Nothing to add: A Challenge to White Silence in Racial

The official journal of the White Privilege Conference. A program of the Matrix Center for the Advancement of Social Equity &Inclusion Discussions
Understanding & Dismantling Privilege

Robin DiAngelo

Volume II, Issue I

February 2012

Abstract

This paper analyzes a common dynamic in interracial discussions on

race: white silence. Using whiteness theory as the frame, I explicate the
common white rationales for silence in discussions of race and
challenge each of these rationales from an antiracist framework. These
rationales include: “It’s just my personality—I rarely talk in groups”;
“Everyone has already said what I was thinking”; “I don’t know much
about race, so I will just listen”; “I don’t feel safe / don’t want to be
attacked, so I am staying quiet”; “I am trying to be careful not to
dominate the discussion”; “I don’t want to be misunderstood / say the
wrong thing / offend anybody”; and “I already know all this.” I argue
that regardless of the rationale for white silence in discussions of race, if
it is not strategically enacted from an antiracist framework, it functions
to maintain white power and privilege and must be challenged.

Robin DiAngelo Ph.D. teaches at Westfield State University. Her

research is in Whiteness and racism in Education. She has twice been
honored with the Student’s Choice Award for Educator of the Year. She
is widely published and has provided anti-racism training for a range of
organizations, including the City of Seattle and New York Public
Schools.
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

As unconscious, habits of white that bolster the advantageous social position

privilege do not merely go unnoticed. They of whites at the expense of people of color.2
actively thwart the process of conscious
reflection on them, which allows them to In cross-racial discussions it is easy
seem nonexistent even as they continue to to be distracted by white participants who
function (Sullivan, 2006, pp. 5–6). dominate; indeed, facilitators spend a lot of
energy strategizing about how to rein these
participants in. For example, in the
educational film, The Color of Fear (1994),

A
s a white person involved in in which a racially diverse group of men
national antiracist education in the discuss racism, the white man who
United States for the last 15 years, I continually dominates the discussion and
have had the unique opportunity to observe, invalidates the men of color receives the
across time and place, consistent patterns of greatest amount of attention in every
white engagement in discussions about race. discussion of the film I have attended. Yet
Although like most white people, I have there is another white man in the film who is
been socialized to avoid explicit racial at the other end of the participation
discussions, years of intentional spectrum, one who rarely speaks and has to
commitment and practice have enabled me be asked directly to join in. This participant
to continually challenge this socialization. receives little if any attention following the
On a daily basis, I lead or participate in film, but his role in the discussion is no less
racial discussions, working with both racially salient. In this paper, I want to direct
primarily white groups and cross-racial our attention to the often neglected end of
groups—sometimes alone and sometimes the participation continuum—white
with a co-facilitator of color.1 My position silence—and provide an analysis of and
leading these discussions allows me a kind challenge to that silence. Using whiteness
of concentrated exposure to the discourses theory as the frame, I will explicate the
and practices taken up in racial dialogues various ways that white silence functions in
that function to support white domination discussions of race to maintain white
and privilege (“whiteness”). Although these privilege, and challenge common white
discourses and practices have been well rationales for this silence. These rationales
documented by others (see Bonilla-Silva, include: “It’s just my personality—I rarely
2006; Picca & Feagin, 2008; Pollock, 2004; talk in groups”; “Everyone has already said
Trepagnier, 2007), I focus on the group what I was thinking”; “I don’t know much
dynamics involved in the production of about race, so I will just listen”; “I don’t feel
whiteness in “real time”; the unspoken, safe / don’t want to be attacked, so I am Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
unmarked norms and behavioral patterns staying quiet”; “I am trying to be careful not
to dominate the discussion”; “I don’t want to

1 2
Of course whites frequently engage in discussions Of course whites frequently engage in discussions
of race, in both implicit and explicit ways, e.g., of race, in both implicit and explicit ways, e.g.,
discourses on “good neighborhoods and schools” and discourses on “good neighborhoods and schools” and
racialized comments and jokes. I am not referring to racialized comments and jokes. I am not referring to
this form of discussion on race. I am referring to this form of discussion on race. I am referring to
intentional facilitated explorations of our racial intentional facilitated explorations of our racial
socialization, feelings, and perspectives for the socialization, feelings, and perspectives for the
purpose of deepening cross-racial awareness, either purpose of deepening cross-racial awareness, either
in all-white or inter-racial groups. in all-white or inter-racial groups.

2
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

be misunderstood / say the wrong thing / interpersonal, cultural, and institutional

offend anybody”; and “I don’t have anything levels (Frankenberg, 2001).
to add.”3 In so doing, I hope to provide an
accessible challenge to silence for white Frankenberg (1997) defines
participants in these discussions, regardless whiteness as multidimensional: “Whiteness
of the context in which it may occur—in the is a location of structural advantage, of race
classroom, workplace, workshops, or privilege. Second, it is a ‘standpoint,’ a
professional development seminars. My goal place from which white people look at
is to unsettle the complacency that often ourselves, at others, and at society. Third,
surrounds this silence and motivate silent ‘whiteness’ refers to a set of cultural
whites to break their silence. practices that are usually unmarked and
unnamed” (p.1). Race is conceptualized as a
Theoretical framework constellation of processes and practices
rather than as an isolated entity. These
Although mainstream definitions of processes and practices include basic rights,
racism are typically some variation of values, beliefs, perspectives, and
individual “race prejudice,” which anyone experiences purported to be commonly
across any race can have, whiteness scholars shared by all but that are actually only
define racism as encompassing economic, afforded in any consistent way to white
political, social, and cultural structures, people. Thus, to name whiteness is to refer
actions, and beliefs that systematize and to a set of relations that are historically,
perpetuate an unequal distribution of socially, politically, and culturally produced,
privileges, resources, and power among and that are intrinsically linked to dynamic
white people and people of color (Hilliard, relations of white racial domination (Dyer,
1992). This unequal distribution benefits 1997; Lipsitz, 1999;; Frankenberg, 2001;
whites and disadvantages people of color Roediger, 2007).
overall and at the group level (although
individual whites may be “against” racism, Whiteness is both “empty,” in that it
they still benefit from a system that is normalized and thus typically unmarked,
privileges their group). Racism is not fluid and content laden or “full,” in that it
within the United States in that it does not generates norms and reference points, ways
flow back and forth, one day benefiting of conceptualizing the world, and ways of
whites and another day (or even era) thinking about oneself and others, regardless
benefiting people of color. The direction of of where one is positioned relationally
power between whites and people of color is within it (Dyer, 1997; Frankenberg, 2001).
historic, traditional, normalized, and deeply This definition counters the dominant Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
embedded in the fabric of U.S. society representation of racism in mainstream
(Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2001). Whiteness education as isolated in discrete incidents
refers to the dimensions of racism that serve that some individuals may or may not “do,”
to elevate white people over people of color and goes beyond naming specific privileges.
(DiAngelo, 2006a); whiteness is the Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and
relationship of dominance between whites operating at all times and on myriad levels.
and people of color. This domination is Whites are theorized as actively shaped,
enacted moment by moment on individual, affected, defined, and elevated through their
racialization, and their individual and
3
A special thank you to Anika Nailah and John Kent collective consciousness formed within it
for invaluable feedback on earlier drafts.

3
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

(Thandeka, 2000; Van Ausdale & Feagin, socialized to participate in these relations
2002; Morrison, 1992; Tatum, 1997). (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2002). Antiracist
education seeks to interrupt these relations
Within the current racial construct, of inequality by educating people to
white racial comfort and sense of racial identify, name, and challenge the norms,
equilibrium are rooted in norms and patterns, traditions, structures, and
traditions that uphold relations of inequality; institutions that keep racism and white
one of these norms is to avoid talking openly supremacy in place. A key aspect of this
about race, especially in mixed-race groups. education process is to “raise the
When white normative taboos against consciousness” of white people about what
talking directly about race are broken, racism is and how it works. To accomplish
especially within the context of deliberately this, the dominant conceptualization of
challenging the norms that hold racial racism as isolated to individual acts that
inequality in place, it is uncomfortable and only some (bad) individuals do, rather than
destabilizing for many whites, and they will as a system we are all enmeshed in, must be
seek to regain their comfort and sense of countered.
racial stability (DiAngelo, in press).
Therefore, whatever moves whites make in a Race is a dynamic and ongoing
racial discussion that are intended to regain production; there is no race-neutral space.
or maintain racial comfort or the racial As Dyer (1997) states, race is “never not a
equilibrium that has been interrupted by the factor, never not in play” (p.1). Focusing on
discussion itself necessarily work to specific incidences of racism rather than on
maintain traditional racial relations. In this racism as an all-encompassing system
context, when whites employ silence to makes a personal, interpersonal, cultural,
maintain some degree of comfort, that historical, and structural analysis difficult
silence functions (albeit seldom explicitly) (Macedo & Bartolome, 1999). Using a
as a means to regain white dominance. relational and systematic definition of
whiteness and racism allows whites to
Antiracist education explore their own relationship to racism and
move beyond isolated incidences and/or
Antiracist educators, like whiteness
intentions.
theorists, conceptualize racism as a
multilayered, multidimensional, ongoing, In the following section, I focus on
adaptive process that functions to maintain, one key way that whiteness is reproduced
reinforce, reproduce, normalize, and render within the context of antiracist education:
invisible white power and privilege. white silence. I discuss common white
Antiracist education deliberately goes rationales for white silence in discussions of
Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
beyond the “celebrating differences” race, and challenge these rationales from an
approach common to most diversity training antiracist framework. I acknowledge that
and centers the analysis on the social, silence can, of course, be a constructive
cultural, and institutional power that so mode of white engagement in racial
profoundly shapes the meaning and outcome discussions, by differentiating between the
of racial difference. Antiracism education temporary and contextual silence that results
recognizes racism as embedded in all from active listening and silence as the
aspects of society and the socialization primary or only mode of engagement.
process; no one who is born into and raised
in Western culture can escape being

4
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

Overall effects of white silence whiteness is a necessary start, but if it isn’t

accompanied by a change in behavior,
In racial dialogue, white silence alliance with whiteness remains intact.
functions overall to shelter white
participants by keeping their racial Silence has different effects
perspectives hidden and thus protected from depending on what move it follows. For
exploration or challenge. Not contributing example, if white silence follows a story
one’s perspectives serves to ensure that shared by a person of color about the impact
those perspectives cannot be expanded. of racism on their lives, that silence serves
While one can, of course, gain deeper to invalidate the story. People of color who
understanding through listening, there are take the social risk of revealing the impact
several problems with this being one’s of racism only to be met by white silence are
primary mode of engagement. Listening left with their vulnerability unreciprocated.
alone leaves everyone else to carry the Whites could offer validation, for example,
weight of the discussion. And, of course, if by sharing how the story impacted them,
everyone chose this mode no discussion what insight they gained from hearing it, or
(and hence no learning) would occur at all. what questions it raised for them.
On the other hand, one may have something Conversely, when white silence follows a
to say that is insightful and contributes to particularly problematic move made by a
everyone’s learning, but if a lack of white participant, that silence supports the
confidence can’t be overcome, everyone move by offering no interruption; in
loses. essence, white silence operates as a
normative mechanism for these tactics.
The role of silent whites is critical to When white silence follows a white,
protecting whiteness, for white dominance antiracist stand (such as challenging one’s
depends, in part, on the silence of other fellow whites to racialize their perspectives),
whites (Mura, 1999; Picca & Feagin, 2007). it serves to isolate the person who took that
In the context of particularly difficult stand. This isolation is a powerful social
discussions, white silence serves to penalty and an enticement to return to the
embolden explicitly resistant participants comfort of white solidarity. In this context,
because it establishes that no challenge will white silence denies the support that is
be forthcoming, and can even imply critical to other whites working to develop
agreement. Even if whites who are silent antiracist practice.
find the behavior of their peers problematic,
their silence allows explicitly resistant When is white silence a constructive move
participants to continually dictate the agenda in racial dialogue? Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
of the discussion and rally resources around
themselves as facilitators (and others) work White silence, when used
to move them forward. At the minimum, the strategically from an antiracist framework,
resistant participants receive no social can be a constructive move in racial
penalty from other whites, and the silence discussions. Indeed, too much white
effectively maintains white solidarity. participation simply reinscribes the white
Although silent whites might recognize and dominance and centrality embedded in the
be troubled by the behavior of some of their larger society. I am arguing that white
white cohorts, they ultimately maintain their silence based on the rationale I will discuss
white privilege by not contesting this in this article is not a constructive move. I
behavior. An internal awareness of am also arguing against white silence as

5
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

one’s default mode of engagement. What white settings, the dynamics are different
differentiates constructive use of white because whites are not navigating their
silence from a reinforcement of white racism relationships to people of color in the group.
is that the person is using his or her best In the context of all-white groups, white
judgment, based in an antiracist framework silence functions to pass up the opportunity
and at each phase of the discussion, of how to explore one’s racial perspectives,
to engage with the goal of deepening racial feelings, blind spots, and assumptions
self-knowledge, building antiracist without fear of causing microaggressions4 to
community, and interrupting traditional people of color. To not take advantage of a
racist power relations. No one way for structured discussion in an all-white group
whites to engage is likely to be effective in prevents community building and antiracist
all contexts, but antiracist white engagement alignment among whites, and fails to
asks that one continually grapple with the support those whites who are actively taking
question of how best to interrupt white risks and being vulnerable in the pursuit of
power and privilege. The following are antiracist growth. In this context, the main
generally good times for whites to just listen reason for white silence should be for
when in inter-racial groups: periods of personal reflection, to provide
time and space for other more reticent
whites who need a slower pacing to speak
up, and because the person is someone who
• When people of color are discussing
tends to speak often. These forms of silence
the sensitive issue of internalized racial
can more authentically be seen as active
oppression.
listening.
• When one tends to take up a lot of
Rationales for white silence and an
airspace and, in recognition of the history of
white dominance, is trying to pull back and antiracist challenge
have a less dominant voice. “It’s just my personality; I rarely talk
in groups.”
• When other whites have already
spoken first and most to an issue in the Our personalities are not separate
discussion. from the society in which we were raised.
All whites are socialized in a white-
• When intentionally trying not to
dominant society. Seeing one’s patterns of
speak first and most in the discussion.
engagement as merely a function of a unique
• When a person of color has spoken personality rather than as sociopolitical and
and one feels drawn to re-explain, clarify, or coproduced in relation with social others is a Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
“add to” his or her point (and thereby “say it privilege only afforded to white people
better” and have the last word on the (McIntosh, 1988). By focusing on ourselves
matter).
4
• When a facilitator asks for whites to Microaggressions are the myriad slights that people
of color endure on a daily basis, most often from
just listen, hold back, or not go first. well-intended whites. Consistently being met by
white silence in an inter-racial discussion, even when
well intended, often functions as a microaggression
towards people of color. See Sue et al. (2007). Racial
The above list addresses silence in microaggressions in everyday life. American
the context of racially mixed groups. In all- Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.

6
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

as individuals, whites are able to RICH (POC): Well, in terms of putting

conceptualize the patterns in our behavior ourselves out there, I think I put myself out
that have a racist impact as “just our there too. But if I was to come into this
personality” and not connected to intergroup group and not put myself out there,
dynamics. For example, I might be an everybody would look at me kind of strange,
extrovert and talk over people when I am because I'm a person of color. So, oh, my
engaged in a discussion. I can say, “That is god, this person of color is not putting
just my personality, I do that to everyone. himself out there. What's up with that? This
That is how we talked at the dinner table in is a dialogue about race; you're supposed to
my family. And because I do it to everyone, put yourself out there. So, I mean, Tiffany
it can’t be racism.” However, when I talk has put herself out there, but I don't know
over a person of color, the impact of that how much Tiffany should be commended—
behavior is different because we bring the well, I guess she should be commended in
racial history of our groups with us the sense that she is like probably the only
(DiAngelo, 2006c). While white people tend white person that put herself out there. But I
to see themselves as individuals, people of think everybody should be putting
color tend to see us as white individuals, themselves out there.
thus the meaning of cutting off or talking
over a person of color is very different.
Conversely, remaining silent in an inter-
LAURA (POC):. I feel frustrated by the fact
racial dialogue also has a cross-racial
that white people can just choose to
impact. Antiracist action requires us to
disengage, where I'm supposed to say
challenge our patterns and respond
something, and like if I don't say something,
differently than we normally would
then I'm the quiet Asian one or something
(Thompson, 2001). The freedom to remain
like that. And so, I feel like I need to put
oblivious to that fact, with no sense that this
myself out there even more just to contradict
obliviousness has any consequences of
that. And that gets really tiring to me … to
importance, is a form of white privilege. In
constantly feel like I have to display
effect, we are saying, “I will not adapt to
something, when—even if I don't feel like
you or this context, I will continue to act the
saying anything; I might want to step back,
way I always act and you will have to adapt
but I'm conscious all the time of what that
to me.” Participants of color seldom see
looks like to people.
themselves as having the option to
disengage or withdraw from the discussion
based solely on their personal preferences
for engagement (DiAngelo, 2010). They As these two participants make clear, Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
understand that dominant culture does not the pressure of being seen as people of color
position them as individuals and has a compels them to speak up, even when they
different set of stereotypical expectations for don’t want to. Not speaking up because one
them. If they hold back, they reinforce these doesn’t want to—without penalty—is a
expectations, a concern that puts constant privilege they are not afforded; if they
pressure on them. Two people of color in a remain silent they don’t challenge the racism
recent cross-racial discussion express these that constricts their lives. Their comments
expectations: also illustrate the difference in the way
white people and people of color often
conceptualize themselves. Whites tend to

7
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

see themselves as unique individuals and not of participation, not perfection. Positioning
members of a racial group whose actions ourselves as having less of value to
represent that group. People of color, who contribute than others in the group may be
don’t have that luxury, want whites to meet rooted in dominant culture’s expectation that
them half way—to understand white knowledge should be a form of “correct”
patterns at the group level and push through information. Yet sharing what we are
the temporary discomfort of not engaging in thinking, whether “right” or “wrong,”
their “preferred” mode in order to challenge articulate or clumsy, is important in terms of
those patterns. Challenging whiteness building trust, conveying empathy, or
requires, as Rich expresses above, “putting validating a story or perspective.
ourselves out there” and engaging
differently in order to break problematic “I am trying to be careful not to dominate
racial dynamics. the discussion.”

“Everyone has already said what I was While it is important not to dominate
thinking” or “I don’t have much to add.” discussions in general and, as a white
person, not to dominate an inter-racial
Perhaps others have expressed our discussion in particular, the problem with
sentiments, but no one will express them the this strategy is that it is inflexible. Antiracist
way that we will. It’s essential to the practice asks us to think strategically—to be
discussion to hear everyone’s voice, and racially attentive to who is talking, when,
even vocalizing one or two sentences makes how much, and for how long. As a white
a difference. Further, it is important to person in the discussion, we need to ask
support those who have voiced our ourselves when it is a constructive time to
perspective—to validate it and give people speak up and when is it most constructive to
of color a read of the room; they cannot just listen. The more practiced we become in
assume everyone has already said what we racial discussions, the more easily we will
are thinking. In fact, given the history of be able to make sound strategic judgments
harm between white people and people of about where and when to enter. When we
color, people of color may assume whites remain silent we leave the weight of the
haven’t spoken because they are not aligned dialogue on either people of color or other,
with what has been said and don’t want to more dominant whites. If these dominant
reveal that misalignment. It is important for whites are expressing hostility, we aren’t
us to contribute our thoughts in order to challenging them; if they are taking risks,
demonstrate to people of color that what we aren’t supporting them. When one is
they have shared has made a difference in trying not to dominate the discussion and so Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
terms of helping increase our understanding. never joins in, one errs on the opposite side
If we are moved or gained insight from what of domination—ineffective passivity.
someone shared, we should say so, even if
others have also said it. “I feel intimidated by people in this group
who have power over me.”
Sometimes the reticence to speak is
based on a perception that those who have Complex sociopolitical power
expressed similar thoughts are far more relations circulate in all groups, and there
articulate, and that we won’t be as eloquent. are other identities besides race at play in
In my experience, openness, humility, and any discussion. While one is in a power
vulnerability are the most important aspects position as a white person, there are other

8
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

identities that may obscure that sense of that “I don’t know much about race, so I will
power because they position us in a just listen.”
subordinated (or “target”) position—i.e.,
gender or class. Because we “swim against Dyer (1997) states: “There is a
the current” in our target identities, they are specificity to white representations, but it
generally more salient to us. However, not does not reside in a set of stereotypes so
being salient does not mean inoperative; much as in narrative structural positions,
indeed, much of the power we derive from rhetorical tropes and habits of perception”
our dominant identities is in its (p. 12). One of these narrative structural
unremarkable, taken-for-granted status. In a positions is that of racial innocence. This
setting in which I feel intimidated because position functions as a kind of blindness; an
my target identities are more salient to me, inability to think about whiteness as an
this feeling of intimidation may indeed be identity or as a “state” of being that would
coming from a place of internalized or could have an impact on one’s life, and
inferiority. But, in practice, my silence thus be a source of meaning. Because whites
colludes with racism and ultimately benefits are socially positioned as individuals, or
me by protecting my white privilege and “just people” (the writer, the man, the
maintaining racial solidarity with other friend) while people of color are always
white people. This solidarity connects and positioned as members of a racial group (the
realigns me with white people across other Latino writer, the Asian man, the black
lines of difference that separate us, such as friend) we have the privilege of seeing
gender or class. When I work to keep my ourselves as outside of race and thus
race privilege salient and speak up in this unfamiliar with it (DiAngelo, 2006c). The
context, I not only break white solidarity, I white claim that one does not know much
simultaneously interrupt (and thus work to about race is particularly problematic
heal the “lie” of) my internalized inferiority because, while it positions whiteness as
where I am also in a target position. “innocence,” it simultaneously reinforces
the projection of race onto people of color—
In situations in which we may share they have race, not us, and thus are the
key identities such as race and gender with holders of racial knowledge. In so doing, we
someone but fear there may be repercussions position ourselves as standing outside of
because he or she holds more power in the hierarchical social relations—as if the
specific context than we do—e.g., I am a oppression of people of color occurs in a
staff worker and my supervisor is in the vacuum. White obliviousness is not benign;
room, or the professor who is grading me is it has material consequences because it
in the group—a different kind of courage is allows us to ignore the impact of racism on Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
needed. This is the courage to put our people of color while enjoying its benefits at
integrity to do the right thing above the their expense.
possibility of repercussions. Ultimately, we
have to make a decision. Do I protect myself Many whites have not thought about
and maintain white solidarity and power, or race in the way that antiracist education
do I authentically engage in antiracist conceptualizes it, but once we are
practice? introduced, it’s important to share our
thoughts. If I have never thought about these
issues before, what am I thinking about them
now as a result of the discussion? What
specifically is new to me? What questions

9
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

do I have? What insights am I having? What make sense of our racially segregated
emotions am I feeling? Why might I have worlds. Explorations such as these have the
never thought about these things before, and potential to reveal our racial paradigms, an
what role might this play in keeping racism essential precursor to antiracist action; they
in place? In other words, how might racism are a great place to start engaging in the
depend on white people not thinking about discussion without depending on people of
these issues? Being new to the concepts is color to teach us.
not an end point or a pass to only listen and
not speak; it is a key entry point into the “I already know all this.”
discussion and into furthering self-
While the previous rationale
knowledge. positions the listener as racially innocent and
While as white people we may not thus only able to absorb the discussion, this
have thought explicitly about race from an rationale positions the listener as so
antiracist perspective, we do have sophisticated as to be beyond the discussion.
knowledge of how we are socialized into This claim gives the message to the people
denial of ourselves as racialized. We can of color in the group that there is nothing to
speak to why we believe we don’t know be gained from what they might share—their
anything about race—for example, if we stories, experiences, perspectives, or
don’t know much about it, who do we feelings. This claim is particularly
believe does and why do they have this problematic because it conveys superiority;
knowledge when we do not? Further, why reinscribing the historical invalidation of
have we not sought out this knowledge prior people of color as not having any knowledge
to this conversation? Many white people of value to white people, elevating oneself
who grew up in segregated neighborhoods above other whites in the group and the
and attended segregated schools with potential to work together with them against
primarily white teachers often believe that racism, and accomplishing all of this by
they were completely unaware of race until presenting oneself as so advanced as to be
later in childhood. I have found a series of beyond the discussion.
reflection questions helpful at unpacking
The antiracist framework
this belief: At what age was I aware that
undergirding these discussions holds that
people of color existed, and black people in
racism is a deeply embedded, complex
particular? (Most whites acknowledge that
system that will not end in our lifetimes, and
they knew by age five, if not earlier.) What
certainly not end through our complacency.
was I told about them? Where did they live?
If one sincerely believes one’s
Why did they live there and not in my
understanding of racism is more advanced Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
neighborhood? What was it like where they
than the discussion allows for (which can
lived? Was it considered nice and was I
happen when the majority of the white
encouraged to go to the places where they
participants are very new to the concepts
lived? Was I taught that I had lost anything
and the facilitators assess that they must
by their absence? If I was not taught I had
move at a slower pace), then the antiracist
lost anything by not knowing people of
way to engage is to make strategic points
color, what has that meant for my
that will help guide the other white people.
relationships with them? While these
Whites who have more knowledge than the
questions were not likely explicitly
majority of the group are in an excellent
addressed in childhood, somehow we had to
position to “mentor from the sidelines.”

10
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

They can share their process and how they processing, rather than remain silent and
came to their current understanding, validate leave others to wonder. When we have had
the struggle while reinforcing its worthiness, time to process, we can share the results
take the discussion deeper, and back up the with the group.
facilitators and participants of color.
It’s also helpful to distinguish
We may have an intellectual grasp of between the need to process and the need to
the dynamics, but awareness of racial sound controlled, correct, and coherent. If
inequity alone is not enough to trump our composure is what we are waiting for, we
participation. White people, while served are working at cross-purposes to the
well by the dynamics of whiteness, are discussion. Emotions, confusion, inner
simultaneously in a prime position to conflict, and inarticulation are all usually
interrupt it, yet to do so we must take welcome in racial discussions. Vulnerability
unambiguous action. Claiming that we and openness build trust, and while
already know is meaningless without thoughtfulness and respect are critical,
demonstration of that knowledge, and control and composure are not necessary and
remaining silent is not a demonstration of can be counterproductive.
antiracist action or understanding. People of
color involved in antiracist endeavors “I don’t want to be misunderstood.”
generally assume that all whites have a
To not speak up in case we are
racist perspective unless demonstrated
misunderstood is to protect our perspective
otherwise (Sue, 2003; hooks, 1995). To not
from deepening or expanding. It is not
explicitly take up an antiracist stance in such
possible, given the embeddedness of racism
a context can only reinforce the perception
in the culture, for white people not to have
that we are actively choosing to align with
problematic racial assumptions and blind
whiteness. Being “advanced” is not a reason
spots. Of course, it is uncomfortable and
for us to disengage; the disengagement itself
even embarrassing to see that we lack
makes the claim unconvincing.
certain forms of knowledge, but we can’t
“I need time to process.” gain the knowledge we lack if we don’t take
risks. It is imperative that we enter the
In my experience, participants who use this discussion with a willingness (even
rationale seldom return after processing and enthusiasm) to have our assumptions
share the results, suggesting that this may be uncovered so we can increase our
a deflection against “putting ourselves out knowledge and cross-racial skills, for how
there,” rather than an expression of a sincere will we realize that we have misconceptions
difference in how people process and only a partial view if we don’t share our Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
information. We may indeed need time to views and open them up to exploration?
process, but taking the time we need is still a
privilege not everyone can afford. At the When whites do feel misunderstood
minimum, we can try articulating what we in a racial discussion, it is usually because
are hearing that we need to process, and then we were given feedback on an assumption
let the group know that these are new ideas, we made or a blind spot we have in our
that we are feeling overwhelmed, and we racial awareness. Sadly, pointing out gaps in
want to let things settle in. At the minimum, a white person’s understanding is often
we can let the group know why we need the experienced as being attacked or judged.
time to process and what we will be When we insist that the issue is that we were

11
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

misunderstood, rather than engage with the that only bad people participate in racism,
possibility that we are the ones who don’t we often fear that if it is somehow revealed
understand the feedback we have received, that we participate in racism, we will lose
we close ourselves off to further learning. face and be judged. Indeed, many white
By insisting that the problem is that we have people feel very uncomfortable in racial
been misunderstood, we place the discussions, but this discomfort is actually a
responsibility for the “misunderstanding” positive sign, for it indicates that the status
onto those who we believe have quo (unnamed and unexamined racism) is
misunderstood us—usually the participants being challenged. It is therefore critical that
of color. There is no opening in this position we feel uncomfortable and not confuse
for the possibility that the lack of discomfort with danger. As for being
understanding could be ours. If we are judged, there is no human objectivity—all
unable or unwilling to consider this people judge and we cannot protect
possibility, or the corollary possibility that ourselves from judgments in any context.
people of color might have information that But feeling judged, while dismaying, should
we do not, we cannot gain new insight into not be confused with safety.
how racism functions. If the only way one
will engage in cross-racial discussion is to Further, the language of safety is not
never be challenged, there is minimal point without significance in this context. By
to the discussion. employing terms that connote physical
threat, we tap into the classic discourse of
“I don’t feel safe.” people of color (particularly African
Sub-discourses: “I don’t want to be Americans) as dangerous and violent. This
attacked.” “I don’t want to be judged.” discourse twists the actual direction of
danger that exists between whites and
The safety discourse, while one of people of color. The history of extensive and
the most familiar and understandable, is also brutal violence perpetrated by whites;
one of the most problematic. On the surface slavery, genocide, lynching, whipping,
it conveys a kind of vulnerability and desire forced sterilization, and medical
for protection. Unfortunately, it rests on a experimentation, to mention a few, is
lack of understanding of historical and trivialized when we claim we don’t feel safe
ongoing institutional, cultural, and or are under attack when in the rare situation
interpersonal power relations between white of merely talking about race with people of
people and people of color. While the color. By implying potential victimization,
feelings may be real for white people we obscure the power and privilege we
struggling with a sense of safety, some wield and have wielded for centuries. The Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
reflection may help clarify the difference safety discourse also illustrates how fragile
between actual safety and what is more and ill equipped most white people are to
realistically a concern about comfort. To confront racial tensions, and our subsequent
help differentiate safety from comfort, one projection of this tension onto people of
might ask what safety means from a position color (DiAngelo, 2006b; Morrison, 1992).
of social, cultural, historical, and People of color seldom have the luxury of
institutional power? If one does not fear that withdrawing because they don’t feel safe. It
one is in actual physical harm, then some doesn’t benefit people of color to remain
reflection on what one fears is actually at silent, as it does us. To not put themselves
risk can offer much insight. Often, it is our “out there” makes them complicit in their
self-image: Because we have been taught

12
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

own oppression, as Rich and Laura express thinking. If unsure, we can simply offer our
above. If people of color are not self- thoughts with openness and humility rather
advocating and pushing back against than as declarations of certainty or truth:
whiteness, they can’t depend on white “Please let me know if something is off in
people to do it for them, as has been amply my thinking, but here is how I am
demonstrated time and again in racial responding to this … ” Can you help me
discussions—often via white silence. While understand why … ?” “I have often heard …
the pushing back we might get from people what are your thoughts on that?”
of color can be very uncomfortable, that
discomfort is a key way to unsettle our “Anything I say won’t be listened to
world views and create the stretching and because I am white.”
growing that is necessary for authentic
At the point that this discourse
change.
emerges, we have usually been challenged
“I don’t want to offend anybody.” in the way we conceptualize race—either
directly or via the content of the dialogue,
Similar to “I don’t want to be and we are unable to rise to that challenge.
misunderstood,” this rationale allows one to Clearly we have not understood the
protect oneself against alternative objectives of the discussion or the
perspectives, responses, constructive theoretical framework that it rests on: There
conflict, or taking the risks that could is a relationship of unequal power between
potentially expand one’s awareness. This white people and people of color that all of
rationale is unfair to people of color us have been taught to collude in, but that
because, if we fear offending, it can only be only white people benefit from. One way
assumed that is because we are having that antiracist education tries to interrupt this
offensive thoughts or are hostile toward relationship is by acknowledging the power
what is being said. If this is the case, to not differential and affirming the perspectives of
put our disagreement into the room is to those whose voices dominant society seldom
deny the group knowledge of where we are hears or validates (Schiele, 2000). In turn,
coming from and the ability for others to challenging white perspectives is necessary
make any adjustments they might need in because the way that dominant culture
response to our hostility. If we are not understands race actually functions to hold
hostile to what is being said but just worried racism in place. The issue is not that we
that we may inadvertently offend someone, won’t be listened to because we are white;
how will we learn that what we think or say the issue is that—counter to what we are
is offensive if we don’t share it and open accustomed to—our perspectives will be Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
ourselves up to feedback? In effect, by not challenged at times and are not going to be
taking this intentional opportunity to affirmed just because we are white.
discover which ideas we hold are offensive,
we protect these ideas and enable them to A note on the silence of people of color in
surface at a later date and offend someone racial discussions
else. In the unique and often rare learning
Although this analysis is limited to a
environment of racial discussions, to remain
white person addressing white silence in
silent so as not to offend is to offend
racial discussions, I would be remiss if I did
twice—once through our silence and again
not at least raise the issue of the silence of
in our unwillingness to discover and change
people of color and offer some preliminary
racially problematic dimensions in our

13
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

thoughts. First, as should be clear via my privilege, the very behaviors we think are
argument thus far, the silence of whites has benign or even supportive (as I have argued
a very different foundation and impact than above) may be the very behaviors that are so
the silence of people of color, based on the toxic to people of color. Adding to these
unequal positioning of the two groups in roots of our denial, our very identities as
society; these silences are not equivalent. good people rests on our not seeing our
For Laura and Rich, quoted above, silence is racism. As Sullivan (2006) states, “As
generally not an option. However, there are unconscious habit, white privilege operates
several key reasons why people of color, as nonexistent and actively works to disrupt
including Laura and Rich, may at times attempts to reveal its existence” (pp. 1–2.).
choose silence in a racial discussion, In other words, whites work hard not to see
including: (1) in response to resistance or white privilege, which is a key way we keep
hostility expressed (consciously or not) by it protected and intact. In this context, it
white participants (this unconscious should be clear why people of color might
expression of hostility could include silence choose silence.
based on many of the reasons discussed
above); (2) a lack of trust based on well- In conclusion
founded experience that one will be
It may be clear at this point that
penalized for challenging white
much of the rationale for white silence is
perspectives; (3) a sense of hopelessness in
based on a racial paradigm that posits racism
the face of white denial; (4) taking risks and
as isolated to individual acts of meanness
being vulnerable about ones racial
(McIntosh, 1988) that only some people do.
experiences and perspectives and being met
This dominant paradigm of racism as
with silence, argumentation, or
discreet, individual, intentional, and
rationalization, all of which function as
malicious acts makes it unlikely that whites
forms of invalidation; (5) being out-
will see our silence as a function of, and
numbered in ratio to white people and
support to, racism and white privilege.
assessing that there are no allies present for
support were one to challenge white To challenge one’s most comfortable
privilege; or (6) being acutely aware of the patterns of engagement in a racial dialogue,
power differentials and choosing to protect while it may be counterintuitive, is
oneself in the face of inevitable hurt. necessarily to interrupt one’s racial
socialization. From an antiracist perspective,
It is important to keep in mind that
we can assume that our racial socialization
so much of how white racism operates is
has not prepared us to be competent in
invisible to and/or denied by white people; a
cross-racial relationship building. Although Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
room that seems perfectly comfortable to
consistent silence in racial discussions often
white people may not feel that way to people
feels benign to those who practice it, in this
of color. In fact, given white racism as the
paper I have argued that no form of white
status quo, the more comfortable a space is
engagement that is not informed by an
for white people, the more likely it is to be
antiracist perspective is benign. Going
harmful to people of color. Further (and
against one’s “grain” for engagement, while
especially for well-intended whites) because
difficult, is necessary and will result in the
we are deeply invested materially,
least harmful and most authentic and
psychically, socially, and politically as the
rewarding engagement. A white student
producers and beneficiaries of white
expresses this powerfully in a class-assigned

14
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

journal entry. In response to a person of

color in the class sharing the impact of a
recent racist incident, she writes:
As Jane finished speaking, and I
raised my hand, I became completely
overwhelmed by the enormity of what she
had said. I was terrified that anything that I
said would seem trivial or, even more
frightening, would make things worse. I felt
paralyzed by the moment, feeling in my
stomach how utterly raw and open Jane
seemed—but my need to speak, to address
what she had said, despite the probability
that I would mess it up, was greater than my
guilt or my shame or my desire to remain
quiet. I realized that the notion that I can
make it worse—that I do have that power—
requires that I speak. I realized that, in our
silence, we are complicit. In my silence for
the past four weeks of this course—and for a
lifetime before it—I have been complicit. I
no longer feel comfortable letting my silence
speak for me—it is inarticulate and
offensive. I would rather blunder along than
stay silent. I hope the people around me,
who witness my blundering, can see beyond
the errors … because remaining silent—
maintaining my complicity—is no longer
conscionable (Student Journal, July 5,
2009).

Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012

15
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

References
Applebaum, B. (1997). Good liberal intentions are not enough! Racism, intentions and moral
responsibility. Journal of Moral Education, 26(4), 409–421.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial
inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
DiAngelo, R. (2006a). The production of whiteness in education: Asian international students in
a college classroom. Teachers College Record, 108(10), 1960–1982.
DiAngelo, R. (2006b). “I’m leaving!”: White fragility in racial dialogue. In B. McMahon & D.
Armstrong (Eds.), Inclusion in urban educational environments: Addressing issues of diversity,
equity, and social justice (pp. 213–240). Centre for Leadership and Diversity. Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
DiAngelo, R. (2006c). My race didn’t trump my class: Using oppression to face privilege.
Multicultural Perspectives, 8(1), 51–56.
DiAngelo, R. (2010). Why can’t we all just be individuals?: The discourse of individualism in
anti-racist education. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(1),
1548-3320.
Dyer, R. (1997). White. New York: Routledge.
Feagin, J. (2001). Racist America. New York: Routledge.
Frankenberg, R. (1997). Introduction: Local Whitenesses, localizing Whiteness. In R.
Frankenberg (Ed.), Displacing Whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism (pp. 1–33).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Frankenberg, R. (2001). Mirage of an unmarked Whiteness. In B. Rasmussen, E. Klinerberg, I.
Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of Whiteness (pp. 72–96). Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Hilliard, A. (1992). Racism: Its origins and how it works. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Mid-West Association for the Education of Young Children, Madison, WI
hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage. New York: Henry Holt. Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012
Lipsitz, G. (1999). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from
identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Macedo, D., & Bartolome, L. (1999). Dancing with bigotry: Beyond the politics of tolerance.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see
correspondence through work in women’s studies. In M. Anderson, & P. Hill Collins (Eds.),
Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology (p. 94-105). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mills, C. (1999). The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

16
 Understanding and Dismantling Privilege DiAngelo, Nothing to Add

Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness in the literary imagination. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mura, D. (1999). Explaining racism to my daughter. In T. B. Jelloun, C. Volk, & P. Williams
(Eds.), Racism explained to my daughter (pp. 93–137). New York: The New Press.
Picca, L., & Feagin, J. (2007). Two-faced racism: Whites in the backstage and frontstage. New
York: Routledge.
Pollock, M. (2005). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Roediger, D. (2007). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working
class (2nd ed.). New York: Verso.
Schiele, J. H. (2000). Human service and the Afro-centric paradigm. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Sue, D. W. (2003). Overcoming our racism: The journey to liberation. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Sullivan, S. (2006). Revealing whiteness: The unconscious habits of racial privilege.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Tatum, B. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?”: And other
conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Thandeka (2000). Learning to be White. New York: Continuum Publishing Group.
Thompson, B. (2001). A promise and a way of life: White antiracist activism. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Trepagnier, B. (2007). Silent racism: How well-meaning white people perpetuate the racial
divide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Van Ausdale, D., & Feagin, J. (2002). The first R: How children learn racism. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Volume II, Issue I, February, 2012

17