RACE-EVASIVENESS AMONG CAMP WORKERS

Camp workers hope that summer camps help kids bridge difference. Educational
research, though, raises concerns about preparing youth workers to combat racism. An active
field of White teacher identity studies documents the complexities and contradictions of
educators’ understandings of race and racism (Crowley, 2016; Jupp, Berry, & Lensmire, 2016).
This study examined race-evasiveness among camp workers in their conversations about racism
and justice at camp.
Theory and Methods
Critical Whiteness Studies and White teacher identity studies frame this research. A key
tenet in these traditions, both undergirded by Critical Race Theory, is that racism and White
supremacy are deeply ingrained in American society, including its educational institutions
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Critically-oriented camp research, then,
might interrogate the (re)production of racial hierarchies in camp settings. Indeed, Valerie Ann
Moore’s research, the most prominent on race at summer camps, studied kids doing race and
Whiteness in camp contexts (2002; 2003). My study draws on Whiteness studies and school
research to examine how camp workers evade confronting race.
This study is part of a larger activist intervention project in which I facilitated antiracist
trainings and discussions among camp workers, from counselors to executives. Like McIntyre’s
(1997) similar project with teachers, I sought both to effect change among workers and to derive
scholarly knowledge about racial understandings from these encounters. For conversations about
race and camp, I gave workshops at two camp conferences and at three pre-summer orientations
in addition to discussing race during in-the-field staff support at my home camp. The majority of
people involved with these discussions about race at camp were White or European-American. I
spoke to more workers at residential than day camps and more camp administrators or directors
than cabin counselors. The workshops themselves often centered on discussing a series of true
camp vignettes, each in some way illustrating the functioning of race at camp.
Detailed ethnographic notes from my perspective as participant-observer in these
discussions and the subsequent analyses constituted the data that informed my conclusions. I
worked with what camp staff said and theorized them in relation to race at camp. For analysis, I
used constant comparative methods (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to arrive at the two emergent
categories (Charmaz, 2014) described below. The ways that staff talked about race patterned in
ways that coalesced across contexts (i.e. workshops and trainings) and that connected to ways
teachers talked.
At later analytical stages, I employed grounded theory techniques to develop theoretical
sensitivity to concepts in school research, relating them to my own theorizing (Charmaz, 2014).
As a result, I often borrowed extant labels from terminology in the teacher education literature,
especially in the case of strong convergence at the conceptual level. I discussed notes and
insights with other race theorists and activists, while recurrently consulting with academic
literatures to further develop insight and instrumental utility (Eisner, 1991). I consider mine to be
preliminary work linking the camp context to the well-developed theorization of Whiteness and
race-evasiveness in schools among teachers.
Results
In examining the significance of camp workers’ race talk, my analysis settled on two
major thematic categories. These two sets of discursive strategies constituted ways in which
camp workers enacted race-evasiveness. The first category was reflected in commitments to
upholding hegemonic understandings of race and racism. The second consisted of prioritizing
White comfort. Both represented ways that, in discussion, camp staff evaded critical engagement
with antiracism.
Upholding Dominant Racial Ideas
Researchers have documented a variety of discourses about race that teachers use and
that bolster dominant racial ideologies and hierarchies (Amos, 2011; Picower, 2009; Solomon,
Portelli, Daniel, & Campbell, 2005). Upholding hegemonic ideology in this way inhibits teachers
and youth workers from approaching and challenging racism in classrooms, in curricula, and in
their own contexts and lives (King & Chandler, 2016). I encountered similarly problematic race-
evasiveness in my work with camp staff. Below, I examine discursive strategies that upheld
dominant racial ideas: colorblindness and humanist caring.
Colorblindness. Colorblind racism, as a general ideology, asserts that our society, and
thus our schools, are somehow post-racial (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Milner & Laughter, 2015).
Colorblindness in conversations about race and youth work function to obscure how racism
shaped people’s ideas and experiences at camp. In discussing camp stories designed to highlight
racial dynamics, some staff accepted racism as a premise, while others adhered to a discourse of
colorblindness. Lewis (2001) noticed this tendency in a predominantly White school where
adults deracialized racial incidents.
Common responses among camp workers diminished the significance of race, even when
involved persons explicitly pointed out racism they experienced. Staff offered unprompted
alternate explanations of racist patterns. Alternative accounts could be quite elaborate,
enumerating theoretical circumstances that would seem to imply an absence of racism. This
vindicatory colorblindness was especially clear in cases when there was a White actor who could
be identified as contributing to the problem. Explicit downplaying or dismissing of race as
motive or as effect did occur, but it was not necessary to oppose race-conscious framing in this
way: colorblind redirecting and rethinking also effectively evaded or elided race.
These responses and reactions of the camp staff, moreover, served a social and discursive
function. They obscured the role of race and racism at camp. Even one’s acknowledgment of
racism in society may not disrupt one’s investment in the idea that camp and racism are
incompatible. These staff members self-selected into a racial justice workshop and were tasked
with brainstorming antiracist responses and preventive measures, yet they persisted in
elaborating alternate explanations or solutions that did not involve race.
Humanist caring. In like fashion, general humanist ideas of caring helped many camp
workers avoid acknowledging racism at camp. Like Bonilla-Silva’s (2003) concept of abstract
liberalism, discourses of humanist caring tended to advocate for the racial status quo by
appealing to ideals. Suggestions of nonracial, individualized humanist solutions to problems of
racism often threatened to dominate conversations among the camp staff.
Much like colorblind framing of the problem, humanist solutions were race-evasive in
effect. Camp cultures are often generally kind, yet youth of color can still face racialized
marginalization. Staff reported that their camps had (colorblind) anti-bullying programs in place
and many felt good about their efforts to engender kindness and friendships. When discussing
racial lacunae in these systems, though, – where kids or staff of color were disaffected in
patterned ways – staff proposed more of the same humanism. A racist microaggression prompted
calls for White aggressors to be kinder. Bree Picower notes that this “tool of treating others well
or ‘just be nice’ served to create an individual response to institutional and societal issues”
(2009, p. 208). Indeed, if instead this sort of meanness is seen “as the interactional reproduction
of larger structural inequalities” (Pascoe, 2013, p. 89), then the folly of individualized responses
becomes evident. By suggesting that kids should just be kinder, camp workers ignored the
racialized nature of specific conflicts and the systemic nature of racism. Staff did not appear to
be prepared for structural or institutional analyses and instead shifted the conversation to the
individualized thinking of humanist caring.
A related deployment of humanist caring came coupled with false equivalence. Several
camp leaders made reference to prejudice and stereotypes “coming from all directions” and
suggested generic conversations about equality. This false equivalence between the words and
actions of differently racialized groups deflected the idea that racial power is premised on anti-
Blackness and pro-Whiteness. One staff member brought up a story to showcase a Black
camper’s racial prejudice to give credence to the discredited, but dominant, idea of reverse
racism. In these ways, then, the camp workers with whom I discussed race upheld hegemonic
ideas about what race is and how to address it, to the detriment of productive antiracism.
Prioritizing White Comfort
The other prevalent type of discursive strategy among camp workers was to prioritize
White people’s comfort. It is well documented that White people’s emotions are re-centered and
given primary importance in a variety of contexts (DiAngelo, 2011; DiAngelo & Allen, 2006).
For camp staff I spoke with, this looked like considering White youth first, neglecting youth of
color, and using emotional tools of Whiteness (Picower, 2009) to evade responsibility or guilt.
Considering White youth first and neglecting youth of color. One vignette that camp
staff heard involved a Black boy calling out a White boy’s racism. A training attendee said they
would respond by chiding the Black boy because it is “not nice to say that about someone.” This
response not only negated the Black boy’s victimization (and resistance!) but also gave more
weight to the White aggressor’s feelings. In every training and workshop, moreover, people
expressed reluctance to label White people as racist for their racist actions. Researchers have
recorded similar commitments to protecting White feelings at the expense of clear and
compelling challenges to White supremacy (DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2014).
A similar focus on White comfort was evident as camp staff responded to vignettes with
ideas for how they could approach White youth after racist incidents. Racist microaggressions
became teachable moments for White youth, but, if Black youth were even considered, it might
be an opportunity to punish youth of color for their reactions. In this way, a racist situation could
be compounded by camp staff’s re-marginalization of young people of color.
Emotional tools of whiteness. Picower (2009) stressed that emotional tools of
Whiteness, especially self-protective ones, “serv[ed] to obfuscate the concepts [under
discussion]” (p. 205) and “protect dominant and stereotypical understandings of race” (p. 197).
Besides defending White campers and staff in vignettes, camp staff sometimes took steps to
protect their own ignorance or inaction. One White camp director prioritized his comfort in
discussing possibly racist programming, asserting “If I’m doing something wrong or offensive,
tell me and I’ll change.” Some may find it surprising that a camp director would place on a
camper the burden of responsibility for confronting him about a racist microaggression, but
racial logics presuming good White intentions and abdicating responsibility are well-documented
(Hytten & Warren, 2003). Such a course of action assumes no duty for racial self-education, an
anomalous approach for otherwise dedicated camp leaders.
Many other staff seemed to frame the work of challenging racism as going above and
beyond their duties, a self-protective discursive strategy that presumed their lack of involvement
or responsibility. One memorable comment characterized antiracism and social justice as “some
people’s thing” but an area that others “just aren’t that into.” This framing, in neglecting the role
of antiracism in fulfilling positive youth development’s universal promise, is tellingly
dismissive. Such moves to prioritize their own and others’ White comfort, much like upholding
dominant racial ideas, took the place of brainstorming antiracist actions and responses for which
the workshops and trainings were designed.
Discussion
Race-evasiveness, in my analysis, characterizes how camp staff made use of these two
sets of discursive strategies. This is not necessarily a condemnation, though. On the one hand,
the teacher education literature tends to characterize race-evasiveness as problematic and as a
counterproductive denial of racial reality. On the other hand, others in the field have recently
theorized such conversations as part of the learning process in White teacher’s potentially
antiracist identity formation (Lowenstein, 2009). It is important to acknowledge that White
teachers and White camp staff can hold both progressive and regressive racial beliefs (Jupp et al.,
2016). Research following up on this work might document both evasions and engagements with
race, especially in relation to how they actually come to bear on camp professionals’ practice.
For current camp professionals, this study suggests room for growth, areas for both
learning and unlearning. Familiarity with camp staff and their comprehension of and their
stances toward race, racism, and racial justice, furthermore, provides a basis for training in the
profession; the idea of race-evasiveness even gives direction for re-orienting the industry toward
positive social change regarding race. Camp staffs’ thinking about race, after all, is important
because we are educators, involved with millions of kids each year and we do hope we can help
kids bridge difference.
 References
Amos, Y. T. (2011). Teacher dispositions for cultural competence: How should we prepare
White teacher candidates for more responsibility. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 481–
492. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627037
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Crowley, R. (2016). White teachers, racial privilege, and the sociological imagination. Urban
Education, 1-27. doi: 10.1177/0042085916656901
DiAngelo, R. J. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3, 54–70.

DiAngelo, R. J., & Allen, D. (2006). My feelings are not about you: Personal experience as a
move of Whiteness. Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies,
2. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dk67960

DiAngelo, R., & Sensoy Ö. (2014) Getting slammed: White depictions of race discussions as
arenas of violence. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 103-128, doi:
10.1080/13613324.2012.674023
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Hytten, K., & Warren, J. (2003). Engaging whiteness: How racial power gets reified in
education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 65–89. doi:
10.1080/0951839032000033509a
Jupp, J. C., Berry, T. R., & Lensmire, T. J. (2016). Second-wave White teacher identity studies:
A review of White teacher identity literatures from 2004 through 2014. Review of
Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3102/0034654316629798
King, L. and Chandler, P. (2016), “From non-racism to anti-racism in social studies teacher
education: social studies and racial pedagogical content knowledge”, in Crowe, A. and
Cuenca, A. (Eds), Rethinking Social Studies Teacher Education in the Twenty-First
Century, Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 3-21.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97, 47-68.
Lewis, A. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) all-
White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 781–811. doi:
10.3102/00028312038004781

Lowenstein, K. L. (2009). The work of multicultural teacher education: Reconceptualizing
White teacher candidates as learners. Review of Educational Research, 79, 163–196.
doi:10.3102/0034654308326161

McIntyre, A. (1997). Constructing an image of a White teacher. Teachers College Record, 98,
653–681.
Milner, H. R., & Laughter, J. C. (2015). But good intentions are not enough: Preparing teachers
to center race and poverty. The Urban Review, 47(2), 341-363. doi: 10.1007/s11256-014-
0295-4
Moore, V. A. (2002). The collaborative emergence of race in children’s play: A case study of
two summer camps. Social Problems, 49, 58–78. doi: 10.1525/sp.2002.49.1.58
Moore, V. A. (2003). Kids’ approaches to whiteness in racially distinct summer day camps. The
Sociological Quarterly, 44(3), 505–522. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb00543.x
Pascoe, C. J. (2013). Notes on a sociology of bullying. QED, 1(1), 87-104.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 12, 197–215.
doi:10.1080/13613320902995475

Solomon, P. R., Portelli, J. P., Daniel, B. J., & Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial:
How White teacher candidates construct race, racism, and “White privilege.” Race,
Ethnicity, and Education, 8, 147–169. doi:10.1080/13613320500110519