Saturday, July 04, 2020

In Her Words: Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes

A conversation with Jane Elliott
Amrita Marino
Author Headshot

By Alisha Haridasani Gupta

Gender Reporter

“It makes me really angry that I’ve been saying these things for 52 years.”

— Jane Elliott, a schoolteacher turned anti-racism edcuator

ADVERTISEMENT

As protests against racism started sweeping across America and rest of the world, clips of Jane Elliott, a schoolteacher turned anti-racism educator, began circulating on social media.

Perhaps you’ve seen them.

In one grainy clip from 2001, Ms. Elliott, with her signature round glasses and clipped white hair, gets into such a heated argument with a white female college student during an educational exercise about racism that the uncomfortable and distraught woman starts crying and storms out of the classroom.

“You just exercised a freedom that none of these people of color have,” Ms. Elliott tells the student, sternly. “When these people of color get tired of racism, they can’t just walk out.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Or maybe you’ve seen the 2018 video of Ms. Elliott in a round-table discussion on racism with the actress and producer Jada Pinkett Smith, Ms. Pinkett Smith’s daughter, Willow, and Ms. Pinkett Smith’s mother, Adrienne Banfield-Norris.

“I’m not a white woman. I’m a faded Black person,” Ms. Elliott says, stunning the hosts. “My people moved far from the Equator, and that’s the only reason my skin is lighter.”

“Wow,” Ms. Pinkett Smith says back. “I’m with you, Jane!”

Ms. Elliott, now 87, said she started teaching about racism on April 5, 1968 — the day after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

At the time, she was a third-grade schoolteacher in the all-white Iowa town of Riceville, and the news of Dr. King’s death so shocked and moved her that she threw out the lesson plan for the next day and came up with a new one that would force the children to experience prejudice and discrimination firsthand.

In what is now known as the “Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes” exercise, she split up her class into two groups based on an arbitrary characteristic: eye color. Those with blue eyes were better, smarter and superior to those with brown eyes, she told her students, and therefore they were entitled to perks, like more recess time and access to the water fountain.

Quickly, the dynamic of the room shifted. “I watched wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third graders,” she explained, in a PBS documentary about her work.

The next day, she reversed the roles. Now the brown-eyed students were superior and had perks and the blue-eyed students were inferior.

For decades, Ms. Elliott repeated the exercise around the country, including in 1992 on the Oprah Winfrey Show, and she would witness more or less the same outcome: people turning on each other on the basis of eye color.

Now, as the recent wave of demonstrations reaches every corner of the U.S., drawing more white people than previous protests against racism, Ms. Elliott’s work is thrust back in the spotlight.

And she’s sick and tired of it.

“I keep trying to tell people why racism has to stop, and they keep asking the same questions, like ‘How do we do that?’ and then continue to ignore the answers,” she said in a phone interview.

“It makes me really angry that I’ve been saying these things for 52 years.”

I caught up with Ms. Elliott to discuss the persistence of racism in America and how things have evolved since 1968 — if at all.

The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What are your thoughts about what’s happening in this country at this moment?

What I want to know is why the networks keep showing that video of George Floyd over and over and over again. How dare they do that? There should be fines for every one of those networks that keep showing that. Do they show it so that white people will see how awful it is? Or do they show it so that young Black boys and their mothers will realize what could happen to them?

It is insensitive to the point where the networks don’t even realize the message that they are sending to Black women and their sons.

For the past few decades, you’ve been doing anti-racism lectures and workshops around the country. Have you noticed a shift in how they have been received over the years?

I’ve been doing the exercise with adults for about 35 years. But in the last few years, I’ve only been doing speeches about it because we now live in a situation where people turn off immediately if they think they’re going to learn something counter to their beliefs, and I don’t want to be threatened with death anymore. I’m tired of receiving death threats.

You’ve been receiving death threats?

Yes. Just recently, a year ago, I was giving a speech at a college in Southern California and my daughter was there and these kids behind her — three white males — said, “Wouldn’t you like to go up and just shoot her?” And the other one said, “I’d like to go up and beat her and then rape her.”

When my daughter told the security person, those three boys jumped up and ran out of the building.

In a recent interview with Jimmy Fallon, you said it frustrates you when people say “I don’t see Black or brown.” Can you elaborate on why that makes you angry?

Teachers will stand up in front of classrooms and say, “I don’t see people as Black or brown, I just see people.” What these teachers are actually saying is that they have the freedom to ignore the largest organ on your body.

There is only one race — the human race. It’s time to get over the idea of a number of races. We are all of the same species, just of different colors, different shapes, different sizes, different genders.

When somebody says to me, “I am biracial, I say, “Which of your parents came from outer space? Do you have one parent who isn’t a human being? You’re trying to tell me that your parents are of two different color groups, but that doesn’t mean there are two different races.”

So we shouldn’t be colorblind?

See skin color, but don’t see it as a negative or as a positive — it is just your body’s reaction to the natural environment!

Where did you grow up, and when did you come to truly understand the problem of racism in this country?

I was raised on a farm in northeast Iowa. When I went to school, I started to learn the standard elementary curriculum, which is that white men did all the inventing and discovering and civilizing because they are oh-so-superior. We just didn’t talk about race, but we knew that we were OK because no matter how poor you were — and we were dirt poor, by the way — at least we were white.

Then I went to college, and in my first social studies education class, the white professor stood up in front of that group of students and said, “When you get into the classroom, you must not teach in opposition to local mores.”

And I thought, well, that’s wrong. But I didn’t stand up and say anything. I did what white people do all day, every day: I went along to get along.

So when did you start pushing back?

In the 1950s, my husband and I were living in Waterloo, Iowa, and he got transferred to another town. So we had to put our house up for rent. I put an ad in the paper, and somebody called to ask if we rented to people of color. I can still remember what I did: I thought that if we rent to people of color, then when we come back, our white neighbors won’t speak to us. So I said, “This is an all-white neighborhood.” And that person said thanks and hung up.

But I realized immediately what I had done: I let money buy my ethics in that moment. And I decided this will never happen again. I will never ever put money above my principles. And I haven’t, and I won’t.

A lot of white people are trying to reassess their own biases. Based on the work you’ve done, what can white people do to actually help in this moment?

First of all, you have to realize what I do isn’t hard work. What Black people do is hard work. I get paid for the work that I do. They don’t get paid for taking this crap every day — they have to take it. They don’t volunteer for it. It was forced on them.

And second, white people need to stop referring to themselves as “allies” — as if we can make it all right. They need to educate away the ignorance that was poured into them when they were in school and realize that they are the reason everyone is so angry.

What else is happening

Here are three articles from The Times you may have missed.

The house in Balby, England, where Amy-Leanne Stringfellow, 26, was killed on June 5. A 45-year-old man, reported to be Amy’s boyfriend, has been charged with her murder.Mary Turner for The New York Times
  • “There is no defined government strategy at all.” At least 26 women and girls in Britain have been killed in suspected domestic violence homicides during the coronavirus lockdown, and others have been trapped with abusers. But pleas for emergency support have largely gone unanswered. [Read the story]
  • “She essentially gave up her career at a peak moment to put her heart and soul into this.” In 2019, the W.N.B.A. star Maya Moore stepped away from the game to help free Jonathan Irons, a prisoner who she believed had been wrongfully convicted. On Wednesday, her sacrifice paid the ultimate dividend. [Read the story]
  • “People started saying, ‘You guys should date,’ and they started making hashtags and marriage videos.” Two rising stars on TikTok, Tatayanna Mitchell and Devin Caherly, have amassed a huge audience by playing along with their followers’ fantasy of romance. Now the two will finally meet in person, and the excitement is building. [Read the story]

In Her Words is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta and edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Sandra Stevenson.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. You can also follow us on Instagram or email us at inherwords@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

instagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Friday, July 03, 2020

On Politics: Have Voters Warmed to 'Defund the Police'?

Voters have shown some openness to the idea, but largely want to reinvest resources.
Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election.

Just over a month ago, the term “defund the police” was almost entirely the domain of activists and academics. Now it’s a household phrase, with a huge majority of Americans telling pollsters they recognize it.

ADVERTISEMENT

But what exactly does it mean? And when Americans hear it, what do they think of? For proponents of police reform, is it a useful slogan — or dangerously alienating?

In the immediate aftermath of George Floyd’s killing in late May at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, calls to sharply cut police funding appeared potentially radioactive. Beyond some high-profile progressive figures, including a number of young politicians of color, few leading Democrats embraced the term.

Joseph R. Biden Jr., the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, staked out his position early last month: “I do not support defunding police,” he wrote in a USA Today op-ed article, pushing a range of reforms instead.

But as people have learned more about the term and some city governments have even put it into action, Americans have shown some receptiveness to it. Recent polling suggests that many Americans have come to understand the phrase as a call not to simply eliminate the keepers of the peace, but to reinvest a portion of their funding in other programs and crime prevention techniques.

ADVERTISEMENT

Running for Congress in New York, Mondaire Jones — a progressive political newcomer who appears poised to win his still-undecided election in a suburban district — articulated that vision last month, when he endorsed “defunding police and reinvesting this money in health, education, and alternatives to incarceration.”

Pollsters at PerryUndem, a public opinion research firm, have been studying the public’s response to the protests, and they said they had found voters — particularly Democrats — more curious about than dismissive of the term.

“It had such an initial backlash that people had to explain: ‘Well, no, here’s what it means,’” Tresa Undem, a partner with the firm, said in an interview. “It was a small window when a lot of learning happened, and it’s these windows when things change.”

Americans see racism as a problem, and broadly support the protests.

Polls have consistently shown that an overwhelming share of Americans see racism as a big problem in the country, and that a slimmer but still-strong majority view Mr. Floyd’s death as part of a systemic problem with policing in America. In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month, 74 percent of Americans said “police violence against the public” was a problem, with 42 percent calling it a major one.

ADVERTISEMENT

Over all, support for the protests against racial injustice continues to run high. In various recent national surveys, roughly six in 10 respondents have expressed favorable views of the protesters. And Americans generally express support for overhauling police practices. The Kaiser poll found that two-thirds supported banning chokeholds, while roughly three-quarters supported increasing transparency around police misconduct and making it easier for victims of excessive force to sue departments.

But protesters’ central demand has to do with more than reform. They are arguing for undoing and rethinking the way crime is approached in America. And their demands show little sign of going away.

‘Defund’ calls have forced legislative movement.

Councils in cities across the country have committed over the past month to reducing funding for police departments, or even restructuring them entirely. In New York, the City Council passed a budget this week that shifts $1 billion away from the Police Department. Activists criticized it for using a budgetary maneuver to shift around — rather than eliminate — some funding, but it does require the city to abandon plans to hire over 1,000 new officers.

And the very fact that city leaders felt compelled to say they were removing funding from the department marked a huge political shift, grounded in public opinion.

Jawanza James Williams, the director of organizing for Vocal-NY, which has been instrumental in the push to defund the New York Police Department, said organizers were seeking to ensure that calls to defund the police were always understood in tandem with calls to reinvest in other aspects of city government.

“I’m sure ‘abolishing slavery’ was toxic at the time, for most people in the country,” Mr. Williams said. “The work is to help people understand the depth of the ‘defund’ framework, and to inform that with other factors.”

When it comes to public opinion, wording matters.

People of varying racial backgrounds tend to express a positive view of their local law enforcement agencies, according to many polls. And Americans usually balk at proposals to cut basic funding from the police. In an Associated Press/NORC poll last month, when asked simply whether they supported reducing funding for police departments, just 25 percent of Americans said yes, 53 percent said no, and 21 percent said neither, suggesting they hadn’t made their minds up yet.

A Fox News poll taken around the same time asked the question a little differently: Would people support taking money away from police departments and putting it toward “mental health, housing, and other social services?” In that case, 41 percent of voters expressed support, while 46 percent opposed it. Significantly, even though “neither” wasn’t an option, 12 percent of respondents refused to say either way.

With such a large share of the country still figuring out where it stands on the issue, there is the potential for either side to seize control of the narrative. President Trump has demonstrated that he sees an opportunity to win some ground here, tweeting frequently of his opposition to “defund the police.”

In mid-June, sounding assured that he had the political upper hand, he wrote on Twitter: “Many Democrats want to Defund and Abolish Police Departments. HOW CRAZY!”

Still, as protests have led to legislative results in some cities, they have also helped shift attitudes. A Siena College poll of New York late last month found that a slim majority of the city’s residents would support a reduction in funding for the police. (The question did not mention anything about redirecting funding toward social services.) When asked directly about “defund the police,” New Yorkers were more split: Forty-one percent supportive, 47 percent opposed.

But when asked if mental health professionals should come along when police officers respond to calls dealing with homelessness, drug addiction or mental illness, almost nine in 10 New York City residents said yes.

In its recent research, the PerryUndem team was struck by how relatively unformed — and therefore influenceable — opinions remained on the meaning, as well as the validity, of calls to “defund the police.”

PerryUndem’s survey was conducted with the online polling firm YouGov, using what is known as a non-probability panel of respondents, whose composition may not perfectly reflect the makeup of the country. Therefore, the survey’s exact numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. But its findings were striking. Americans were more likely to say that they interpreted “defund the police” to mean taking some funding away from departments and deploying it in “other ways to make communities safer,” rather than simply removing money that the police need.

But neither position was identified by a majority of respondents, and a significant share said they still weren’t sure how to interpret the term.

“When you see that, you see an issue that’s very fluid, and I think it can go different directions as this issue and debate continues,” said Mike Perry, also a partner at the firm. “How the debate continues to take shape — it could move people in either direction.”

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.
Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Politics with Lisa Lerer from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018