Selected Papers of Internet Research 16:  

The 16th Annual Meeting of the  
Association of Internet Researchers 

Phoenix, AZ, USA / 21-24 October 2015 
 
LIFE  NARRATIVE  IN  THE  #RACEWARS:  TERMINISTIC  SCREENS  AND  
TWITTER  FIGHTS  
  
Michael  Humphrey    
Colorado  State  University  
  
Abstract    
  
Discourse  on  the  Internet  about  race  has  created  a  new  lens  for  observing  what  lies  
behind  denial  of  white  privilege,  giving  researchers  a  new  opportunity  to  see  how  grand  
narratives  become  personal  narratives.  This  paper  examines  examples  of  this  
phenomenon  by  looking  at  two  denials  of  white  privilege  as  they  developed  in  digital  
spaces,  and  argues  that  the  life  stories  we  tell  ourselves  act  as  “terministic  screens”    
(Burke,  1966),  filters  composed  of  language  that  distort  common  understanding.  After  
examining  the  rhetoric  of  white  privilege,  I  propose  the  development  of  “narratives  of  
discomfort,”  in  which  white  people  begin  to  re-­tell  their  stories  in  the  light  of  their  
privilege.    
  
keywords:  white  privilege,  life  stories,  terministic  screens,  grand  narratives  
  
The  topic  of  white  privilege,  defined  by  Kendall  (2013)  as  “an  institutional  (rather  than  
personal)  set  of  benefits  granted  to  those  of  us  who,  by  race,  resemble  the  people  who  
dominate  the  powerful  positions  in  our  institutions”  (p.  62),  ebbs-­and-­flows  as  a  
discussion  in  digital  spaces,  especially  as  seen  on  public  social  media  sites,  blogs  and  
comment  sections  of  mass  media  sites.  According  to  Google  Trends  (2015)  (Figure  1),  
searches  for  “white  privilege”  peaks  when  news  items  sparks  debates  about  its  
existence,  such  as  September,  2008,  just  before  President  Obama  was  elected  and  
October  through  December,  2014,  during  protests  in  Ferguson  and  the  increased  news  
coverage  of  police  violence  against  people  of  color.  Beyond  news  items,  the  topic  can  
also  find  traction  when  a  digital  text—a  Tweet,  a  blog  post,  a  meme—is  challenged  for  
displaying  problematic  assumptions  about  race  in  American  culture,  which  is  the  focus  
of  this  paper.    
  
  
Suggested  Citation  (APA):  Humphrey,  M.  (2015,  October  21-­24)  Life  Narrative  In  The  #Racewars:  
Terministic  Screens  And  Twitter  Fights.  Paper  presented  at  Internet  Research  16:  The  16th  Annual  
Meeting  of  the  Association  of  Internet  Researchers.  Phoenix,  AZ,  USA:  AoIR.  Retrieved  from  
http://spir.aoir.org.  
  



  
Figure  1  -­  Searches  for  “white  privilege”  as  tracked  via  Google  Trends  (2015).  
  
Digital  debate  and  material  culture    
  
Discourse  on  the  Internet  creates  a  new  lens  for  observing  the  latent  properties  of  white  
privilege  for  three  reasons.  First,  the  Internet  has  created  what  Papacharissi  calls  the    
“private  sphere,”  or  a  digitally  networked,  non  traditional  practice  of  citizenship.  This  
online  practice  transforms  activism  from  one  of  antagonism  to  agonism,  more  
concerned  with  voicing  disagreement  than  public  accord,  creating  broad  and    
ever-­changing  forums  for  debate.  Secondly,  the  collapsed  context  (boyd,  2008)  of  digital  
discourse,  in  which  a  number  of  social  contexts  exist  in  one  space  at  one  time,  lands  
people  in  discussions  with  strangers  or  acquaintances  with  whom  they  might  not  usually  
have  discussions  about  race.  Finally,  the  discourse  that  emerges  from  this  type  of  
citizenship  creates  one  form  of  material  culture  (Lindlof  and  Taylor,  2011),  namely,  
digital  artifacts  of  synchronous  and  asynchronous  discussions  and  debates.  These  
artifacts  that  emerge  can  be  thoughtfully  and  reflexively  studied  to  find  not  just  the  
presence  of  white  privilege  discourse,  but  key  factors  in  how  the  privilege  becomes  
obscured  from  the  privilege-­holder’s  purview.  To  put  it  another  way,  it  reveals  how    
“grand  narratives”  (Lyotard,  1979),  narratives  that  legitimize  society,  become  not  the    
“localized”  narrative  for  which  he  hoped,  but  rather  transfer  largely  undisturbed  into  
personal  narratives  which  largely  reify  the  socialized  norm.  These  opportunities  for  
observation  arise  because  conversations  among  culturally  and  racially  separated  
people,  which  might  not  have  happened  in  the  offline  world,  take  place  before  engaged  
publics  and  a  rich  set  of  perspectives  are  archived  through  timelines,  blog  posts,  video  
recordings  and  other  forms  of  media.    
  
In  this  essay  I  examine,  using  textual  analysis,  two  commentaries  in  two  distinct  digital  
spaces—one  from  an  email  exchange  sparked  by  a  Twitter  fight  (and  eventually  posted  
on  a  blog  site)  and  one  that  originated  on  a  blog—which  were  widely  criticized  for  both  
displaying  and  denying  white  privilege.  I  do  this  primarily  by  using  textual  analysis  to  
examine  a  factor  of  white  privilege  that  has  not  received  ample  attention—the  implied  
life  stories  of  the  white  commentators,  which  are  embedded  directly  in  their  arguments  
in  both  latent  and  manifest  ways.  These  life  stories  act  as  terministic  screens,  conceived  
and  defined  by  Burke  (1966)  as  a  filter  composed  of  language  that  distorts  common  
understanding  (p.  45)  about  a  social  matter.  In  this  case,  culturally  embedded  stories  



that  privileged  people  tell  as  uniquely  their  own  act  as  a  screen  from  seeing  the  
structural  forces  that  disadvantage  others.    
  
Before  applying  the  theories  of  life  story  as  identity  and  terministic  screens  to  the  
question  of  white  privilege,  as  well  as  intersectionality,  I  will  briefly  review  each  theory  
as  it  relates  to  this  topic.  I  will  then  apply  those  theories  to  the  digital  texts  created  by  
the  two  subjects  of  this  article.  I  will  then  discuss  how  challenging  one’s  own  life  story,  
especially  by  placing  a  filter  of  privilege  on  that  life,  could  lead  to  an  identity  that  is  
woven  more  broadly  with  realities  beyond  one’s  own  experience  and  enculturation.  
  
White  privilege  and  intersectionality    
  
As  a  white  male,  and  thus  a  beneficiary  of  white  privilege,  it  would  be  easy  (as  it  always  
is)  to  examine  these  discourses  from  a  disembodied  objectivity.  It  is  also  tempting.  To  
examine  the  terministic  screens  of  white  privilege  is  uncomfortable,  a  place  many  argue  
is  the  right  place  to  be  in  discussing  race  from  the  white  perspective.  For  me,  denial  of  
white  privilege  happened  first  in  ignorance  and  happens  these  days  as  a  reflex.  It  
crosses  my  mind,  for  instance,  that  people  of  color  should  not  run  or  confront  police  
whenever  I  hear  about  another  shooting,  before  I  settle  into  a  more  thoughtful  state  of  
understanding  the  general  district  of  police  that  I  do  not  need  to  have.  I  too  have  hoped  
for  a  “colorblind”  world  and  have  held  the  idea  that  interracial  relationships  would  begin  
to  solve  problems  of  race,  before  I  saw  that  this  is  another  form  of  cultural  erasure.  I  
have  worried  that  people  of  color  might  win  a  job  I  want  to  create  more  “diversity,”  
before  I  consider  the  implications  in  both  my  knee-­jerk  thought  and  the  problems  of  how  
“diversity”  is  usually  framed  as  a  way  to  advantage  white  people.  Consider  this  a  
confession  as  well  as  an  expression  of  gratitude  to  writers  and  thinkers  such  as  bell  
hooks,  Jacqueline  Jones  Royster,  Ta-­Nehisi  Coates  and  many  others  for  beginning  to  
re-­color  my  own  terministic  screen  and  help  me  to  begin  the  uncomfortable  retelling  of  
my  place  in  this  culture.  Whitney  Dow,  director  of  the  Whiteness  Project,  an  interactive  
website  in  which  white  people  talk  about  race,  correctly  states  that,  ““if  white  people  are  
going  to  participate  in  changing  the  racial  dynamic,  we  need  to  deal  with  our  own  shit  
first”  (Thrasher,  2014).      
  
It  would  be  easy,  and  useful  for  hegemony,  to  classify  all  rhetoric  that  misunderstands  
the  dynamics  of  white  privilege  as  racist.  Bonilla-­Silva  (1997;;  1999)  warns  us  against  
such  simplification  in  the  pursuit  of  understanding  racial  matters,  especially  to  eschew  
the  ideas  of  reducing  all  matters  to  racism  and  to  reduce  racism  to  irrational  thinking  
and  the  remnant  of  past  racial  constructs.  The  alternative  is  to  consider  “racialized  
social  systems,”  or  societies  on  which  political,  social,  economic  and  ideological  
systems  are  somewhat  based  on  race.  Race,  in  this  sense,  is  not  simply  phenotypical,  
but  rather  social  construction,  and  so,  race  becomes  a  social  fact  closer  to  gender  and  
class.  (Bonilla-­Silva,  1997).  The  point  of  these  distinctions  from  traditional  thinking  is  to  
make  clear  that  race  is  “a  real  and  central  social  vessel  of  group  affiliation  and  life  in  the  
modern  world”  (Bonilla-­Silva,  1999,  p.  899;;  author’s  emphasis).  This  is  a  key  point  that  
is  missed  when  white  privilege  is  not  acknowledged  because,  as  Kendall  notes  in  the  
quote  that  begins  this  essay,  white  privilege  is  also  social-­structural  reality  and  is  
easiest  to  obscure  using  personal  reference  or  anecdotal  evidence.  Bonilla-­Silva  (1997)  
makes  this  point  in  a  both  general  and  concrete  way  when  he  writes:  



The  fact  that  not  all  members  of  the  superordinate  race  receive  the  same  
level  of  rewards  and  (conversely)  that  not  all  members  of  the  subordinate  
race  or  races  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  social  order  does  not  negate  the  fact  
that  races,  as  social  groups,  are  in  either  a  superordinate  or  a  subordinate  
position  in  a  social  system  (p.  470).  

  
This  would  not  convince  anyone  who  denies,  or  even  doubts,  white  privilege  in  Western  
culture.  The  fact  is  that  a  century-­plus  of  thought  into  what  would  become  known  as  
white  privilege  has  done  little  to  affect  a  generalized  agreement  about  its  existence.  In  
more  recent  times,  critical,  historical,  sociological,  legal  and  educational  researchers  
have  attempted  to  form  convincing  arguments  and  evidence  (e.g.  DeCuir-­Gunby,  2006;;  
Boyd,  2008;;  Dei,  Karumanchery  &  Karumanchery,  2004;;  Williams,  2010)  that  white  
privilege  is  pervasive  and  has  a  real  impact  on  Western  culture.  Both  academic  and  
popular  literature  have  shown  statistically  that  people  of  color  are  less  likely  to  benefit  
from,  or  more  likely  to  be  harmed  by,  social  structures,  such  as  education,  employment,  
law-­making,  policing,  incarceration,  media  representation,  shopping,  housing  (e.g.  
Maxwell,  2014;;  Kendall,  2013;;  Crenshaw,  1991).  This  has  created  more  of  a  ripple  than  
a  sea  change  of  opinion  shifting.  These  changes  seem  far  less  about  logical  debate  and  
more  about  emotion.  As  DiAngelo,  a  white  researcher,  points  out  in  a  recent  Huffington  
Post  article,  “It  became  clear  over  time  that  white  people  have  extremely  low  thresholds 
for  enduring  any  discomfort  associated  with  challenges  to  our  racial  worldviews”  
(DiAngelo,  2015,  para.  7).  He  refers  to  this  as  “white  fragility,”  the  inability  to  deeply  
engage  with  the  reality  of  race  in  our  lives.  Our  segregation  from  people  of  color,  our  
reliance  on  old  notions  of  racism,  our  individualism,  our  entitlement  to  racial  comfort  add  
up  to  a  position  for  white  people  which  makes  it  hard  to  admit  an  implicit  role  in  the  
current  racialized  structure.  This  discomfort  is  eased  by  placing  subtle  blame  on  people  
of  color.  Hall  (1995)  refers  to  this  phenomenon  as  “inferential  racism,”  (p.  20),  
comments  and  images  that  appear  to  be  natural  representations  of  race,  but  are  imbued  
with  predicates  that  presuppose  people  of  color  are  the  cause  of  the  problems.  The  
shootings  of  Trayvon  Martin  (with  his  hoody),  Michael  Brown  (with  his  cigarillos  and  
running),  and  even  Walter  Scott  (shot  in  the  back,  but  while  he  was  running  away)  are  
examples  of  Hall’s  point.      
  
How  does  this  happen?  Helms’  (1990)  theory  of  white  racial  identity  describes  how  
internalized  racism  develops  by  a  process  of  acknowledgment  but  naivete  of  one’s  own  
racial  difference,  followed  by  a  moral  dilemma  about  one’s  racial  identity  which  is  
followed  by  idealization  of  white  group  identity,  a  sort  of  doubling  down  on  whiteness.  If  
one’s  development  stops  here,  inferential  racism  is  a  powerful  tool  to  keep  it  in  place.  
Even  the  first  step  of  emergence  (named  pseudo-­independence)  toward  a  racially  
enlightened  attitude  is  fraught  with  trap  doors,  as  Helm’s  argues,  because  this  stage  
makes  us  believe  that  the  solution  is  for  non-­whites  to  act  more  like  us.  As  most  of  this  
development  is  explained  by  the  way  we  are  raised,  what  we  learn  in  school  and  what  
we  consume  in  media,  Helms  final  steps  toward  independent  thinking  about  race  
includes  immersion/emersion,  qualified  by  a  great  deal  of  discomfort  about  one’s  own  
whiteness.  Past  that  is  autonomy.      
  
What  Bonilla-­Silva,  DiAngelo,  Hall  and  Helms  show  is  that  an  individualist  notion  of  
white  privilege  is  powerfully  reifying  of  that  status.  The  ignorance,  willful  or  not,  of  a  



racial  structure  from  which  whites  naturally  benefit  is  deeply  rooted  in  our  enculturation  
by  a  system  that  self-­perpetuates.  While  much  of  this  phenomenon  can  be  justifiably  
attached  to  a  white,  patriarchal  system,  Crenshaw  (1991)  demonstrated  that  white  
privilege  does  not  begin  and  end  with  white  men.  Crenshaw’s  intersectionality  argument  
is  complex  in  its  details,  but  the  core  premise  is  relatively  simple:  “The  problem  with  
identity  politics  is  not  that  it  fails  to  transcend  difference,  as  some  critics  charge,  but  
rather  the  opposite-­that  it  frequently  conflates  or  ignores  intragroup  differences”  (p.  
1242).  Race  and  class  play  an  important  role  in  what  it  means  to  be  a  woman  in  
Western  culture  as  well  as  what  a  feminist  agenda  might  look  like.  Here,  again,  white  
privilege  is  obscured  because  all  women  can  rightfully  acknowledge  their  own  
marginalized  status  in  a  patriarchal  system.  But  women  of  color  are  doubly  
marginalized,  as  are  LGBTQ  people  of  color,  both  by  the  dominant  male  group,  but  also  
by  the  dominant,  straight  white  female  group.  In  making  this  argument,  Crenshaw  
primarily  intended  to  show  how  the  intersection  of  race  and  class  (add  sexual  
orientation)  with  gender,  highlights  the  need  to  acknowledge  “multiple  grounds  of  
identity  when  considering  how  the  social  world  is  constructed”  (p.  1245).  The  lack  of  
such  acknowledgement  has  caused  a  major  rift  in  the  feminist  movement,  as  women  of  
color  are  regularly  left  out  of  the  justice  equation,  through  what  Ortega  (2006)  calls  a    
“loving,  knowing,  ignorance”  (p.  57),  which  is  borne  by  either  white  feminists’  arrogant  
and  inaccurate  knowledge  production  about  women  of  color  or  by  a  desire  to  love  and  
understand  women  of  color,  but  profoundly  missing  the  point.  One  of  the  two  examples  
in  this  paper  will  address  just  such  a  dispute.    
  
The  theories  reviewed  above  effectively  reveal  both  what  and  how  white  privilege  
becomes  socially  submerged  within  white  discourse.  These  insights  can  be  broadened  
by  observing  how  one’s  life  story,  observed  specifically  in  Internet  discourse,  can  
perpetuate  and  legitimize  denial  or  dismissal  of  white  privilege  by  creating  a  terministic  
screen.    
  
Life  narrative  as  identity  and  terministic  screens  
  
Bruner  (1987)  puts  it  best  when  he  writes,  “The  story  of  one's  own  life  is,  of  course,  a  
privileged  but  troubled  narrative  in  the  sense  that  it  is  reflexive:  the  narrator  and  the  
central  figure  in  the  narrative  are  the  same.  This  reflexivity  creates  dilemmas”  (p.  693).  
The  dilemmas  Bruner  discusses  include  the  impossibility  of  its  verification,  the  
confounding  role  of  “rationalization”  and  the  indeterminacy  of  the  whole  project,  but  he’s  
after  an  even  larger  complication:  instability.  Life  stories  are  shaky  things,  whether  we  
acknowledge  that  or  not,  and  that  shakiness  causes  a  susceptibility  to  “cultural,  
interpersonal,  and  linguistic  influences”  (p.  694).  This  can  be  good  for  people  whose  life  
narrative  is  hindering  their  progress  or,  worse,  torturing  them.  But  that  susceptibility  has  
large  social  implications  as  well.  The  stories  we  tell  ourselves  are  the  way  we  form  
identity  (McAdams,  1985;;  2001a),  and  thus  feel  idiosyncratic,  but  a  culture’s  influence  
on  that  story  plays  a  critical  role  on  the  way  we  look  at  other  people’s  lives.    
  
While  McAdams  addresses  multiple  codes  for  how  life  stories  shape  a  sense  of  self,  
most  famously  redemption  (bad  to  good)  and  contamination  (bad  to  good),  I  am  
particularly  interested  in  two  codes  he  draws  from  Bakan  (1966):  Agency  and  
Communion.  These  two  factors  of  life  story  formation  are  most  susceptible  to  influences  



about  the  question  of  one’s  abilities  and  responsibilities  within  society.  When  one  
achieves  a  level  of  agency  and  communion,  they  feel  both  competent  and  connected  to  
their  surroundings  (Bauer  and  McAdams,  2000).  Rorty  (1976)  explains  that  as  stories  
form  in  this  culture,  the  actor  agent  of  the  story  is  driven  by  motivations  to  act  in  society,  
which  in  turns  rewards  them  with  rights.  This  framing  of  experience  is  reified  in  a  system  
that  favors  the  actor  agent  over  a  more  collectivist  agent.  Systems  are  here  to  serve  us  
in  this  model  and  if  they  don’t  serve  you,  it’s  because  you’re  doing  something  wrong  or  
you’re  unlucky.  Thus,  agency  and  communion  become  critical  themes  in  developing  a  
life  story  of  personal  success  and  communal  belonging,  which  is  easy  to  universalize  to  
a  society  that  purports  to  be  a  meritocracy  for  all.  In  an  unpublished  article  (McAdams,  
2001b)  intended  for  coding  life  story  interviews,  McAdams  delves  into  the  concepts    
in-­depth.  I  will  summarize  these  definitions  now.    
  
Agency.  This  is  a  theme  of  self-­involvement  that  is  nearly  inevitable  in  telling  one’s  own  
narrative,  as  McAdams  explains,  because  the  focusing  on  the  self,  “encourages  a  
rhetoric  of  agency  in  most  autobiographical  accounts,  especially  among  contemporary  
citizens  of  Western  societies,  imbued  with  an  ethic  of  individualism”  (McAdams,  2001b,  
p.  2).  The  broader  concept  is  categorized  by  four  sub-­themes  that  represent  elements  of  
agency,  which  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  They  include:  Self-­mastery:  Striving  to  master  
the  self  and  become  more  powerful,  wiser,  or  both  in  the  world;;  Status/victory:  
Attainment  of  a  heightened  status  among  peers  by  virtue  of  special  recognition;;  
Achievement/responsibility:  Success  in  achieving  goals  or  taking  on  responsibility  
without  necessarily  defeating  others;;  Empowerment:  Attainment  of  improvement  
through  the  association  of  something  larger  than  the  self.  
  
Communion.  This  is  not  a  dichotomous  variable  with  Agency,  as  it  is  quite  possible  to  
feel  both  empowered  and  connected  with  the  world  around  you.  However,  communion  
places  the  emphasis  on  the  motivation  for  intimacy  rather  than  the  power  and  expansion  
of  the  self.  McAdams  draws  from  multiple  theories  in  developing  this  code,  including  the  
original  concept  of  agency-­communion  developed  by  Bakan,  but  most  importantly  for  
this  paper  is  the  influence  of  Murray’s  (1938)  insights  about  “need  for  affiliation”  and    
“need  for  nurturance.”  The  four  elements  of  communion  that  McAdams  defines  include:  
Love/Friendship:  The  enhancement  of  erotic  love  or  platonic  friendship  increases  during  
the  story;;  Dialogue:  The  presence  of  conversation  that  is  not  instrumental  (e.g.  
directions  to  the  bathroom);;  Caring/Help:  The  storyteller  reports  caring  for,  assisting,  
nurturing  or  even  developing  empathy  for  another;;  Unity/togetherness:  Expression  of  
belonging  to  a  larger  community.    
  
To  not  confuse  matters,  it  is  important  to  note  these  codes  can  be  found  in  all  lives  and  
are  often  powerful  and  good  elements  in  a  healthy  life.  The  point  for  this  article,  then,  is  
to  consider  how  these  codes  can  also  create  a  filter  on  the  “way  life  is”  in  a  more  
general  way.  At  the  same  time,  as  I  will  show,  these  codes  could  also  be  found  in  telling  
stories  that  overturn  systems.  While  it  might  be  a  bit  more  self-­evident  that  Agency  
could  play  a  big  role  in  keeping  white  people  from  acknowledging  their  privilege,  I  argue  
both  Agency  and  Communion  play  key  roles.  A  sense  of  belonging  in  a  system,  or  
culture,  that  empowers  a  person  makes  it  much  easier  to  accept  that  the  system  is  fair  
and  merit-­based.  When  it  is  clear  that  such  as  system  or  culture  does  not  exhibit  equal  
outcomes  of  success  across  all  intersections  of  culture,  a  master  narrative  of  the  



agentic  self  is  the  perfect  anecdote.  The  interaction  of  these  two  themes,  an  agentic  self  
in  communion  with  her/his  surroundings,  can  produce  structural  filters  for  a  person  in  a  
state  of  privilege.  The  more  subtle  the  privilege,  the  more  pervasive  this  effect  would  be.    
  
This  insight  leads  to  Burke’s  (1966)  concept  of  “terministic  screens,”  which  explains  that  
our  sense  of  reality  is  constructed  by  our  “symbol  systems,”  the  education,  the  media,  
the  discourses  of  our  life.  We  are  shaped  by  the  language  we  know.  That  includes  the  
stories  we  tell  and  the  identity  that  follows.  Burke  says  he  came  to  this  revelation  when  
he  saw  multiple  pictures  of  the  same  subject,  but  with  different  color  filters.  “Here  
something  so  ‘factual’  as  a  photograph  revealed  notable  distinctions  in  texture,  and  
even  form,  depending  on  which  color  filter  was  used  ...”  (p.  45).  As  an  example  for  life  
stories,  consider  a  memory  in  which  you  win  a  spelling  bee  in  elementary  school.  There  
are  at  least  three  ways  to  filter  that  experience.  One  is  to  understand  it  as  a  successful  
communal  effort  of  mother,  father,  teacher  and  you.  Another  way  to  observe  is  an  act  of  
good  chance,  in  which  words  that  appeared  in  the  contest  happened  to  align  well  with  
the  preparation  you  did.  Another  way  to  observe  it  is  by  assuming  the  agency-­victory  
role—you  won  because  you  studied  harder  than  other  students,  spurred  by  outside  
forces,  but  ultimately  to  your  credit.  Depending  on  the  language  that  is  most  available,  
and  then  the  most  salient,  to  you,  a  filter  on  that  experience  will  be  placed  on  your  story.  
How  we  filter  our  experiences  and  the  meanings  we  derive  from  them  are  not  only  
constructed  by  language,  but  also  reveal  themselves  in  language.  How  one  colors  her  
or  his  experience  reveals  much  about  the  screen  through  which  they  see  the  world.  This  
is  true  in  discourse  about  white  privilege,  which  awaits  researchers  in  the  material  
culture  of  the  Internet.      
  
To  examine  this  phenomenon,  I  am  employing  textual  analysis,  which  McKee  (2003)  
describes  as  a  method  to  make  educated  guesses  about  “how  other  human  beings  
make  sense  of  the  world,”  (p.  1)  through  texts  created  in  digital  formats.  I  have  chosen  
two  examples  to  examine  how  the  screen  can  be  found  in  the  life  story  that  is  implicitly  
and  explicitly  revealed  in  the  arguments  of  the  privileged  speaker.  The  arguments  split  
into  two  different  types  of  begging  the  privilege  question:  one  attempt  uses  denial,  while  
the  other  uses  a  dialectical  approach.  Both  exhibit  life  story  as  terministic  screens  that  
become  problematic  in  the  discourse  around  white  privilege.    
  
White  Privilege  Denial  -­  “I  could  use  some  ...  privilege”    
  
At  this  year’s  Academy  Awards,  actress  Patricia  Arquette’s  acceptance  speech  after  
winning  the  Best  Actress  was  newsworthy.  On  stage,  she  called  for  equal  pay  for  
women,  garnering  plaudits  from  the  likes  of  President  Obama.  It  was  backstage,  during  
a  more  expansive  explanation  to  the  press,  that  Arquette’s  statement  became  a  
lightning  rod  for  people  of  color.  She  said,  “The  truth  is  even  though  we  sort  of  feel  like  
we  have  equal  rights  in  America,  there  are  huge  issues  that  are  at  play  that  really  do  
affect  women.  It's  time  for  all  …  the  gay  people  and  people  of  color  that  we've  all  fought  
for  to  fight  for  us  now"  (Puente,  Feb.  24,  2015).    
  
This  comment  angered,  among  others,  many  women  and  men  of  color  who  wondered  
what  exactly  had  been  done  for  them  that  now  needed  to  be  repaid.  Arquette  engaged  
critics  on  Twitter,  as  did  many  of  her  defenders,  including  Nicole  Sandler,  who  currently  



hosts  a  show  on  RadioOrNot.com.  While  Sandler  was  defending  Arquette,  Elon  James  
White,  CEO  of  This  Week  in  Blackness,  started  this  exchange  on  Twitter  (White  &  
Sandler,  Feb.  23,  2015):  
  

Elon  James  White:  So  Patricia  Arquette,  huh?    
  
Nicole  Sandler:  @elonjames  I  don't  understand  your  

problem  w  @pattyarquette.  What  did  she  do/say  that's  
wrong?  I'm  asking  sincerely  as  someone  who  like[s]  
you  

  
Elon  James  White:  1  st  ma'am,  I'm  not  sure  why  you're  

tagging  folks  on  here  that  I  didn't  tag.  If  I  wanted  to  I  
would.  @nicolesandler  ...  

  
Secondly  I'm  actively  pointing  out  what  my  issue  is  right  now. 

I've  posted  multiple  tweets.  And  many  WoC  are  
speaking  on  it.  @nicolesandler  

  
Nicole  Sandler:  @elonjames  My  appreciation  for 

@pattyarquette  have  no  bearing  on  my  support  for  
PoC  or  LGBTQ.  They're  not  mutually  exclusive  .  
Suprised  at  u  

  
Elon  James  White:  Surprised  at  me  for  what?  Who  said  

anything  about  YOUR  support  of  anything?  This  
literally  has  nothing  to  do  with  you.  @nicolesandler  

  
Nicole  Sandler:  @elonjames  Because  I'm  a  fan,  a  colleague 

(of  sorts)  and  a  woman.  I'd  love  to  have  you  on  my  
show  to  talk  abt  this.  Come  on  tomorrow  am?  

  
Elon  James  White:  I'd  argue  you  should  have  one  of  the 

many  WoC  who  are  speaking  up  on  this  and  are  at  
the  erased  intersection  to  discuss...  @nicolesandler  

  
Nicole  Sandler:  @elonjames  "erased  intersection"?  WTF  

are  you  talking  about  
  

Sandler’s  last  statement  set  off  a  firestorm  on  Twitter.  Imani  Gandy,  co-­host  of  TWiB,  
came  on  Sandler’s  show  the  next  day,  trying  to  explain  intersectionality,  but  Gandy  
reported  on  Twitter  that  Sandler  talked  over  her  explanations  and  refused  to  
acknowledge  intersectionality,  which  only  exacerbated  the  conflict  on  Twitter.      
  
In  Sandler’s  blog  about  the  confrontation,  entitled  “They  Sure  Told  Me!”  (nicole,  2015),  
she  posted  an  email  exchange  between  her  and  White  (Appendix  1).  It  is  here  we  
observe  Sandler’s  use  of  life  narrative  as  a  rhetorical  tool  and  as  window  into  how  white  
privilege  is  screened  out  by  the  holder.  I  will  quote  three  examples,  and  then  as  a  way  



to  better  illustrate  the  story-­screen,  offer  alternative  themes  that,  had  they  occurred,  
would  create  greater  understanding  about  intersectionality.  
  
Example  1:  “I’m  a  woman  and  a  feminist.  I  never  considered  color  as  part  of  my  
being  a  feminist.  I  always  thought  the  issues  we  feminists  fought  for  were  
inclusive  of  ALL  women.”    
  
Agency-­Responsibility  and  Communion-­Unity  emerge  here,  as  Sandler  takes  on  the  
role  of  a  feminist,  unified  in  a  fight  for  all  women.  This  sense  of  both  engaging  and  
belonging  to  the  fight,  a  large  community  of  like-­minded  people,  overwhelms  the  notion  
that  to  truly  fight  for  all  women  would  mean  understanding  the  plights  of  all  women.  
  
An  alternative  screen,  which  applies  to  all  of  these  examples,  would  be  to  see  the  
experience  through  Communion-­Dialogue,  in  which  the  act  of  generating  understanding  
through  exchange  is  the  key  element  of  the  life  story  and  that  learning  what  is  not,  
cannot  be,  covered  by  a  single  form  of  feminism.    
  
Example  2:  “I  get  that  African  Americans  have  been  persecuted  and  have  had  a  
rough  ride  through  history.  I’m  of  Jewish  descent.  Shall  I  tell  you  the  stories  my  
grandparents  told  me?  Do  I  think  that  every  injustice  has  to  do  with  the  fact  that  
my  forebears  were  targeted  by  Hitler?  Not  for  a  second.”    
  
The  theme  of  Agency-­Self-­Mastery  is  subtly  exhibited  in  this  argument,  as  well  as  
Communion-­Unity.  By  reaching  to  a  legitimate  aspect  of  personal  heritage,  the  rhetoric  
assumes  the  role  of  an  intersected  member  of  society,  but  then  applies  a  latent  notion  
of  self-­mastery  to  argue  those  intersections  do  not  explain,  or  cause,  injustice.  This  
statement  became  highly  controversial  on  Twitter,  because  it  assumed  equality  of  
impact  to  have  a  latent  intersection  (Jewish  woman)  with  having  a  fully  manifest  
intersection  (black  woman).  But  more  importantly,  the  implication  that  one  has  
overcome  (through  wisdom)  a  state  of  oppression,  so  black  people  must  do  the  same,  is  
the  most  troubling  aspect  of  this  discourse.      
  
An  alternative  story-­screen  is  Communion-­Caring,  of  which  empathy  is  one  key  
element.  To  engage  in  the  data  that  shows  that  women  of  color  are  oppressed  at  far  
higher  levels  than  white  women,  and  to  understand  that  walking  in  a  white-­dominated  
world  as  a  person  of  color  is  fundamentally  different  than  walking  in  that  world  as  a  
white  person  would  have  sufficiently  changed  the  dialogue  to  a  more  constructive  one.    
  
Example  3:  “I  am  denying  that  I  benefit  from  White  Privilege.  Care  to  tell  me  how  I  
benefit  from  anything  right  now  other  than  my  own  hard  work,  cuz  I’m  trying  
really  hard  to  make  it  through  to  the  end  of  each  day.  I  could  use  some  of  any  
kind  of  privilege  right  about  now.”    
  
The  theme  of  Agency-­Achievement  emerges  here  and  creates  the  most  blatant  denial  
of  white  privilege  in  the  dialogue.  By  stating  that  nothing  is  benefiting  the  white  woman  
beyond  hard  work  is  the  most  common  life  trope  that  creates  the  terministic  screen.  
There  is  also  a  note  of  struggle  in  this,  which  would  not  code  for  Agency  or  Communion,  
but  the  overall  notion  is  one  of  personal  willpower  to  achieve  the  success  at  hand  and  



the  continuation  of  the  struggle.  The  final  statement,  however,  is  not  so  much  a  theme 
of  Agency.  I  would  argue  it  is  a  very  latent  form  of  Communion,  again,  in  which  Sandler  
references  her  own  oppressed  state  (a  woman  in  a  patriarchal  society)  as  an  
equivalent,  exhibiting  the  “erased  intersection”  White  referred  to  on  Twitter.    
  
The  alternative  screen  here  might  seem  counter-­intuitive,  but  I  would  suggest  it  lies  in  
Agency-­Empowerment,  the  story  of  how  forces  greater  than  one’s  self  improves  your  
status.  This  screen  would  tell  the  stories  of  how  being  white  is  an  advantage,  at  least 
over  women  of  color.  This  is  not  to  deny  the  existence  of  one’s  oppression  as  a  woman,  
nor  does  it  deny  the  work  one  does  to  succeed,  but  substantively  acknowledges  the  
differences  in  oppression  based  on  factors  beyond  gender.    
  
White  Privilege  Dialectical  -­  “If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid”1  
  
Dialectical  rhetoric  regarding  white  privilege  could  broadly  exhibit  two  motives.  It  could  
be  an  honest  observation  of  the  complexities  of  whiteness  in  contemporary  society,  one  
that  relents  on  the  denial  of  privilege  but  not  on  the  demands  that  the  oppressed  must  
be  responsible  for  overturning  it.  Or  it  could  be  a  clever  argument,  one  that  works  like  a  
feint  in  boxing,  where  it  seems  the  fighter  is  retreating,  so  the  roundhouse  comes  as  a  
greater  surprise.  It  is  unimportant  which  category  the  following  example  might  fall  under  
because,  as  Ortega  says  above,  genuine  love  and  false  love  may  take  different  routes,  
but  usually  end  at  the  same  dead  end.  With  that,  I  will  begin.      
  
In  December  of  2011,  Forbes  contributor  Gene  Marks  created  a  firestorm  of  comments  
on  Twitter  and  Facebook,  blog  posts,  videos,  memes  and  news  stories  with  his  essay,  
“If  I  Were  A  Poor  Black  Kid”  (Marks,  Dec.  12,  2014;;  Appendix  2).  The  post,  which  
begins  with  agreement  with  President  Obama  that  the  gap  between  rich  and  poor  is 
widening  and  that  education  is  a  key  reason.  Marks  introduces  the  topic  by  writing,  “The  
President’s  speech  got  me  thinking.    My  kids  are  no  smarter  than  similar  kids  their  age  
from  the  inner  city.    My  kids  have  it  much  easier  than  their  counterparts  from  West  
Philadelphia.  The  world  is  not  fair  to  those  kids  mainly  because  they  had  the  misfortune  
of  being  born  two  miles  away  into  a  more  difficult  part  of  the  world  and  with  a  skin  color  
that  makes  realizing  the  opportunities  that  the  President  spoke  about  that  much  harder.  
This  is  a  fact.    In  2011”  (Marks,  para.  4).  But  rather  than  meditating  on  the  hegemonic  
powers  that  make  this  the  case,  Marks’  article  turns  into  what  Hall  would  almost  surely  
label  “referential  racism,”  tacitly  blaming  West  Philadelphia’s  state  of  affairs  on  West  
Philadelphia,  a  move  Bonilla-­Silva  would  explain  is  due  to  the  inability  to  see  the  
racialized  structure  that  creates  the  situation  Marks  is  trying  to  address.  Marks,  on  the  
other  hand,  writes  that  the  availability  of  technology  in  public  spaces  could  be  a  catalyst  
for  change  within  the  black  community,  especially  for  the  “special”  black  kids  who  are  
enlightened  to  see  it.  And  it  is  within  this  thesis  that  we  see  how  Marks’  life  story  
develops  his  dialectical  terministic  screen.  Nearly  the  entire  essay  could  be  analyzed,  
mainly  because  of  Marks’  rhetorical  move  that  begins  with,  “If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  ...”  
  

                                                
1  1  It  should  be  noted  that  like  the  subject  of  this  next  section,  I  am  a  technology  contributor  at  Forbes.com  and,  for  
that  matter,  share  all  the  same  privileges  of  the  next  speaker.  So  my  own  screens  should  be  carefully  acknowledged.  



Example  1:  “I  am  not  a  poor  black  kid.    I  am  a  middle  aged  white  guy  who  comes  
from  a  middle  class  white  background.    So  life  was  easier  for  me.    But  that 
doesn’t  mean  that  the  prospects  are  impossible  for  those  kids  from  the  inner  city.  
It  doesn’t  mean  that  there  are  no  opportunities  for  them.”      
  
Communion-­Unity  is  the  implied  life  story  screen  in  this  statement,  which  becomes  more  
apparent  when  you  read  the  whole  piece.  Each  of  the  solutions  for  poor  black  kids  
emerges  from  the  world  white  person  inhabits—charter  and  private  schools,  technology  
hardware  and  software,  business  networking,  etc.  This  is  the  world  that  has,  admittedly,  
makes  life  easier  for  white  people  and,  so,  would  offer  opportunities  for  poor  black  kids  
as  well.  In  a  very  subtle  way,  this  statement  and  the  entire  essay  could  also  reflect  the  
code  of  Communion-­Help,  in  that  the  language  used  here  appears  to  be  a  guide  to  tap  
into  those  resources  in  which  the  privileged  speaker  has  already  benefited  and  reflects  
Helms’  Pseudo-­Independence  stage  of  white  development.  
  
As  I  mentioned  in  the  last  piece,  a  counter-­intuitive  alternative  story  screen  would  
meditate  not  on  community,  but  on  empowerment,  to  flip  the  question  from,  “What  
opportunities  exist  for  poor  black  kids?”  to,  “What  opportunities  are  given  to  me  
automatically  that  are  not  given  to  poor  black  kids?”  The  story  that  follows  would  have  to  
be  deeply  reflexive  and  framed  via  Communion-­Caring,  an  empathy  informed  by  those  
knowledgeable  about  the  systemic  disparities,  instead  of  by  tropes  of  the  single  mother  
too  tired  to  help  her  children.    
  
Example  2:  “It  takes  brains.    It  takes  hard  work.    It  takes  a  little  luck.    And  a  little  
help  from  others.    It  takes  the  ability  and  the  know-­how  to  use  the  resources  that  
are  available.    Like  technology.    As  a  person  who  sells  and  has  worked  with  
technology  all  my  life  I  also  know  this.”    
  
Because  this  passage  is  written  in  context  of  “if  I  were  poor  and  black,”  it  is  quite  
possible  to  see  a  whole  host  of  life  story  codes—Agency-­Self-­mastery,  Agency-­Victory  
and  Agency-­Empowerment.  This  reflects  the  type  of  rhetoric  DiAngelo  (2015)  refers  to  
when  he  writes,  “This  distinction  -­-­  between  individual  prejudice  and  a  system  of  
unequal  institutionalized  racial  power  -­-­  is  fundamental.  One  cannot  understand  how  
racism  functions  in  the  U.S.  today  if  one  ignores  group  power  relations”  (para.  4).  I  
argue  the  causal  agent  of  this  ability  to  ignore  group  power  relations  largely  lies  in  the  
combination  of  Agency  codes  exhibited  here  and  is  widespread  in  white  rhetoric.  It  is  a  
model  for  universalizing  one’s  own  success  to  all  races  and  classes,  simplified  by  
redacting  group  power  relationships  from  the  story.    
  
Here,  I  would  argue  that  the  screen  is  so  intense  that  Communion-­Dialogue  is  not  
enough.  Instead,  a  story  that  would  challenge  such  a  screen  is  one  of  Agency-­
Responsibility,  one  in  which  the  privileged  protagonist  takes  on  the  role  of  investigator  
of  the  system  that  has  benefited  him.  This  is  a  willful  reversal  of assumptions,  a  kind  of  
story  that  almost  looks  like  a  mystery.  In  such  mystery  stories, the  detective  becomes  
obsessed  with  their  responsibility  to  “solve  the  case”  and  uses  a  mix  of  savvy  and  self-­
endangerment  to  find  the  truth.  I  say  endangerment,  in  the  case  of white  privilege,  
because  a  foundational  shift  in  perspective  of  one’s  own  Agency  can  be  deeply  
troubling.  It  is  the  journey  from  the  right  side  of  the  “but”  in  a  dialectic  sentence to  the  



left  side,  to  leave  the  focus  of  “there  is  opportunity  for  all”  for  the  focus  of  “I  know  I  have  
it  easier”  and  then  ask  why.    
  
Example  3:  “But  the  biggest  challenge  we  face  isn’t  inequality.  It’s  ignorance.    So  
many  kids  from  West  Philadelphia  don’t  even  know  these  opportunities  exist  for  
them.    ...    Many  of  these  kids  don’t  have  the  brains  to  figure  this  out  themselves  –  
like  my  kids.    Except  that  my  kids  are  just  lucky  enough  to  have  parents  and  a  
well-­funded  school  system  around  to  push  them  in  the  right  direction.”    
  
This  passage  seems  to  be  driven  by  Communion-­Help  and  Communion-­Empowerment,  
as  both  the  parent  (Marks  himself)  and  the  school  system  play  the  key  role  in  lifting  his  
children  out  of  the  ignorance  that  poor  black  kids  mainly  must  reside  within.  Obviously,  
the  rhetoric  of  Agency-­Self-­Mastery  and  Agency-­Responsibility  is  again  at  play.  In  
looking  at  Marks’  responses  to  some  of  the  200+  comments  on  the  site,  it  is  clear  that  
his  primary  motivation  for  writing  the  piece  can  be  found  in  this  comment.  He  responded  
to  one  commenter,  who  asked  what  motivated  his  essay:  

I  thought  about  the  charter  school  where  a  close  family  
member  has  taught  for  the  past  7  years.  I  thought  about  all  
the  people  I  also  know  who  work  there  and  in  the  system.  I  
thought  about  the  fact  that  99%  of  the  kids  in  that  charter  
school  are  black.  And  many  of  them  are  poor.  I  thought  
about  how  that’s  same  throughout  most  of  West  
Philadelphia.  I  thought  about  what  it  was  like  when  I  was  in  
the  public  school  system.  And  I  said  to  do  myself:  “what  
would  I  do  if  I  were  a  poor  black  kid?’  (Marks,  2011,  
comments  section).  

  
While  a  terministic  screen  of  Agency  implies  a  certain  leg-­up  on  the  Other,  the  
Communion  screen  implies  something  a  little  more  insidious.  One,  that  the  luck  of  birth  
is  the  causal  agent  behind  these  disparities  because,  two,  some  communities  are  better  
at  taking  care  of  their  children  than  others  for,  three,  no  other  reason  than  history.  This  
becomes  most  insidious  if  Marks  never  intended  to  imply  any  such  thing.    
  
Rather  than  offer  another  alternative  screen,  I  will  end  this  section  by  stating  what  I  
assume  has  become  obvious  to  many  while  reading  this.  Alternative  screens,  in  these  
cases,  could  only  be  created  by  alternative  actions.  A  simple  flip  of  the  screen  would  not  
be  enough  to  understand  the  situation  differently.  That  is  the  nature  of  a  complex  
systematic  racial  favoritism.  White  privilege  is  reified  by  story,  but  is  likely  undermined  
by  action.  Still,  the  desire  to  tell  different  stories  can  be  the  beginning  of  that  change  in  
action,  as  is  demonstrated  by  a  response  to  Marks,  which  I  will  now  explore,  that  
speaks  well  beyond  the  controversy  created  by  the  essay.    
  
Conclusion:  Narratives  of  Discomfort    
  
Textual  analysis,  in  which  we  examine  how  terministic  screens  are  constructed  by  life  
stories,  is  a  powerful  way  to  shed  light  on  the  impasse  about  the  state  of  white  privilege.  
It  neither  indicts  or  excuses  the  thought  pattern  of  any  particular  commenter,  but  instead  
shows  how  cultural  forces  shape  our  sense  of  self  through  language  and  in  turn  creates  



blindness.  It  also  offers  an  alternative  that  could  do  much  work  toward  rebuilding  the  
discussions  about  race  and  privilege,  without  the  pressure  of  a  certain  ideology.  
Screens  are  created  by  stories  left  unexamined.  Analyzing  rhetoric  for  its  implicit  and  
explicit  stories,  especially  if  we  were  to  turn  the  analysis  inward,  could  offer  a  new  kind  
of  vision.    
  
In  responding  to  Marks’  article  on  the  Atlantic  website,  Coates  (2011)  writes  that  the  
Forbes  piece  reminded  him  of  rhetoric  he  heard  from  classmates  at  Howard  University,  
who  claimed  they  would  have  died  rather  than  give  in  to  slavery,  or  white  people  who  
claimed  they  would  have  freed  the  slaves  had  they  lived  in  the  antebellum  South.  “What  
all  these  responses  have  in  common  is  a  benevolent,  and  surely  unintentional,  self-­
aggrandizement.    ...  We  flatter  ourselves,  not  out  of  malice,  but  out  of  instinct”  (para.  6-­
7).  I  believe  that  is  what  this    essay  has  shown,  something  fundamentally  human  and  
deeply  influenced  by  culture.  McAdams’  research  intends  to  find  the  narrative  revelation  
as  a  way  to  heal  us,  not  to  reveal  these  flaws  or  embarrass  others.  That  is  my  intention  
too.    
  
Coates  goes  on  to  call  for  a  “muscular  empathy,”  one  that  eschews  the  positive  
assertion  in  favor  of  a  question.  If  I  were  a  black  woman,  and  offended  by  white  feminist  
rhetoric,  what  realities  would  make  that  so?  If  I  were  a  child  in  West  Philadelphia,  and  
did  not  get  this  leg  up,  why  would  that  be?  Surely,  raising  such  questions  of  ourselves,  
which  only  slightly  move  us  off  the  mark  of  our  shaky  story  and  closer  to  another’s,  is  no  
more  psychologically  harmful  than  the  social  harm  done  by  holding  on  to  grand  
narratives.  It  may  be  true  that,  as  Coates  says,  “The  answers  are  out  there.  But  they  will  
not  improve  your  self-­esteem”  (para.  15).  This  is  too  much  for  some  who  benefit  from  
white  privilege,  but  surely  not  all.  For  example,  hooks  (1992)  mentions  a  white  man  
whose  relationship  with  a  black  woman  has  repositioned  his  perspective  and  notes  that  
he  can  see  “the  way  whiteness  acts  to  terrorize  without  seeing  himself  as  bad,”  (p.  177).  
These  are  terministic  screens  that  look  beyond  dichotomies,  where  the  useless  white  
guilt  that  often  progresses  from  white  privilege  is  exchanged  for  an  empathy  that  is  
muscular  because  it  is  rooted  in  curiosity  and,  most  important,  acknowledgment  of  our  
own  personal  limitations,  a  muscular  humility.    
  
To  reflexively  tell  stories  about  one’s  own  privilege  would  be  a  discipline,  not  an  instinct.  
It  would  not  feel  “normal,”  for  white  people  to  look  not  at  how  we  achieved,  or  how  we  
are  “lucky,”  but  instead  how  we  have  benefited  in  ways  that  are  not  available  to  others,  
because  the  color  of  our  skin.  That  is  why  it  might  be  useful  to  think  of  these  stories  as 
“narratives  of  discomfort,”  taking  a  page  from  de  Freitas  and  McAuley’s  (2008) 
“pedagogy  of  discomfort,”  in  which  teachers  develop  their  curricula  to  confront  their  own  
complicity  in  inequities  in  the  classroom.  “Narratives  of  discomfort”  would  do  much  the  
same,  but  with  a  broader  purview,  looking  at  any  place  and  time  our  instinctive  stories  
create  a  screen  that  overlooks  or  denies  fundamental  injustices.  Those  with  privilege  
would  tell  these  stories  without  congratulations  or  any  other  benefit  to  themselves.  
These  life  stories  would  be  told  because  they  should  be  told.    
  
  
  
  



References    
  
Bakan,  D.  (1966).  The  duality  of  human  existence:  Isolation  and  communion  in  Western  

man.  Beacon  Press  (MA).    
  
Bauer,  J.  J.,  &  mcadams,  D.  P.  (2000).  Competence,  Relatedness,  and  Autonomy  in  

Life  Stories.  Psychological  Inquiry,  11(4),  276–279.    
  
Bonilla-­Silva,  E.  (1997).  Rethinking  racism:  Toward  a  structural  interpretation.  American  

Sociological  Review,  62(3),  465–480.    
  
Bonilla-­Silva,  E.  (1999).  The  essential  social  fact  of  race.  American  Sociological  Review,  

64(6),  899–906.    
  
Boyd,  D.  (2008).  Autoethnography  as  a  tool  for  transformative  learning  about  white  

privilege.  Journal  of  Transformative  Education,  6(3),  212–225.    
  
Burke,  &  Kenneth.  (1966).  Language  as  symbolic  action  (pp.  44–62).  Berkeley,  CA:    
University  of  California  Press.    
  
Coates,  T.-­N.  (2011,  December  14).  A  muscular  empathy.  Retrieved  May  5,  2015,  from  

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/a-­muscular-­
empathy/249984/    

  
Crenshaw,  K.  (1991).  Mapping  the  Margins:  Intersectionality,  Identity  Politics,  and  

Violence  against  Women  of  Color.  Stanford  Law  Review,  43(6),  1241–1299.    
  
De  Freitas,  E.,  &  mcauley,  A.  (2008).  Teaching  for  diversity  by  troubling  whiteness: 

strategies  for  classrooms  in  isolated  white  communities.  Race  Ethnicity  and  
Education,  11(4),  429–442.  

  
Decuir-­Gunby,  J.  T.  (2006).  Proving  your  skin  is  white,  you  can  have  everything:  Race,  

racial  identity,  and  property  rights  in  whiteness  in  the  Supreme  Court  case  of  
Josephine  decuir.  Critical  Race  Theory  in  Education:  All  God’s  Children  Got  a  
Song,  89–112.  

  
Dei,  G.  J.  S.,  Karumanchery,  L.  L.,  &  Karumanchery,  N.  (2004).  Playing  the  race  card: 

Exposing  white  power  and  privilege  (Vol.  244).  Peter  Lang.    
  
Diangelo,  R.  (2015,  April  30).  Why  it’s  so  hard  to  talk  to  white  people  about  racism. 

Retrieved  May  9,  2015,  from  http://social.huffingtonpost.com/good-­men-­
project/why-­its-­so-­hard-­to-­talk-­to-­white-­pe  ople-­about-­racism_b_7183710.html  

  
Google  Trends  -­  White  privilege  -­  Worldwide,  2004  -­  present.  (n.d.).  Retrieved  May  4,  

2015,  from  http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=white%20privilege    
  
Hall,  S.  (1995).  The  whites  of  their  eyes.  Racist  Ideologies  and  the  Media.  In  G.  Dines  &  

J.  M.  Humez  (Eds.),  Race  and  Class  in  Media  (pp.  18–22).  



  
Helms,  J.  E.  (ed).  (1990).  Black  and  White  racial  identity:  Theory,  research,  and  

practice.  Greenwood  Press.    
  
Hooks,  B.  (1992).  Black  Looks:  Race  and  Representation  (1st  edition).  Brooklyn:  South  

End  Press.    
  
Kendall,  F.  (2012).  Understanding  white  privilege:  Creating  pathways  to  authentic  

relationships  across  race.  Routledge.  
  
Lindlof,  T.  R.,  &  Taylor,  B.  C.  (2011).  Sensemaking:  Qualitative  data  analysis  and  

interpretation.  Qualitative  Communication  Research  Methods,  3,  241–281.    
  
Lyotard,  J.-­F.  (1979).  The  postmodern  condition.  Manchester  University  Press.    
  
Marks,  G.  (2011,  December  12).  If  I  were  a  poor  black  kid.  Retrieved  March  1,  2015, 

from  http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-­i-­was-­a-­poor-­
black-­kid/  

  
Maxwell,  Z.  (2014,  May  22).  7  actual  facts  that  prove  white  privilege  exists  in  America. 

Retrieved  May  11,  2015,  from  http://mic.com/articles/89653/7-­actual-­facts-­that-­
prove-­white-­privilege-­exists-­in-­ameri  ca  

  
McAdams,  D.  P.  (1985).  Power,  intimacy,  and  the  life  story.  Homewood,  IL: Dorsey.  

Boyd,  D.  M.,  &  University  of  California,  B.  (2008).  Taken  Out  of  Context:  
American  Teen  Sociality  in  Networked  Publics.  University  of  California,  Berkeley.  
Bruner,  J.  (1987).  Life  as  Narrative.  Social  Research,  54(1),  11–32.  McAdams,  D.  
P.  (2001).  The  psychology  of  life  stories  (Vol.  5,  p.  100).  Educational  Publishing  
Foundation.  

  
McAdams,  D.  P.  (2001).  Coding  autobiographical  episodes  for  themes  of  agency  and 

communion.  Unpublished  Manuscript,  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  IL.  
Retrieved  from  
http://psych.uw.edu.pl/mikk/4621%20METOD_COMM%20APS/dodatki/Agency_
Communion01.pdf  

  
McKee,  A.  (2003)  Textual  analysis:  A  beginner's  guide.  Sage,  London.    
  
Murray,  H.  A.  (1938).  Explorations  in  personality.  Oxford  Univ.  Press.    
  
Nicole.  (2015,  February  24).  2-­24-­15  Nicole  Sandler  Show  –  they  sure  told  me!  

Retrieved  February  27,  2015,  from  http://radioornot.com/blog/2-­24-­15-­nicole-­
sandler-­show-­they-­sure-­told-­me/  

  
Ortega,  M.  (2006).  Being  lovingly,  knowingly  ignorant:  White  feminism  and  women  of  

color.  Hypatia,  21(3),  56–74.    
  



Puente,  M.  (2015,  February  24).  Patricia  Arquette  chided  over  backstage  Oscar 
remarks.  USA  Today.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/02/24/patricia-­arquette-­chided-­
on-­backstage-­oscar-­remarks/23937935/  

  
Rorty,  A.  O.  (1976).  A  literary  postscript:  characters,  persons,  selves,  individuals.  In  A. 

O.  Rorty  (Ed.),  The  Identities  of  Persons  (pp.  301–323).  University  of  California  
Press.  

  
Sandler,  N.,  &  White,  E.  J.  (February,  24,  2015).  Twitter  Search.  Retrieved  May  11,  

2015,  from  https://twitter.com/search?q=nicolesandler&src=typd    
  
Thrasher,  S.  W.  (2014,  October  15).  The  Whiteness  Project  will  make  you  wince. 

Because  white  people  can  be  rather  awful.  The  Guardian.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/whiteness-­project-­
privilege-­documentary  

  
Williams,  L.  F.  (2010).  Constraint  of  Race:  Legacies  of  White  Skin  Privilege  in  America.   

Penn  State  Press.  
  
  
Appendix  1  
  
Since  Elon  James  White  chose  to  publish  and  Tweet  out  portions  of  our  email 
exchange,  I  figured  I’d  post  the  entire  thing  here.    As  it  was  three  emails  (the  original 
one  I  sent  to  him,  his  response,  and  my  response  to  that),  I’ve  color-­coded  the  text  with  
my  original  email  in  black  type  italics,  Elon  James  White’s  responses  in  blue,  my  second  
response  in  pink.    
  
Keep  in  mind  that,  rather  than  respond  to  my  second  email,  he  chose  to  post  some  of  
what  I  wrote  on  his  blog,  outraged  that  I’d  dare  to  invoke  my  ancestors’  struggles  as  
Jews  during  the  Holocaust.  I  guess  I’m  not  allowed  to  do  that.  
  
Hi  Elon,  
  
I’m  guessing  you  don’t  remember  me.  You’ve  been  on  my  show  a  few  times,  and  we’ve  
met  and  shared  drinks  a  few  other  times.  We  were  on  the  [email]  list  together,  so  I  
thought  you  knew  who  I  was,  which  was  why  I  asked  you  an  innocent  question  about  
one  of  your  Tweets  that  showed  up  in  my  stream.  
  
Ma’am.  
  
Not  necessary.  My  name  is  Nicole.  
  
I’m  familiar  with  you  who  you  are  and  I  do  recall  speaking  on  your  show  a  few  years  
ago.  None  of  that  would  change  the  commentary  I  made  this  morning.  Out  of  
professional  courtesy  I  will  address  your  email  as  clearly  as  I  can.    
  



Wasn’t  sure  that  you  knew  who  I  was  as  you  referred  to  me  as  Julianna  Forlano’s  
‘friend’  and  claimed  no  understanding  that  she  was  on  my  radio  show.  
  
I’m  a  woman  and  a  feminist.  I  never  considered  color  as  part  of  my  being  a  feminist.  I  
always  thought  the  issues  we  feminists  fought  for  were  inclusive  of  ALL  women.  
  
That’s  wonderful.  For  you.  But  as  many  WoC  have  noted,  spoken  about,  written  about  
and  constantly  deal  with  regularly,  Feminism  is  not  all  inclusive.  I’m  not  saying  anything  
here  controversial  or  ground  breaking.    And  whether  you  consider  something  to  be  the  
case  or  not  does  not  affect  the  the  reality  and  experiences  of  WoC  who  deal  with  it  
directly.  
  
And  as  I  have  spoken  and  written  about,  I’m  not  my  sister’s  keeper.  I  know  many,  many  
white  women  who’ve  done  nothing  to  incur  the  ugliness  and  vitriol  that  I  was  subject  to  
this  morning  by  simply  pointing  out  what  Patricia  Arquette  said,  not  what  she  omitted.  
  
I’m  sure  you’ve  experienced  people  projecting  their  insecurities  and  biases  on  you  
because  of  who  they  perceived  you  to  be.    Not  everyone  parses  their  words  so  carefully  
as  to  offend  no  one.  Imagine  having  just  won  the  biggest  award  or  recognition  of  your  
art  possible.  Imagine  wanting  to  make  a  statement  about  women’s  rights  –  using  the  
phrase  ALL  WOMEN  over  and  over  again  only  to  have  others  assume  what  you  meant.  
  
You  seemed  surprised  that  I  didn’t  know  the  term  “erased  intersection”  –  it  sounds  like  
doublespeak  to  me.  I’ve  done  shows  on  the  ERA,  the  fact  that  the  LGBTQ  movement  
and  civil  rights  movement  have  made  huge  strides,  while  the  ERA  sit  unratified.  I’ve 
suggested  that  all  these  groups  who  came  together  to  help  advance  the  struggles  of  all  
those  people  (yes,  even  those  who  fit  in  more  than  one  category)  come  together  to  help  
ratify  the  ERA.  I  guess  that  makes  me  worthy  of  your  ire  too?      
  
I  probably  never  stopped  down  to  say  “that  includes  the  LBGTQ  women  and  women  of  
color  too”  –  it  was  implied  in  all  I  said.  
  
I’ve  spoken  out  over  the  years  on  a  number  of  issues  –  some  dealing  with  gender  
issues,  some  with  religion,  some  with  race,  most  with  inequality  and  the  general  
unfairness  in  life.    
  
Never,  ever,  when  speaking  on  behalf  of  one  group  –  especially  in  the  heat  of  the 
moment  or  when  I’ve  had  limited  time  in  which  to  make  a  point  –  did  I  stop  down  to  say,  
“The  group  I’m  talking  about  is  struggling,  but  this  sub  section  of  the  group  has  it  even  
worse.”  
  
I  have  to  ask  ma’am,  who  asked  for  that?  The  issue  that  I,  and  many  others,  pointed  out  
wasn’t  the  need  to  drill  down  and  speak  of  each  individualized  group.  The  commentary  
about  PoC  and  LGBTQ  folks  needing  to  step  up  and  speak  out  for  Women  was  the  
issue.  Some  PoC  are  Women.  Some  LGBTQ  are  Women.  The  call  for  these  groups  to  
help  “Women”  as  if  they  aren’t  already  doing  that  because  they  are  in  fact,  women  
already,  is  problematic  and  speaks  to  a  similar  theme  found  through  out  conversations  
around  feminism.  Women  defaults  to  White  Cis-­Women.  I  understand  you  don’t  think  it  



does  but  language,  policies,  framing  all  paints  this  picture  which  is  why  so  many  WoC  
have  spoken  out  against  this  and  have  critiqued  Feminism  as  much  as  they  have.  And  
the  idea  that  LGBTQ  and  PoC  need  to  step  up  and  help  like  White  Women  have  helped  
us?  That’s  why  we  should  do  that?  You  don’t  see  how  this  framing  is  problematic?    
  
And  what’s  wrong  with  asking  those  people  to  step  up  in  the  issue  of  pay  equity  and 
passing  an  Equal  Right  Amendment?  You’re  the  one  drawing  the  lines  of  separation.  Do  
you  not  see  that?    
  
I  get  that  African  Americans  have  been  persecuted  and  have  had  a  rough  ride  through  
history.  I’m  of  Jewish  descent.  Shall  I  tell  you  the  stories  my  grandparents  told  me?  Do  I  
think  that  every  injustice  has  to  do  with  the  fact  that  my  forebears  were  targeted  by  
Hitler?  Not  for  a  second.    
  
This  is  incredibly  insulting.  I’m  not  even  sure  what  this  means.  Are  you  saying  Black  
folks  are  blaming  race  too  much?  Are  you  saying  that  we  bring  up  slavery  too  much?  
I’m  not  sure  of  the  point  of  writing  these  words  at  all.      
  
And  I’ve  been  insulted  all  day  by  people  on  Twitter  telling  me  that  women’s  rights  is  
code  for  “white  women’s  right”.  Bullshit.    I’m  saying  we  all  have  our  own  crosses  to  bear.  
You  have  your  struggles  and  I  have  mine.  Some  are  because  I’m  a  woman,  some  are  
because  I’m  Jewish.  Some  are  because  I’m  now  55  years  old  so  “unattractive”  and  
some  because  I’m  overweight..  and  some  because  some  people  just  don’t  like  me  and  
other  reasons  I’m  not  privy  to.  
  
But  to  have  people  who’ve  never  even  heard  of  me  call  me  a  bigot  or  tell  me  what  I’m  
thinking  and  that  I’m  motivated  by  “white  privilege”  or  “White  feminism”  is  not  only  
insulting,  but  hateful  and,  yes  racist.  
  
I  do  host  a  daily  radio  show.  I’ve  been  in  radio  for  over  30  years.  I  was  on  Air  America 
and  moved  online  when  the  network  went  under  and  have  been  struggling  to  keep  
doing  what  I  do  for  the  past  five  years.  I  don’t  get  a  free  ride  because  I’m  a  “white  
woman”.  I  don’t  get  a  free  ride  at  all.    
  
Who  said  you  get  a  free  ride?  2)  Are  you  denying  that  you  benefit  from  White  Privilege?  
3)  Are  you  saying  that  your  experience  is  the  same  as  Black  Women,  who  are  dealing  
at  the  intersection  of  race  and  gender?  What  about  the  gay  black  woman?  
  

1)   Those  who  keep  pushing  “White  Privilege”  on  me.  No,  you  didn’t  say  it,  but  your  
mass  of  followers  did.  
  

2)   I  am  denying  that  I  benefit  from  White  Privilege.  Care  to  tell  me  how  I  benefit  from  
anything  right  now  other  than  my  own  hard  work,  cuz  I’m  trying  really  hard  to  make  it  
through  to  the  end  of  each  day.  I  could  use  some  of  any  kind  of  privilege  right  about  
now.  
  



3)   My  experience  is  wholly  different  from  black  women,  and  other  white  women,  and  
men  of  every  color  too.  My  color  doesn’t  control  my  destiny.  Sure  it  has  likely  played  
various  roles  in  my  life  –  but  not  because  I  designed  it  that  way.  

  
The  attacks  I  was  subject  to  on  Twitter  today  were  completely  out  of  line  and  uncalled  
for.  I’ve  lived  my  life  in  a  caring,  loving  way,  and  brought  none  of  this  nastiness  on  
myself.  And  for  complete  strangers  to  come  into  my  Twitter  stream,  telling  me  what  I  
think  and  how  I  act  –  all  antithetical  to  everything  I  stand  for  –  really  sucks.  
  
I  invited  you  on  my  show  to  discuss  this  failure  to  communicate  –  because  that’s  what  it  
is.    
  
You  and  your  followers  who’ve  been  attacking  me  on  Twitter  all  day  have  just  assumed  
that  Patricia  Arquette  was  consciously  excluding  women  of  color  and/or  LGBTQ  is  
ridiculous.  
  
I’ve  assumed  nothing.  I  responded  to  the  words  she  actually  said.  I  didn’t  call  her  
names,  imply  what  she  meant  or  any  of  that.  The  issue  seems  to  be  that  many  folks  
believe  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  should  be  given  because  obviously  Arquette  means  
well.  That  she  should  be  above  critique.  That’s  ridiculous.  You’ve  inserted  words  like 
“consciously”  when  a  lot  of  the  points  made  here  is  that  it  ISNT  conscious  and  that’s  the  
problem.  This  line  of  thought  is  normal  and  this  framing  considered  reasonable.  As  
opposed  to  simply  reading  and  absorbing  those  explaining  exactly  what  the  issue  is  in  
great  detail  you  wanted  it  explained  to  you.  This  is  not  the  responsibility  of  PoC.  Just like  
I  don’t  believe  it  is  your  responsibility  as  a  woman  to  explain  things  to  me  if  my  male  
privilege  is  blocking  me  from  understanding  the  argument  you’re  making.  If  you  were  
kind  enough  to  explain  it  to  me  I’d  appreciate  it,  because  many  Women  have  taken  that  
time  with  me.  But  it’s  not  owed  to  me.  It  is  not  their  responsibility.      
  
She  didn’t  say  those  groups  were  mutually  exclusive  and,  sorry,  it’s  our  role  as 
reasonable  people  to  consider  intent.  I  know  how  badly  I’m  feeling  today  after  all  the 
hatred  thrown  my  way.  She  just  had  her  biggest  career-­high  of  her  life,  and  she’s  being  
excoriated  for  thought  crimes.  How  about  trying  to  reach  out  for  clarification?  
  
No,  instead,  you  throw  out  terms  like  “erased  intersection”.  How  about  speaking  in  plain  
English.    
    
Yes  I’m  disappointed  –  as  a  fan  and  somewhat  colleague  –  that  you  seem  more  intent  
on  escalating  the  nastiness  rather  than  engaging  in  dialogue.  That’s  what  I’m  trying  to  
do.  Imani  Gandy  is  coming  on  my  show  tomorrow.  
  
She  and  I  have  had  differences  in  the  past.  But  I  have  no  doubt  we  can  try  to  hear  each  
other  out  tomorrow  and  understand  that  we’re  on  the  same  side.    
  
How  about,  instead  of  crucifying  her  because  she  said  what  she  was  trying  to  say  
clumsily,  you  try  to  help  her  say  it  more  eloquently?    
  



Maybe  that  doesn’t  fit  in  This  Week  in  Blackness?  Are  we  not  black  enough?  (And  yes, 
that  was  meant  to  be  incendiary,  because  I  know  that’s  not  who  you  are….)  
  
If  you  think  I’m  wrong,  then  come  on  my  show  and  say  so.  
  
  
Appendix  2  
  
President  Obama  gave  an  excellent  speech  last  week  in  Kansas  about  inequality  in  
America.  
  
“This  is  the  defining  issue  of  our  time.”    He  said.    “This  is  a  make-­or-­break  moment  for 
the  middle  class,  and  for  all  those  who  are  fighting  to  get  into  the  middle  class.  Because  
what’s  at  stake  is  whether  this  will  be  a  country  where  working  people  can  earn  enough  
to  raise  a  family,  build  a  modest  savings,  own  a  home,  secure  their  retirement.”    
  
He’s  right.    The  spread  between  rich  and  poor  has  gotten  wider  over  the  decades.    And  
the  opportunities  for  the  99%  have  become  harder  to  realize.    
  
The  President’s  speech  got  me  thinking.    My  kids  are  no  smarter  than  similar  kids  their  
age  from  the  inner  city.    My  kids  have  it  much  easier  than  their  counterparts  from  West  
Philadelphia.    The  world  is  not  fair  to  those  kids  mainly  because  they  had  the  misfortune  
of  being  born  two  miles  away  into  a  more  difficult  part  of  the  world  and  with  a  skin  color  
that  makes  realizing  the  opportunities  that  the  President  spoke  about  that  much  harder.  
This  is  a  fact.    In  2011.  
  
I  am  not  a  poor  black  kid.    I  am  a  middle  aged  white  guy  who  comes  from  a  middle  class  
white  background.    So  life  was  easier  for  me.    But  that  doesn’t  mean  that  the  prospects  
are  impossible  for  those  kids  from  the  inner  city.    It  doesn’t  mean  that  there  are  no  
opportunities  for  them.      Or  that  the  1%  control  the  world  and  the  rest  of  us  have  to  fight  
over  the  scraps  left  behind.    I  don’t  believe  that.    I  believe  that  everyone  in  this  country  
has  a  chance  to  succeed.    Still.    In  2011.    Even  a  poor  black  kid  in  West  Philadelphia.    
  
It  takes  brains.    It  takes  hard  work.    It  takes  a  little  luck.    And  a  little  help  from  others.    It  
takes  the  ability  and  the  know-­how  to  use  the  resources  that  are  available.    Like  
technology.    As  a  person  who  sells  and  has  worked  with  technology  all  my  life  I  also  
know  this.    
  
If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  I  would  first  and  most  importantly  work  to  make  sure  I  got  the  
best  grades  possible.  I  would  make  it  my  #1  priority  to  be  able  to  read  sufficiently.      I  
wouldn’t  care  if  I  was  a  student  at  the  worst  public  middle  school  in  the  worst  inner  city.  
Even  the  worst  have  their  best.    And  the  very  best  students,  even  at  the  worst  schools,  
have  more  opportunities.    Getting  good  grades  is  the  key  to  having  more  options.    With  
good  grades  you  can  choose  different,  better  paths.    If  you  do  poorly  in  school,  
particularly  in  a  lousy  school,  you’re  severely  limiting  the  limited  opportunities  you  have.'    
  
And  I  would  use  the  technology  available  to  me  as  a  student.    I  know  a  few  school  
teachers  and  they  tell  me  that  many  inner  city  parents  usually  have  or  can  afford  cheap  



computers  and  internet  service  nowadays.    That  because  (and  sadly)  it’s  oftentimes  a  
necessary  thing  to  keep  their  kids  safe  at  home  than  on  the  streets.    And  libraries  and  
schools  have  computers  available  too.    Computers  can  be  purchased  cheaply  at  outlets  
like  TigerDirect  and  Dell’s  Outlet.    Professional  organizations  like  accountants  and  
architects  often  offer  used  computers  from  their  members,  sometimes  at  no  cost  at  all.  
  
If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  I’d  use  the  free  technology  available  to  help  me  study.    I’d 
become  expert  at  Google  Scholar.      I’d  visit  study  sites  like  SparkNotes  and  CliffsNotes  
to  help  me  understand  books.    I’d  watch  relevant  teachings  on  Academic  Earth,  TED  
and  the  Khan  Academy.    (I  say  relevant  because  some  of  these  lectures  may  not  be  
related  to  my  work  or  too  advanced  for  my  age.  But  there  are  plenty  of  videos  on  these  
sites  that  are  suitable  to  my  studies  and  would  help  me  stand  out.)    I  would  also,  when  
possible,  get  my  books  for  free  at  Project  Gutenberg  and  learn  how  to  do  research  at  
the  CIA  World  Factbook  and  Wikipedia  to  help  me  with  my  studies.    
  
I  would  use  homework  tools  like  Backpack,  and  Diigo  to  help  me  store  and  share  my  
work  with  other  classmates.    I  would  use  Skypeto  study  with  other  students  who  also  
want  to  do  well  in  my  school.    I  would  take  advantage  of  study  websites  like  Evernote,  
Study  Rails,Flashcard  Machine,  Quizlet,  and  free  online  calculators.    
  
Is  this  easy?    No  it’s  not.    It’s  hard.    It  takes  a  special  kind  of  kid  to  succeed.    And  to  
succeed  even  with  these  tools  is  much  harder  for  a  black  kid  from  West  Philadelphia  
than  a  white  kid  from  the  suburbs.    But  it’s  not  impossible.    The  tools  are  there.    The  
technology  is  there.    And  the  opportunities  there.    
  
In  Philadelphia,  there  are  nationally  recognized  magnet  schools  like  Central,  Girls  High  
and  Masterman.    These  schools  are  free.    But  they  are  hard  to  get  in  to.    You  need good  
grades  and  good  test  scores.    And  there  are  also  other  good  magnet  and  charter  
schools  in  the  city.    You  also  need  good  grades  to  get  into  those.    In  a  school  system  
that  is  so  broken  these  are  bright  spots.    Getting  into  one  of  these  schools  opens  up  a  
world  of  opportunities.    More  than  90%  of  the  kids  that  go  to  Central  go  on  to  college.    I  
would  use  the  internet  to  research  each  one  of  these  schools  so  I  could  find  out  how  I 
could  be  admitted.    I  would  find  out  the  names  of  the  admissions  people  and  go  to  meet  
with  them.  If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  I  would  make  it  my  goal  to  get  into  one  of  these  
schools.    
  
Or  even  a  private  school.    Most  private  schools  I  know  are  filled  to  the  brim  with  the  1%.  
That’s  because  these  schools  are  exclusive  and  expensive,  costing  anywhere  between  
$20  and  $50k  per  year.        But  there’s  a  secret  about  them.    Most  have  scholarship  
programs.    Most  have  boards  of  trustees  that  want  to  give  opportunities  to  kids  that  
can’t  afford  the  tuition.    Many  would  provide  funding  for  not  only  tuition  but  also  for  
transportation  or  even  boarding.    Trust  me,  they  want  to  show  diversity.    They  want  to  
show  smiling,  smart  kids  of  many  different  colors  and  races  on  their  fundraising  
brochures.  If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  I’d  be  using  technology  to  research  these  schools  
on  the  internet,  too,  and  making  them  know  that  I  exist  and  that  I  get  good  grades  and  
want  to  go  to  their  school.    
  



And  once  admitted  to  one  of  these  schools  the  first  person  I’d  introduce  myself  to  would  
be  the  school’s  guidance  counselor.    This  is  the  person  who  will  one  day  help  me  go  to  
a  college.    This  is  the  person  who  knows  everything  there  is  to  know  about  financial  aid,  
grants,  minority  programs  and  the  like.    This  is  the  person  who  may  also  know  of  job 
programs  and  co-­op  learning  opportunities  that  I  could  participate  in.      This  is  the  person  
who  could  help  me  get  summer  employment  at  a  law  firm  or  a  business  owned  by  the  
1%  where  I  could  meet  people  and  show  off  my  stuff.  
  
If  I  was  a  poor  black  kid  I  would  get  technical.    I  would  learn  software.    I  would  learn  how  
to  write  code.    I  would  seek  out  courses  in  my  high  school  that  teaches  these  skills  or  
figure  out  where  to  learn  more  online.    I  would  study  on  my  own.    I  would  make  sure  my  
writing  and  communication  skills  stay  polished.    
  
Because  a  poor  black  kid  who  gets  good  grades,  has  a  part  time  job  and  becomes  
proficient  with  a  technical  skill  will  go  to  college.    There  is  financial  aid  available.    There  
are  programs  available.    And  no  matter  what  he  or  she  majors  in  that  person  will  have  
opportunities.    They  will  find  jobs  in  a  country  of  business  owners  like  me  who  are  
starved  for  smart,  skilled  people.  They  will  succeed.    
  
President  Obama  was  right  in  his  speech  last  week.    The  division  between  rich  and  poor  
is  a  national  problem.    But  the  biggest  challenge  we  face  isn’t  inequality.      It’s  ignorance.  
So  many  kids  from  West  Philadelphia  don’t  even  know  these  opportunities  exist  for  
them.    Many  come  from  single-­parent  families  whose  mom  or  dad  (or  in  many  cases  
their  grand  mom)  is  working  two  jobs  to  survive  and  are  just  (understandably)  too  plain  
tired  to  do  anything  else  in  the  few  short  hours  they’re  home.    Many  have  teachers  who 
are  overburdened  and  too  stressed  to  find  the  time  to  help  every  kid  that  needs  it.    Many  
of  these  kids  don’t  have  the  brains  to  figure  this  out  themselves  –  like  my  kids.    Except  
that  my  kids  are  just  lucky  enough  to  have  parents  and  a  well-­funded  school  system  
around  to  push  them  in  the  right  direction.    
  
Technology  can  help  these  kids.    But  only  if  the  kids  want  to  be  helped.    Yes,  there  is  
much  inequality.    But  the  opportunity  is  still  there  in  this  country  for  those  that  are  smart  
enough  to  go  for  it.