The new question-of-the-week is: _WHAT ARE THE BEST WAYS TO RESPOND TO EDUCATORS WHO SAY THEY “DON’T SEE COLOR” WHEN THEY TEACH?_ NOTE: THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT RESPONSES

WON’T BE PUBLISHED IN A “ONE-AND-DONE” SERIES. DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION WILL APPEAR AT LEAST THREE TIMES (AND PERHAPS MORE) DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR, SO THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME

FOR READERS TO RESPOND. THE FIRST SERIES OF RESPONSES WILL BE GUEST-HOSTED AND EDITED BY SHANNON R. WAITE, ED.D., WHO HAS WRITTEN THIS SPECIAL INTRODUCTION (YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN TO AN

INTERVIEW WITH SHANNON, TERRI WATSON, AND CHRIS EMDIN ABOUT THIS TOPIC HERE): _Shannon R. Waite, Ed.D., is a clinical assistant professor in the Educational Leadership, Administration, and

with the end goal of dismantling institutionalized oppression in schools and systems. She is a mayoral appointee to the Panel for Educational Policy and has two daughters attending public

school in New York City._ Upon completion of his listening tour, New York City schools Chancellor Richard Carranza heard a number of issues, priorities, and needs from public school families

across the five boroughs of the city. As a result of what he heard during the tour, he reorganized the structure of the district, established an Office of Climate and Wellness and, within

this office, the Office of Equity and Access. OEA has been charged with the task of providing professional development on implicit bias and culturally responsive educational practices. This

professional-development series has been met with vitriol, attacks, and accusations of being divisive and discriminatory. Those who stand in opposition to these professional development

sessions on implicit bias and culturally responsive education decry that this type of training has no place in schools as administrators and teachers should be “colorblind and treat all

students equally.” A number of teachers have asserted that “they don’t see race” when they teach, and this sentiment has been supported and echoed by some parents, staff, and members of the

New York City public school community at-large. As both a scholar-activist and an engaged, invested New York City public school parent, I am deeply troubled that the ideology of

colorblindness is being used by educators as a justifiable response after experiencing discomfort during professional development. Particularly when the preponderance of educational research

does not support, but debunks, colorblindness as a best practice in the field of education. In _Towards a Critical Race Theory in Education_, Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate

assert that there are three “central propositions” to understanding Critical Race Theory (CRT): 1. Race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United States. 2.

U.S. society is based on property rights. 3. The intersection of race and property creates an analytic tool through which we can understand social (and, consequently, school) inequality. I

share these as CRT anchors the rationale, framework, and lens through which the ideology of colorblindness and the appropriateness of this ideology in the field of education is discussed in

this series. In _Towards a Critical Race Theory of Education_, Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate dissect the matters of both race and property rights as being significant factors in

the U.S., highlighting that they also intersect and are interrelated. They proffer that “racism is not a series of isolated acts, but is endemic in American life, deeply ingrained legally,

culturally, and even psychologically” and that CRT presents a challenge to the “traditional claims of legal neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy as camouflages for the

self-interest of dominant groups in American society.” Having established the operational framework to ground both this discussion and the responses that shall follow, I offer that

individuals who subscribe to the ideology of colorblindness, both in silence and those who boldly proclaim it publicly, do so to camouflage their vested self-interest in maintaining the

systems and structures of institutionalized oppression, inequity, and racism deeply entrenched and interwoven into the foundation of education in the U.S. Education in America was not

created to be equitable when white men were the only people in the country allowed to be educated. There was an inherent caste system created then, and it still exists today. It has simply

converted from operating as an economic class system based solely off of wealth to one based off of the construct of race. In _The Ideology of Race in American History_, Barbara Fields

eloquently articulates and uses historical context to shine light on the truth, which is that slavery was the impetus for the ideology of race because the rise of racism was born “at the

very point in time when large numbers of men and women were beginning to question the moral legitimacy of slavery’ that the idea of race came into its own.” Understanding the historical

context of race, racism, and inequity in this country is central to dismantling it and authentically reimagining this country’s ability to offer _all_ students an education that can be “the

great equalizer (of the conditions of men),” as Arne Duncan wrote in _Education: The Great Equalizer_. Empowering school communities to examine the ways in which their unconscious bias and

prejudice, including the assimilationist and colonized perspectives of educators of color, impact how they lead, teach, and interact with the students and families they serve _is good

pedagogy_. Being responsive and inclusive of all cultures and genuinely “taking our differences and making them strengths,” as Audre Lorde wrote in _The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle

The Master’s House_, are commonly pontificated as general best practices in the field of education. Developing a critical consciousness allows for the kind of self-examination, reflection,

and introspection that affords school communities to have honest conversations about why systems operate and function the way they do. Deep reflection coupled with courageous conversations

allows school communities to examine the dysconscious systems and biased structures _they_ conceive and implement. Often these policies and practices are developed with the best of

intentions, and school communities are _only _able to see that the unintended consequences of these policies actually hurt students and families by committing to becoming a critically

conscious school community. These are exactly the types of professional development seminars and trainings districts engage in when they are authentically committed to diagnosing the root

cause of the ailment and not simply content with treating the symptoms. In a classic discussion, “A Talk to Teachers,” which James Baldwin delivered in 1963, he talked about the reality of

challenging the status quo and articulated just what it could cost to make impactful change. He said: “Any citizen of this country who figures himself as responsible—and particularly those

of you who deal with the minds and hearts of young people—must be prepared to “go for broke.” Or to put it another way, you must understand that in the attempt to correct so many generations

of bad faith and cruelty, when it is operating not only in the classroom but in society, you will meet the most fantastic, the most brutal, and the most determined resistance. There is no

point in pretending that this won’t happen.” Baldwin’s words are timely and accurate as what we are witnessing in New York City is nothing short of fantastic and I imagine it may only get

more brutal. My hope in responding to this question is to offer the 60 percent of people who Dolly Chugh suggests are open to being influenced an alternative perspective to their current

narrative and/or an alternative to the narratives that have been conjured up and incessantly perpetuated by individuals and groups invested in maintaining inequity because it serves their

self-interests. Responses to this question start by examining the impact the ideology of colorblindness has had on groups and members of society who have been “othered,” examining the impact

colorblindness has on the lived experiences of students, parent advocates, staff, and administration, and exploring why colorblindness is perpetuated in education and the cost of this false

narrative to the field. Part I will discuss the historical context of colorblindness and look at the impact of groups who have been “othered.” Part II will include the voices of individuals

exposed to and in the position of navigating colorblind ideology in schools on a daily basis. Part III will include responses from researchers and scholar-activists in the field of

education._ _ _NOTE: These three “Parts” will comprise the first group of responses to this question appearing here. Additional responses will be published at various times throughout the

year._ See References here.