he formallyintervene. I was shocked to hear this story, where out of the imagination of aWhite racist mind my identity was re-cast and publicly distributed as an angry

Black savage female who threatened the well being of my classmates and theinstructor. There was no opportunity to reclaim and re-center who I really was, apolitically committed anti-racist, earnest and bright student who believed ineducation and willingly invested my resources into its pursuit. My spiritual andpolitical instincts coupled with my previously learned lessons told me to becautious in my next moves as any display of emotions, embodied knowledge, orsudden or expressive non-verbal communication would confirm for the chair andmy professor both that I was the angry Black savage female they constructed meas. Though anger swelled inside of me from the violence of the return of myselfas nigger, I subdued it fearing the political and social costs that would surelycome from its expression. I said a silent prayer and in a calm and firm voice I denied this narrativeand told him that no such thing had ever occurred. I explained to him what hadhappened the day prior and explained that her narrative was in no way amiscommunication, a mis-interpretation of those events but a bold assaultcomposed of completely vicious and racist lies that portrayed her as Whitefemale victim from Black savagery. 1 further explained that 1 interpreted her moveto bring this outrageous lie to the department chair for action to be taken againstme as an act of political sabotage. I never even knew that she had felt this wayas she never shared her concerns with me; instead she went immediately to thedepartment chair with these fabricated concerns. 133

After I was toid that I would be put under a formal investigation, withinminutes I brought the White male classmate who had repeated my prior daysanswer and would certainly testify and debunk the professor's claims. He offerednearly the same account that I had given to the department chair in front of usboth, which dispelled all of the professor's claims. I also told the chair that anyother person in that room would say the same thing and suggested that theprofessor was clearly psychoiogicaliy imbalanced. The chair toid me that hecould not accept the other student's testimony as he interpreted him as myfriend. I explained that 1 was one of seven students in our cohort and I had thesame collegial relationship with all of them. I wondered what kind of body heconsidered an impartial and \"objective\" witness? And why was the testimony ofWhite bodies always valued over the testimony of Black bodies? It took no effortfor this professor's imagination to be considered reality and I was forced intohaving to address this assault or risk its rogue assaults. It was a whitewashing ofjustice, where justice is a superficial cover for what was a sanctioned witch huntchasing an illusion of an objective truth that he as the self-appointed adjudicatorof justice would uncover. I later found out that the professor, who had a reputation in the departmentfor intimidating those whom she held direct power over, had co-opted a peer inmy cohort into supporting her claims against me. I was again in shock thatanybody's integrity would allow themselves to commit such acts of violence 134

against another. Even though I had seen iterations of this kind of race-basedpsychological warfare before, it was as if I was seeing it for the first time. I asked the department chair not involve anyone else in this officialinvestigation against me. f began to lose hope that anymore of the remaining fourpeople in their witnessing of what they saw with their ocular eye, risk theirstanding in the class and for half of them, their program, where this professor haddirect influence over their success. To be honest, I didn't want to be furtherembarrassed, degraded, and humiliated. I didn't want to risk further alienation inthe program. And I didn't want anyone else to be hurt in this insanity. He told methat I didn't have the right to keep my peers out of the investigation and againstmy wishes asked other students to provide their accounts of what they saw. My worst fears became realized. I quickly became the leper amongst all ofthe department student body. They believed that I was socially and politicallymarked for death. And no one wanted anything to do with me. This wasparticularly true for those in my cohort who saw me frequently throughout theweek. I was iced out by my peers. I later learned that I had become the subject ofmany student happy hours and though I never shared most of the details of all ofthe ongoings with anyone, most felt comfortable with the gossip they invented.And no one offered their support. Within 24 hours of the teacher's accusation, Iwas completely outcast from my learning communities. This was a large loss tome as a first year student. I felt myself slipping completely into this newly givennigger identity, unfit for this society. 135

With the knowledge that the professor had made no attempt to make meaware of her issues, the chair requested that she cal! a meeting with me. Sheemaiied and gave me a range of meeting times. I responded and we set a dateon the calendar. In the hours prior to our meeting she tactically changed themeeting time, reducing the meeting to a short window before our class started.This move pre-empted any real opportunities for dialogue and place her in aposition of power. It was a common bullying negotiating tactic. I agreed still tomeet with her feeling that 1 had no choice. 1 arrived at her office. It was the first time I had seen her since hearingfrom the chair of her racist accusations. Glaring at me with hostile eyes she said,\"What do you have to say for yourself?\" I could feel the heat rising within mybody and I looked around the tiny office for a window that could possibly give merelief through its opening. Finding no windows, I looked back at her with seriousintention and said \"Dr. - told me you were upset, why don't you tell me why youare upset?\" She then went into a diatribe describing a similar story to what thechair described only this time it came with a dramatic nonverbal performance thatemphasized her fear of me from my wild aggression. I also learned that she hadco-opted my peers and discussed her concerns about me with them, I suspecttrying to gain ally's in her \"fight\" with me. In that moment i leaned on all of mybusiness communication training in negotiations, which was extensive, to assessmy position. Quickly running all of the possible outcomes to this exchange in myhead I realized that there was no good outcome for me. I had concluded that I 136

was dealing with someone who was a classic example of what communicationscholars Spangle and Moorhead call \"crazy makers\" (1998), a particular kind ofnegotiator who uses specific manipulative tactics in order to force an outcome.Almost literally I accessed my full embodied and intellectual knowledge on thistype of communicator and responded: \"In this situation, you have all of the powerand I have none. I don't feel safe and I will not discuss this with you any further\".She was outraged and insisted that I engage her. I knew better than to engage acrazymaker, their goals are most always entirely self-serving and will exhaustyou with their manipulative tactics in order to force your capitulation (Spangle &Isenhart, 2003). Once I saw that she was committed to living as truth the lies shetold, there was no choice but to abandon any dreams of dialogue, conflictresolution, or transparency and move to protect my own interests; which hadchanged from learning new tools for my research to getting a passing grade forthis required foundations course. When she stood up to insist that I engage her, I responded again withcalmness and stillness; \"You have all of the power, and I have none, i don't feelsafe. And I will not discuss this with you further\". I added, \"you may be surprisedthat ( have a very different understanding of our class that day, but right now Ineed to earn a grade for this class and I will not discuss this until the grades areturned in\". She became so angry and erratic. I couldn't predict what her nextmoves would be. Still I sat in the chair facing her and waited for her to make amove. With dramatic non-verbal communication she picked up her phone to call 137

the department chair who was in his office down the hail. He did not pick up thephone all three times she dialed his number. She pushed past me and wentdown the hall to his office. I followed her. She knocked on his door and he didn'tanswer. She then opened his door to find him sitting there. \"Do you have aminute\" she asked. \"Not really, I have a class\" he replied. \"This will only take aminute\" she said. And she let herself into his office. I foiiowed and took a seat.She complained to the department chair that i would not speak with her. Withboth of them looking at me, I said: \"I don't know if you believed that because Dr.- was here that my position would change, but it hasn't. You have all of thepower, and i have none. I don't feel safe.\" i said calmly. \"I will not discuss thisfurther until I earn my grade in this course.\" The chair asked me if I wanted todrop this course. With focused energy I looked at them both and said \"I fullyintend on finishing this course\". To which they replied \"we fully expect you tofinish this course\". \"Great then we are in agreement\" I told them. The chair thenasked my professor to return my graded papers (to this point she had returnedvery few of my bi-weekly assignments) and she agreed. She began to cry and say that she tried so hard to get along with me and Irefused. She said she couldn't understand why we had so much conflict becauseshe liked me and wanted me to like her. I curled my lips under my teeth to keepfrom expressing my rising disbelief and disgust. She was, in front of me inventingnew imagined narratives that presented us as having ongoing conflict despite herbest efforts. It was a construction of me as difficult and oppositional. Four weeks 138

prior to this recent drama I had never spoken to this woman before and couldn'teven get her to acknowledge my presence with a greeting. In her class she spentthe majority of the time pretending like I wasn't there. There was no struggle tobe in a teacher-student relationship ... where she was concerned, I iived on themargins, watching her interact with students (my peers) that she valued.Appearing to be wise to the new inventions of this story, the chair asked her ifshe had mentioned any of these things to me before, because she hadn't untilnow mentioned them to him. She admitted that she hadn't, and we all dismissedthese new claims. We all adjourned and it was understood that I would continueto be investigated and would have to wait for its completion before any furtheraction wouid be taken. In the mean time I went back to class. That day in class, just minutes after we had met, her mood shifted fromangry, fearful and frustrated to a public performance of exhilarating happiness. Ihad gone to the bathroom to cry from the sadness and stress I was feeling fromall of this and she was happy? Her joy from my pain caused me to becomeconfused and feel further alienated. And though I attended every class after that,I really wasn't there. I could not hear anything she said, my body wasexperiencing pain and my spirit had collapsed. I was depressed and facing theclassroom each session just deepened this state of being. I hung my head everyclass session and journaled to keep myself from crying and to keep myself fromexploding from the rush of painful emotions I was experiencing. Every classsession was traumatic for me. I was unable to stop the pain, but I refused to quit. 139

The following are excerpts from poetic transcriptions of the journaling I didwhile in that class: -Dr. - has been successful in silencing me by creating division, alienating me, and excluding me. -She has silenced me with creating stories and replaced my identity with a racist construct of \"angry Black woman\", planting the construct and then merely asking for verification through unequal power relations. -She disrupted my education with her abuse of power and manipulative coercion. -She manipulated relationships in order to build coalitions to support the powerplay. When she accused me of calling her a racist publicly without a basis for her claim, she damaged my reputation. In essence she singled me out, created a story which made me the villain, and her, victim/heroin. -What she has done is to make a claim so outlandish that there would be a dichotomy in its public reading. To argue against it would require the defiance of Whiteness, which places others in unfair circumstances. (Personal writings, 2007) I filled pages with encouragements to myself and other reflexive writings. It was in this quantitative methods class that I began to compile my raced experiences within organizations in order to theorize institutional 140

covert discrimination. In my first move to begin thinking about thedifferences between organizations and institutions I wrote: \"theorganization's benign attitude toward justice is the indictment ofinstitutionalized oppression\". For me, this marked the beginnings ofimagining and then formaiizing methods for creating knowledge fromembodied oppression. i learned from the department chair that he had concluded theinvestigation and found there to be no basis for the professor's claim. Hetold me that his discoveries corroborated my earlier testimony. I asked forthe documentation of this investigation and he advised that it would beforthcoming. After significant time had passed, I asked again and he toldme that! shouldn't press for such things and \"go against a tenuredprofessor\". He said that I was inviting trouble for myself and it made melook crazy. According to him, if I would just let it go he would \"take care ofme\", providing me with any recommendations for jobs or programs (shouldI choose to leave) that I needed. I expressed my surprise at his offer towrite me a recommendation. He sung my praises and told me it was hisobservations from working closely with me that i was an outstandingstudent and worker. I couldn't believe he was saying this because he hadbeen clear to me in meetings and classroom encounters prior that hethough me to be inferior and lacking the high caliber of desired graduatestudents. I think he understood from my facial expressions that his words 141