


































Provoking Discomfort: A Theoretical Analysis of Racism at Columbia University School of Social Work


5

Triggered by differing responses of Columbia University School of So-
cial Work students to a recent hate crime at neighboring Teachers College, this 
paper explores evidence that parts of the student body may, through lacking 
awareness of its own prejudiced tendencies, be acting out subtle racism and 
perpetuating the very ethnic divides that fuel racist aggression. The paper ar-
gues that fear and an underrepresentation of minority students impede the real 
dialogue necessary to overcome such aversive racism - but contends that the in-
trospective and emotionally honest debate which has followed in the wake of the 
hate crime offers a window of opportunity for change. Steps need to be taken to 
build the self-reflection witnessed in ensuing forums into the school curriculum 
and ensure that all graduating students are similarly provoked to the necessary 
understanding of our individual role in sustaining or combating prejudice and 
segregation. Only in this manner can we hope to overcome racism as a whole 
and become the social work practitioners we aspire to be – capable of resolving 
the conflicts and tensions within us, as well as around us.

 he recent hate crime at Columbia University Teachers College, in 
which a noose was found outside the door of a black professor (O’Connor, 
2007), sparked an outpouring of responses from the university community to 
what most considered a deplorable act of racism. At the Columbia University 
School of Social Work (CUSSW), a series of forums was arranged in the ensu-
ing days to allow for students and teachers to come together and discuss the 
event and how it impacted them. As a participant in one of these meetings, I was 
simultaneously delighted and surprised at the content and form of the dialogue. 
Roughly half of the participants in the forum were “non-white,” a large overrep-
resentation compared to the number in the school as a whole. I took this to mean 
that the people present at the forum were those most affected by or interested in 
the issues of prejudice and racism. 

While it was quickly evident that everybody present deplored the incident, 
two diverging responses manifested among participants in the dialogue. On the 
one hand, a group of people felt strongly that a public response was needed to 

Andreas Ring

T

PROVOKING DISCOMFORT: A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF  
RACISM AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT



6
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

outwardly express to the community our school’s condemnation of the racist 
act. This group’s response apparently echoed similar sentiments evident in other 
parts of the university, as students in the following days received a number of 
emails in which administrative university leaders expressed their denunciation of 
the hate crime. Although students at the forum planned to go further than writ-
ing an additional email – they planned for a rally – their response was similarly 
focused on publicly distancing themselves from the racist act. 

The second, and in my view more interesting, response from forum partici-
pants argued against focusing on this particular incident and seemed to consider 
the rally somewhat of an overreaction. This group, consisting largely of people 
of color, argued that the noose incident was neither surprising nor new, and that 
such incidents happen all the time. They argued that instead of focusing on one 
overt act of racism, which everybody agrees to condemn anyway, we should ad-
dress the many slighter acts of racism that go undetected every single day, even 
here at our own school. Some participants of this group suggested a more intro-
spective approach to addressing racism, which focused on training students in 
racism awareness. Different models of awareness training were suggested, rang-
ing from voluntary workshops for those most interested to mandatory training 
for all first-year students. 

Interestingly, it was the “public condemnation” model of the first group that 
seemed to win the most popular support. Having argued in favor of the introspec-
tive approach of the second group, I considered whether the lack of support for 
this approach reflects eagerness to point out the faults of others, and hesitance 
to look at our own. From previous exposure to anti-racist teaching, and from 
readings in my professional identity class, I realize that the diverging views of 
the two groups are not new. Laymen and scholars alike have suggested for some 
time that racism is much more than the overt and hateful acts of skinheads, Ku 
Klux Klan members, or angered youth. It is tempting to focus on the violent and 
aggressive acts such as noose-hangings, since the majority of us can agree that 
they are wrong and the blame is so conveniently located outside ourselves. Many 
anti-racist authors ask us to look in our own hearts, however, to see how our in-
ner biases and understandings of the world help to perpetuate a racist thinking 
and agenda. 

I believe we must turn to such authors in order to critically evaluate the first 
group’s view of racism as something located outside CUSSW, something that we 
must distance ourselves from through public displays of condemnation. These 
authors remind us that framing racism in this manner – as blatant and overt acts 



7

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G
of aggression – and defining ourselves in opposition hereto as “anti-racists,” 
represents an overly simplistic understanding of the nature of racist influence on 
society. Distancing ourselves in this manner not only disregards the importance 
of addressing the many minor acts of racism that go unchecked every day, but 
also undermines the possibility of overcoming racism as a whole by failing to 
address our own inner biases and prejudicial actions, thus ignoring our role as 
system-actors in maintaining the status quo. They posit that racism must be un-
derstood more generally – as any individual act, intentional or not, and as any 
institutional policy or practice which has the effect of excluding or disadvantag-
ing a particular ethnic group. It is when we accept this broader understanding 
of racism that it becomes clear how we ourselves, through our actions or words, 
may be inadvertently perpetuating perceptions and stereotypes that sustain rac-
ist, societal practices.

The argument is aptly illustrated by the work of Constantine (2007), the 
African American, female professor at Teachers College targeted by the noose 
incident, who in her responses to the event has addressed what she calls the mi-
croaggressions that perpetuate a racial divide. Based on her studies of cross-cul-
tural counseling, she defines microaggressions as the “subtle and commonplace 
exchanges that somehow convey insulting or demeaning messages to people of 
color” (Constantine, 2007, p. 2). As everyday examples of microaggressions 
against African Americans, she mentions being ignored by salesclerks in favor 
of white customers, and being mistaken for service personnel in stores. Professor 
Constantine prompts us to remember that when we fall into the role of micro ag-
gressors, we are often blissfully unaware of the oppressive impact of our actions. 
Such aggressions are often the unintended, clumsy, but hurtful actions of people 
who do not consider themselves to be racist; actions characterized by “Whites’ 
harboring of unconscious or preconscious negative racial feelings and beliefs 
towards people of color, despite the fact that they may perceive themselves as 
egalitarian, fair, and nonracist”(Constantine, 2007, p. 2). Constantine defines 
this less obvious but no less harmful form of racism as aversive racism. 

Exploring the diverging views of the two forum groups through the lens of 
Constantine’s research, I have to wonder whether it is a lack of awareness of our 
propensity to engage in microaggressions that lends the greatest support to the 
outward-oriented and condemning response of the first group. Everybody can 
agree that hanging a noose on someone’s door is deplorable, but not everyone 
agrees with the second group’s contention that we must also examine ourselves 
for microaggressions, in order to combat racism as a whole – probably because 
the very nature of microaggressions implies that we are unaware of their pres-

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT



8
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

ence in our actions. Constantine’s framework reminds us that, because we tend 
to be blind to our own prejudices, we often end up addressing the overt racism 
of others and leaving our own more subtle racism unexplored. Microaggressions 
may hardly register in the mind of a perpetrator – examples from daily life at 
CUSSW could include the unconscious tendency to overlook a particular ethnic 
group when choosing a partner for a class assignment, or the instinctive assump-
tion that a student of color must be attending school on a scholarship. Small as 
such insults may seem in comparison to noose-hangings, Constantine cautions 
us not to ignore the accumulated impact of repeated and sustained prejudiced 
aggressions over a lifetime on the self-worth of a targeted individual. Without 
a devoted effort to scrutinizing ourselves, our tendencies to engage in microag-
gressions can be hard to self-correct. Ironically, our inability to address our own 
prejudice may be perpetuating the very racial divide that fuels the larger aggres-
sions we leap to condemn, by implicitly sustaining the “them” and “us” mental-
ity at the root of ethnically-based violence. 

Building on such a framework of racist understanding, Favaro (2004) has 
written a provocative reflection paper on the presence of aversive racism at the 
School of Social Work. She suggests, based on her own experiences as a student 
there that CUSSW is infused with its own share of subtle, racist thinking. Build-
ing her argument on examples of prejudiced thinking at multiple levels in the 
school, Favaro argues that both students and faculty alike display tendencies of 
aversive racism. Among the student body, she points out the exaggerated fears of 
her fellow, white classmates when walking through minority neighborhoods as 
an example of a skewed perception of people of color. In the classroom, she puts 
forth an instructor’s avoidance of meaningful discussion about racism when class 
content is challenged by students as “racist propaganda” to exemplify how in-
structors are unaware of and susceptible to subtle racism themselves. At a collec-
tive or administrative level, Favaro points to the lack of anti-racism workshops, 
classes, and field placements as evidence for the tacit acceptance of the status 
quo by the school, and challenges administrators to look to other schools of 
social work that have been more progressive in including anti-racism education 
in the curriculum. While I am left with little doubt that Favaro has a firm anti-
racist mindset which may influence her perception and interpretation of events, 
the data that she presents us with is at least worth exploring. Moreover, Favaro’s 
observations are similar to those that I have made during my time at CUSSW. 

Most visibly, consider why there is a Black Caucus, a Latino Caucus, and 
an Asian Caucus at the school – but no White Caucus. Most students would 
probably respond that we do not need a White Caucus, but wherein then lies 



9

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G
the need for a Black, Latino, and an Asian Caucus? It can be argued that their 
purposes are to serve the ethnic communities, in principal leaving them open to 
students of all colors, and yet they tend to be predominantly made up of students 
of one particular ethnicity. In a society continually struggling with racism, such 
self-segregation must inevitably prompt us to question the extent to which we 
are successful in bridging our ethnic divides. Do some Black, Latino, and Asian 
students at our school feel the need to consolidate in ethnic groups above and 
beyond their desire to serve a particular ethnic community and, if so, why? Does 
their consolidation result from a desire to immerse themselves in their culture 
and learn from and be inspired by other like-minded individuals – or is con-
solidation a result of external pressure, such as microaggression from the sur-
rounding community? Tatum’s insightful analysis, aptly entitled “Why are all the 
Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?”, reminds us that the self-segregation 
of minority students commonly observed in school settings is a product of stu-
dents defining themselves first and foremost in terms of their race or ethnic back-
ground. Further, Tatum suggests from years of clinical experience with bridging 
racial divides that ethnic consolidation may be the outcome of an oppositional 
response born from consistent exposure to perceptions of stereotyping and rac-
ist behavior, an oppositional stance which “both protects one’s identity from the 
psychological assault of racism and keeps the dominant group at a distance” 
(Tatum, 1997, p. 60). Tatum’s analysis urges us to bear in mind that the self-
segregation observable at the school may also be a response to perceived racism 
or lack of understanding and congruence with the residual community. It is my 
impression, from the conversations I have had to date, that Tatum’s analysis may 
well be applicable to CUSSW. If so, what does this tell us about our supposed 
social work ability to be all-inclusive? Are we successfully role modeling the 
non-judgmental and non-aggressive behavior we purpose to inspire in our clients 
– or does our own interaction reflect the very same patterns of fear, prejudice, 
and microaggression that characterizes society around us?

More than the evident racial and ethnic segregation among students in the 
school, I remain dumbfounded that nobody seems to talk about it. Debates on 
racism at the school seem to be impeded by a combination of high-sensitivity 
and raw emotion on the minority side, and a combination of insensitivity and 
a fear of stepping on toes on the white side – as a recent example from class 
illustrates. In a class discussion of racial identity, an African American friend 
of mine was asked by a white classmate why African American people were al-
lowed to use the “N word” when white people were not. My friend’s response, 
presumably fueled by a perception of provocative intent and insensitivity on the 

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT



10
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

part of the classmate, was a clever and not too friendly retort, which effectively 
closed the conversation. Sadly, such non-conducive exchanges are not unusual at 
the school, and often fail to provide the more profound dialogue on racism which 
may mutually enrich both parties. Even moderated class discussions tend to run 
awry, as Favaro’s example and my own experiences testament to. All too often, 
discussions that touch upon race and racism are avoided in the classroom setting 
by instructors and students alike, rather than openly explored. 

Sue’s (2006) model of racial and cultural identity development provides a 
theoretical underpinning that may explain self-segregation and students’ prob-
lems discussing it. Based on his work with cross-cultural counseling, Sue de-
veloped his model of racial and cultural identity development to describe how 
people of color and whites come to terms with their own inner racism or expo-
sure to discrimination. Briefly, people tend to go through five stages in dealing 
with their inner racism before they transgress on to a state of introspection and 
comprehensive awareness. The first stage is one of denial; white people refuse 
to acknowledge their active role in racism and explain it away for example with 
reference to “natural” tendencies for some races to be more hard-working, while 
minority groups deny that they are subjects of racism and subordinate them-
selves to the believed superiority of the dominant culture by taking on its values 
and perceptions, thus giving rise to derogatory terms such as “oreo” – black on 
the outside, white on the inside. This is the stage in which microaggressions are 
most prevalent as both whites and minority groups deny or denigrate the stereo-
typing and hurtful impact of prejudiced words and behavior. 

Stage two begins when an event or a person challenges the individual’s 
belief system and prompts them to begin questioning their racial understanding 
and perceptions of racial groups. Both whites and minorities are confronted with 
identity confusion at this stage, as they begin to see their active role in, or subjec-
tion to, racism. People who laugh along at the stereotyping jokes made by others, 
for example, start to see how their passive acceptance of racist behavior can be 
as harmful as active participation. In the third stage, the turning point, those who 
do not digress from confusion back into denial are now presented with feelings 
of anger and guilt as they come to an increasingly fuller understanding of their 
past participation in culturally sanctioned racism. For both minorities and whites, 
this anger tends to manifest itself as a fierce and sometimes generalizing rejec-
tion of white, “racist” society, coupled with a desire to be immersed in or learn 
more of minority culture. Minorities tend to experience this as an almost global 
anti-white distrust or dislike, which often leads to a strong consolidation in ethni-
cally based groups. Whites on the other hand experience this as self-anger and 



11

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G
guilt and tend to seek out minority cultures with which to identify – efforts which 
are often rejected as paternalistic or over identifying by minority cultures. The 
subsequent stage four involves a more introspective role, in which minority and 
white individuals develop a more balanced appreciation for the strengths of all 
cultures alongside a maturing awareness of racism and oppressive social struc-
tures. Finally, stage five comes to a state of integrative awareness, which involves 
acceptance of one-self as a cultural being and a deep commitment to eradicating 
oppression of all forms. 

Using Sue’s model as a framework for analyzing racism at CUSSW, several 
of the above discussed observations seem to indicate that we have quite a way to 
go yet as we seek to increase our racial and cultural self-awareness as a school. 
The split of the student caucuses along ethnic lines indicates the consolidation 
of minorities, which is characteristic of stage three in Sue’s model. The lack of 
open discussion on racism due to a combination of high-sensitivity and insen-
sitivity points to a student body generally caught somewhere between the anger 
and dismissal of stage three and the denial and microaggression of stage one, 
respectively.  Finally, the minor support for an inward-looking response to the 
noose-incident hints that only a small body of students are actively focused on 
an introspective approach representative of those in stage four or five of Sue’s 
model. Using this cursory analysis of student interaction at the school, the ma-
jority of students seem to be located in the early phases of racial identity devel-
opment, somewhere between stages one and three, struggling with the accom-
panying sentiments of denial, confusion, and anger. While these struggles are a 
natural part of any student’s racial identity development, is it not surprising that 
Favaro (2004) experienced that racism is neither acknowledged nor dealt with 
appropriately at the school. A cocktail of such strong emotions hardly produces 
the most conducive environment for debate.

Admittedly, this analysis is based on cursory and potentially biased evi-
dence obtained by Favaro (2004) and myself. Supposing that the analysis accu-
rately captures the current state of affairs at CUSSW, what can we do to change 
this? Favaro challenges us to be proactively searching for the growth and self-
awareness necessary to move beyond our aversive racism, and calls for debates 
and workshops on anti-racism to sensitize people to the impact of prejudice at the 
school. Referring to the instructor who neglected to explore a student-initiated 
discussion on racism, Favaro brings to our attention a critical barrier, however: 
“I sense that many students yearn to discuss context and impact, but without a 
catalyst or encouraging environment, conversations dealing honestly and frank-
ly with race are not permitted to exist” (Favaro, 2004, p. 57). Her sentiments 

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT



12
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

closely mirror my own as well as those I have heard expressed from several 
other students. On some topics, open and honest discussion seems to be more the 
exception than the rule, as exemplified by my last professional identity class, in 
which our discussion of the then-recent noose-hanging incident sparked a debate 
somewhat beyond the usual level of intensity. Here, I recall students expressing 
pleasure at what they felt was an unusually honest and emotional expression of 
opinions, moving beyond what was often experienced as a superficial and politi-
cally correct dialogue. “Politically correct” is a term I often hear used to describe 
the in-class conversations that take place at CUSSW – and most instructors do 
not seem eager to push us further. Why are discussions on race and prejudice so 
hard to have?

Based on decades of work with overcoming racism, Tatum (1997) offers 
consolation that we are not unique in our struggle with bringing these sensitive 
topics to the table. Tatum identifies what she calls the “paralysis of fear” when it 
comes to speaking out on racial issues; a fear which affects all parties involved. 
Minority students still in the early stages of exploring their racial identity may 
be genuinely afraid of rejection if they release the anger that has been held back. 
Some white students may be unable to empathize with the pent-up anger that can 
emerge from minority students, and may react defensively or evasively to the 
sometimes sweeping criticism of racist, white society, leading to either explosive 
discussion or no discussion at all. Other white students may empathize, but be 
hesitant to engage in debate with minority students for fear of stepping on toes by 
inadvertently asking inappropriate questions. Feeling naïve in their questioning 
and ill-prepared to debate such a sensitive topic compared to minority students, 
who have often been exposed to these topics from an earlier age, white students 
may seek to steer around such debates altogether, despite a possibly genuine 
interest in bridging racial divides. Instructors and administrators, no less human, 
may feel obligated to protect students from discussions they fear can spiral out of 
control and damage relationships beyond repair, or they may feel ill-equipped to 
moderate such challenging dialogues and tend to avoid them altogether. Tatum’s 
response is unmistakable, however. To combat racism, we need to overcome our 
fear of openly addressing the issue: “In order for there to be meaningful dia-
logue, fear, whether of anger or isolation, must eventually give way to risk and 
trust” (Tatum, 1997, p. 200). She adds from her work with one woman:

‘Yes, there is fear,’ one white woman writes, ‘the fear of speaking 
is overwhelming. I do not feel, for me, that it is fear of rejection 
from people of my race, but anger and disdain from people of 



13

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G
color. The ones who I am fighting for.” In my response to this 
woman’s comment, I explain that she needs to fight for herself, 
not for people of color. After all, she has been damaged by the 
cycle of racism, too, though perhaps this is less obvious. If she 
speaks because she needs to speak, perhaps then it would be less 
important whether the people of color are appreciative of her 
comments. She seems to understand my comment, but the fear 
remains (Tatum, 1997, p. 194).

Tatum’s experience in bridging racial divides is central to understanding 
the importance of the crossroad we stand at now. I believe that it is the open 
dialogue she asks for that we must increasingly strive to sustain at our school in 
order to come to a deeper understanding of race, racism, and oppression. All of 
the authors discussed above implore us to recall that aversive racism by its very 
nature is elusive, and that the danger lies in our tendency to overlook or deny our 
own prejudiced thinking. Favaro (2004) and Tatum (1997) univocally call for the 
instigation of real and open-hearted discussions at the school as the single, direct 
measure to overcoming racism and prejudice, while simultaneously pointing to 
the danger that fear will restrain the emergence of any real dialogue. The noose-
hanging incident, however – unpleasant as it was – may have provided us with 
the very catalyst necessary for students to move past their apprehension and fear 
to engage in an honest debate on these difficult issues. Although the subsequent 
forums showed us that we differ in our perceptions of the nature and cures of rac-
ism, they also allowed the participants the opportunity to wholeheartedly share 
these views and to grow in self-understanding from observing and reflecting 
upon their differences.

It is critical that we continue our progression along this path. If the forums 
inspired by the noose incident become a temporary high in our ability to talk 
openly about sensitive issues which then dies out, we will have failed to take 
advantage of an opportunity granted us to inspire our collective, personal growth 
and to address one of the fundamental and difficult challenges our school faces. 
We have to ensure that this event becomes the catalyst Favaro asked for, which 
inspires students to take self-awareness training, especially pertaining to their 
own stereotypical treatment of those who are different from themselves, to a new 
and sustainable level. Columbia already has a reputation for being a predomi-
nantly white university and we cannot, as a school of social work sending our 
students to work with mostly minority clients, afford to be seen as racially un-
aware or insensitive. It is the impression of Favaro, myself, and other students I 

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT



14
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

have spoken with that racism is not dead at CUSSW – it is alive, although subtle, 
and students sense this. The problem is unlikely to go away by itself. 

We have to create forums in which white students are allowed to say the 
wrong thing, minority students are allowed to vent the anger that may emerge, 
and both sides may learn to forgive each other and move on, strengthened in a 
renewed and deepened understanding of each others needs and basic humanity. 
CUSSW faculty should understand the key role they can play here in submitting 
students to open and honest classroom discussions on racism, helping us to chal-
lenge our own prejudiced ways of thinking and bridging the divides. Because it is 
unawareness that fuels microaggression and aversive racism, faculty must recog-
nize that students may need to be pushed to the level of confusion and discomfort 
necessary to induce growth. Importantly, this demands of instructors that they 
are not afraid to deal with the denial, confusion, and anger that may emerge, and 
that they place faith in students’ ability to reflect, reconcile, and grow through 
the process. By staging in-class discussions on the issues of race and racism 
which students have trouble exploring, and playing devil’s advocate if need be, 
faculty can uniquely contribute to identify unrecognized prejudices and provoke 
the discomfort necessary to bring about a change of perception. The Challenging 
Dialogues initiative to increase instructors’ comfort in managing student dis-
cussions is an important step towards furthering in-class dialogues, which may 
be bearing fruit. I have witnessed some faculty members successfully conduct 
staged classroom debates on racism that were widely commended by attending 
students, and I sense other faculty members attempting the same. Despite the 
positive responses from students, however, such methods are inconsistently ap-
plied across classrooms, and many faculty members still seem uncomfortable 
moderating debates on racism.

Administration could take a stand on tackling these difficult issues by orga-
nizing an Anti-Racism Conference at the School of Social Work. A full-day event 
on anti-racism would unmistakably alert students and faculty to the significance 
of the topic and build a powerful foundation of interest, discussion, and inspira-
tion from which to proceed. In light of the recent hate crimes at Columbia, a 
conference would also send a valuable and resolute signal to the outside commu-
nity that CUSSW is committed to taking a lead role on anti-racism and cultural 
competence. Anti-racist pioneers, including any of the authors quoted in this 
article, could be invited to speak to students and faculty from CUSSW and affili-
ated schools such as Teacher’s College on their perception of aversive racism and 
its cures. Ethnically-based student caucuses and coalitions should be encouraged 
to involve themselves by arranging events and raising awareness. In the days 



15

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT

following the conference, anti-racism educators such as The People’s Institute 
for Survival and Beyond could arrange workshops for those students and faculty 
members passionate about anti-racism, specifically designed to challenge them 
to grow to a more complex understanding of their own prejudicial biases. 

Sincere considerations should also be given to expanding the self-aware-
ness training day from one day to three or four whole days, spread out on mul-
tiple workshops throughout the program. The current training day is a start to-
wards instilling reflections on power, privilege, and racial identity in students 
but it cannot stand alone, particularly in light of the emphasis that the school 
places on self-awareness and cultural competence. While other initiatives such 
as community days and forums arranged throughout the year provide additional 
opportunities for reflection, these do not allow for the rigorous and incremental 
self-development that a repeated program of mandatory workshops would. Com-
munity days and forums are largely voluntary and will tend to attract the students 
who are already attuned to the topic, leaving those “unattuned” without consis-
tent training. To live up to our ambitions on self-awareness, we need a mandatory 
program of repeated workshops which may build upon the seeds that were sown 
in the beginning of the year. The problem we face is designing a curriculum to 
encompass a body of students in widely different stages of racial identity de-
velopment, but work is currently in progress on how to solve this problem and 
improve the training for next year. 

Importantly, administration should take charge of conducting a compre-
hensive survey of the student body’s experience with racism and prejudice. The 
arguments put forth in this paper are based on cursory and circumstantial evi-
dence, yet coupled with Favaro’s (2004) paper, a pattern emerges. Surprisingly, 
very little hard data exists and no consistent surveys have been undertaken to 
document the extent to which students echo the sentiments presented here. A 
truly informed debate on the issue – and any real acknowledgement or disproval 
that subtle racism exists at CUSSW – would require a more complete under-
standing of the experiences of the student body, in particular students of color. 
We have the practitioners and know-how at the school to undertake such a study, 
so it should not be for lack of expertise that the data is not provided. The risk that 
embarrassing figures may emerge can only be reason to hasten the process, so 
any existing issues may be addressed sooner rather than later. 

Care should be taken not to relegate responsibility for reform initiatives 
to student groups like the Black and Latino caucuses. As argued by the authors 
cited in this paper, racism is not a minority problem to be solved by minority 
champions but a communal problem, sustained by and affecting all parties and 



16
JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. VI     

A
N

D
R

E
A

S
 R

IN
G

resolved by all parties working together. Student groups such as Community 
Organizing Against Racism (COAR) and cross-caucus initiatives like Coalition 
for Action and Awareness on Race and Ethnicity (CAARE) that have emerged 
(and reemerged) in response to the noose-hanging incident are an important step 
towards a self-reflective and multi-ethnic student response to addressing school 
racism which deserve our attention and support – and yet without substantial 
like-minded effort from other parts of the school, these groups are hard pressed 
to create any lasting change. Student-led initiatives are inexorably prone to de-
cline when the initial excitement wears off and interest shifts in favor of another 
topic, leaving often only a small core group to lift the burden. The responsibility 
for addressing racism at CUSSW is too great to leave to the fleeting support that 
a student initiative can muster. 

In the end, what we need is a joint student, faculty, and administration-led 
reform initiative – charged with inventing and implementing the tools necessary 
to address racism at the school, and instituting anti-racism training as a core part 
of the social work curriculum. Faculty and administration need to bring further 
support to the burgeoning anti-racist movement, recognizing that they too may 
need training in order to deal with their own biases and microaggressions. We, 
as students, need to take individual responsibility for our role in acting out or 
perpetuating aversive racism and be willing to leave our comfort-zone and talk 
about race and racism. We need to deal with our discomfort on this issue, because 
if we leave the school and have not learned to address our own, inner prejudices, 
and then who are we to pretend that we can help other people live their lives? If 
we graduate without learning to honestly and fearlessly address the unspoken, 
ethnic tensions among our own student body, how can we hope to resolve the 
conflicts and heal the wounds of the communities around us? Only by engaging 
in the painstaking self-scrutiny and difficult dialogues can we hope to overcome 
these challenges and become the social work practitioners we aspire to be – ca-
pable of resolving the conflicts and tensions within us, as well as around us.

References

Constantine, M. G. (2007). Racial microaggressions against African American 
clients in cross-racial counseling relationships, Journal of Counseling 
Psychology 54(1), 1-16.

Favaro, J. (2004). Reflections of racial consciousness in social work, Journal of 
Student Social Work 2, 53-61.

O’Connor, A. (2007, October 10). Hate-crime investigation at Columbia. New 



17

A
N

D
R

E
A

S R
IN

G
York Times [online]. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from: http://www.
nytimes.com.

Sue, D. W. (2006). Multicultural social work practice. Hoboken, NJ: John 
Wiley & Sons.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the  
cafeteria?” and other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. 

ANDREAS RING is a first year master’s student at CUSSW within the Policy 
Practice method, in the International Social Welfare and Services to Immigrants 
and Refugees field of practice. He is currently interning in a middle school in the 
South Bronx doing individual and group counseling. He holds a master’s degree 
in economics from New York University and another from University of Copen-
hagen, Denmark. His e-mail address is ar2549@columbia.edu. 

PROVOKING  
DISCOMFORT


