Overcoming prejudices: An invitational approach

The Urban Review, VoL 28, No. 1, 1996

Overcoming Prejudices: An Invitational Approach

Charlotte Reed

This article offers an invitational model for overcoming prejudices. The proposed model is based on Haberman's (1994) five-step approach to facing prejudices, which includes (1) analyzing prejudices; (2) seeking the sources of the beliefs; (3) examining the benefits of prejudice; (4) considering the effects of prejudices; and (5) planning to eliminate prejudices. Purkey's (1992) five-level conflict-management process adapted to prejudice serves as the five-part action plan in Haberman's fifth step. The combination of these two models yields an invitational approach with five parts: (1) perceiving concern, (2) conferring with oneself; (3) consulting with colleagues; (4) confronting the crisis; and (5) combating prejudices. Practical questions and examples are provided to clarify each step.

We shall overcome, We shall overcome, We shall overcome someday. If in our hearts we do believe, We shall overcome someday.

Negro Spiritual

When people believe themselves to be superior based on their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or some other variable(s), discrimination often occurs. To believe difference is inferior is the essence of prejudice and is clearly unaccept-

able in a democratic society. However, the structure of North American schools and the belief systems of educators can perpetuate such notions through educational programs, policies, practices, and processes. It is important to system- atically eliminate intentional and unintentional messages that support prejudices and notions of superiority if all children are to realize their relatively untapped potential.

Charlotte Reed is an associate professor of education and the executive director of the Urban Teacher Education Program (UTEP) at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana. Address corre- spondence to Dr. Charlotte Reed, UTEP, 217 Sycamore Hall, 3400 Broadway, Gary, IN 46408.

81

0042-0972/96/0300-0081509.50/0 �9 1996 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

82 THE URBAN REVIEW

This article offers a practical model for combating prejudices. The proposed model is based upon Haberman's (1994) five-step approach to facing prejudices and Purkey's (1992) five-level conflict-management process. These two models were selected because of the success the author has had in employing the research of Haberman and Purkey in her work with schools and universities on issues related to desegregation, diversity, minority recruitment and retention, and urban teacher education.

Dealing with prejudice and discrimination based on perceived differences is very delicate work and requires an approach that can reach people on both a personal and a professional level in a positive but penetrating manner. The selection and preparation of urban teachers is no less delicate. Haberman's (1994) five-step approach to facing prejudices and Purkey's (1992) five-level conflict-management process both offer an effective and sensitive method of addressing these fragile concerns.

Invitational theory (Purkey and Novak, 1984), a people-oriented theory of practice, provides an appropriate framework for extending and enriching Haber- man's five-step approach. The combination of these two models provides an invitational approach to checking, unlearning, counteracting, and overcoming prejudices.

INVITATIONAL T H E O R Y

Invitational theory, through the work of Purkey and others, is a well-re- searched theory that informs the practice of professional helpers, particularly educators, as they cope with the many dilemmas that face schools and commu- nities. In more recent years, schools have used this model to direct serious reform efforts, ranging from the examination of policies and practices to the examination of programs and personnel. Schools have gained national recogni- tion through employing the tenets of this theory.

Four basic assumptions give purpose and direction to invitational theory: trust, respect, optimism, and intentionality (Purkey, 1992). They form the stance through which inviting educators perform their duties. The stance of inviting educators is (1) to develop mutual trust and interdependence; (2) to respect all students by demonstrating a commitment to their success and well-being; (3) to demonstrate optimism and belief in the untapped potential of all students; and (4) to understand the consequences of intentionality and realized potential. Using this stance, educators are able to make schools inviting to diverse popu- lations.

Invitational theory classifies behaviors into four levels of functioning: intentionally "disinviting," unintentionally disinviting, unintentionally inviting, and intentionally inviting (Purkey and Novak, 1984; Novak, 1992). The range of

OVERCOMING PREJUDICES 83

functioning is from being lethal to being beneficial. Lethal teachers see and denigrate their students' differences as a liability, while beneficial teachers see and celebrate the individual uniqueness of their students as an asset. Lethal teachers disparage the use of cooperation and collaboration and encourage the exclusive use of competitive strategies, while beneficial teachers encourage co- operative and collaborative learning. Lethal teachers exclude certain groups and individuals, while beneficial teachers create a sense of belonging for all of their students (Reed, 1992a,b).

According to invitational theory, people function in countless inviting and disinviting ways as they interact with others. These behaviors can be either intentional or unintentional. In either case, disinviting behaviors have a damag- ing effect on the self-concept. These behaviors should be eliminated from the practice of professionals. This can happen only when professionals face their prejudices and work to overcome them.

HABERMAN'S M O D E L

Haberman has worked for many years in the field of teacher education. He has been instrumental in setting up experimental programs in and studies of teacher education all over the United States. His work, on the identification, selection, and preparation of teachers for urban schools, particularly related to the Haberman Interview (1987), has informed the practice of teacher education programs, such as the Urban Teacher Education Program in Indiana. His analysis of the attributes and behaviors of successful urban teachers led to the de- velopment of this approach to prejudice reduction.

Haberman's (1994) five-step approach helps educators face their prejudices through (1)analyzing prejudices, (2) seeking the sources of the beliefs, (3) examining the benefits of prejudices, (4) considering the effects of prejudices, and (5) planning to eliminate prejudices.

Analyzing Prejudices

First, Haberman suggests that educators analyze the content of their prejudices. The first step in the process is to examine the attributes of others perceived as superior or inferior. Here, one's perceptual "reality" is addressed. If, as Pine and Hilliard (1990) argue, the embracement of various forms of perceived inferiority is sabotaging America's efforts to provide a quality education for students of diverse backgrounds, then this analysis is very critical.

Questions which promote an analysis of one's perceptual reality include:

84 THE URBAN REVIEW

1. Do I believe that a particular language is superior? which one? Why? 2. Do I believe that a particular gender group is superior? Which one? Why? 3. Do I believe that a particular race is superior? Which one? Why? 4. Do I believe that a singular characteristic makes a person inferior, such as

being less intelligent, disabled, or poor? Why? 5. Do I hold lower expectations for those people I deem inferior? 6. Do I hold less regard for religious groups with which I am less familiar?

Haberman admits that some people will not advance past this initial step. They are simply unable to acknowledge their own personal prejudices. They will adamantly proclaim, "I am not prejudiced!" In such cases of denial, Ha- berman (1994) states that "they should not be allowed near children/youth" (p. 9).

From an invitational theory stance, even teachers who will not accept their own prejudices are given the benefit of the doubt. In other words, people often say things out of fear and embarrassment, not because they have given any real thought to the meaning or the implications of such statements. These teachers may benefit from caring and appropriate assistance from colleagues.

Seeking the Sources of Beliefs

Second, Haberman advises that educators seek the sources of their beliefs. This means questioning the nature of people who shaped their thinking, the surrounding circumstances, and their daily impact.

Questions which promote an understanding of the sources of one's beliefs include:

I' 1. Who are the sources of my information and ideas? 2. When did I learn these ideas? 3. How much of what I believe is rumors, stereotypes, and/or myths? 4. How much of what I believe is substantiated by actual experience with, or

exposure to, those thought to be inferior? 5. How much of what I believe is shaped by my own racial, cultural, gender,

economic, religious, geographic, political, and/or social particulars?

Haberman suggests that this type of self-assessment is illuminating and beneficial. Educators, like other Americans, are saturated with media images of today's children and youth. The images are seldom kind or positive. The por- trayal of urban children is particularly harsh, leading people to believe that they are collectively violent, disrespectful, irresponsible, callous, and lacking in morals and intelligence. When they believe such stereotypes, teachers are likely to interact with their diverse students through overt and covert prejudice.


Examining Benefits of Prejudices

The third step Haberman suggests is that educators examine the benefits derived from their prejudices, determining occasional, regular, solicited and un- solicited advantages received. Knowing the ways in which they suffer from their own prejudices is also pertinent to Haberman's model.

Questions which encourage a personal assessment of the benefits of prejudice include:

1. What are the privileges that I or my group derive from prejudice? 2. Are these inherited, earned, or granted? 3. What are the sources of these privileges? 4. What are the benefits of these privileges? 5. What are the liabilities of these privileges? 6. Do I knowingly accept privileges that deprive others of their rights?

This critical examination exposes a variety of ways in which people intentionally and unintentionally participate in practices of prejudice and how they either reap rewards or suffer liabilities from those prejudices.

Mclntosh (1988) points out that facing privilege derived from prejudice is very difficult. As a white female, she was able to understand male privilege by struggling through the uncomfortable realization that she was the recipient of "unearned and unjustified" privileges of color. She metaphorically likened these privileges to "unearned assets" and "special provisions" contained in "an invisi- ble knapsack" available for daily withdrawals. Examples of these "special provisions" capture her daily experiences with skin color or race privilege: (1) being sure that if legal or medical help was needed, race would not work against her; (2) being able to find her preferred music, ethnic food, and needed personal services with little or no trouble; (3) being sure her children would see their race positively reflected in the curriculum; (4) being able to make mis- takes without them reflecting on her race; (5) being sure that her race would not make her seem like a financial risk; and (6) being able to make certain personal choices about dress, language, and conduct without those choices' being attrib- uted to the poverty, ignorance, or morality of her race. Everyone can benefit from checking the ways in which they receive advantages from prejudices.

Considering Effects of Prejudices

In the fourth step, Haberman asks educators to consider how their prejudices affect their beliefs about schools and their function and about children and their ability to learn. For instance, the perception that difference is inferior leads many educators to expect less of their culturally, linguistically, physically, or economically different students. These educators tend to believe that the sole

86 THE URBAN REVIEW

purpose of a school is to impart academic knowledge. They resent extracurricu- lar activities, self-esteem programs, breakfast programs, or any school effort to address social issues.

Questions which enhance personal reflection on professional beliefs and practices include:

1. What is the purpose of education? 2. What do I believe are the most appropriate functions of schools? 3. What is my role as a teacher? 4. Do I believe that all students can learn? 5. Do I hold appropriate expectations for my students? 6. Do my teaching strategies, curriculum content, and/or evaluations reflect

the interests and diversity of my students?

These and other questions about race, culture, gender, and intelligence biases and their implications for the teacher's interactions with diverse students need to be explored.

Haberman's ideal teacher is one who is able to handle diversity with skill. Some abilities he identified are the ability to:

�9 Recognize his or her own biases and strive to overcome or alter them. �9 Listen, hear, and understand. �9 Be accepting and not judgmental. �9 Be moral but not moralistic. �9 Relate to his or her own cultural identity. �9 Include diverse perspectives in the classroom and be culturally competent. �9 Think of his or her primary impact on students as raising their self-esteem

and helping them to be more humane and less frustrated. �9 Cooperate and collaborate with parents and others. �9 Discern and accept his or her own limitations. �9 Believe he or she makes a difference in the lives of children.

These abilities may provide a helpful checklist during self-reflection in the planning stage.

Planning to Eliminate Prejudices

Finally, Haberman challenges educators to formulate a plan to eliminate prejudices. Going beyond thinking about prejudices and forming an action plan is the fifth and final step. His call to action acknowledges several possible options for eliminating prejudices, such as checking them, unlearning them, counteracting them, and getting beyond them. Haberman stops at this point without elaborating on suggested strategies. The invitational model picks up


where the Haberman model leaves off by applying Purkey's rule of five C's to prejudice and proposing a practical action plan.

PURKEY'S RULE OF FIVE C'S

Purkey's (1992) rule of five C's is a conflict management model that is couched in invitational theory. The model seeks to resolve conflict at the lowest possible level in both personal and professional situations. It consists of the following steps:

1. Concern--Initiation of internal reflection on the conflict situation. 2. Confer--Initiation of informal and private conversation with another per-

son about the conflict. 3. Consult--Initiation of more formal, clear, and direct talk about the conflict,

including what has not been resolved yet. 4. Confront--Initiation of detailed no-nonsense talk about the situation and

possible consequences. 5. Combat--Initiation of the consequences.

Purkey designed this conflict resolution model to respond to the criticism that invitational education was not effective in tough situations. Purkey's five-level process of conflict management has been successfully applied to various issues of stress in counseling and teaching, but no attempt has been made before now to apply it specifically to the issue of prejudice.

THE INVITATIONAL MODEL

If the first four steps of Haberman's model are designed to move the educator to the point of wanting to make a change; the fifth step should then explain how to go about making the change. The invitational model addresses this question by applying Purkey's (1992) rule of five C's to the issue of prejudice.

Perceiving Concern

The Haberman model begins with clarifying the nature and source of spe- cific prejudices. The first step in the invitational model uses this analysis to help the educator establish a personal concern about prejudice through internal and voluntary reflection. For instance, in a situation that involves a teacher telling an ethnic joke that offends a student, the teacher might reflect on the incident and ask if this is a matter of concern. Through self-probing questions, the teacher could determine if the joke was just in poor taste, if it lacked sensitivity, or if it revealed a true prejudice. It would also be helpful to reflect on

88 THE URBAN REVIEW

past behaviors that may have contributed to the student's perception of the teacher as prejudiced.

Questioning which can lead to a better understanding of oneself, the situation and the working of prejudices include:

1. Am I concerned that I may be prejudiced or may be perceived as prejudiced?

2. Should I dismiss this complaint as a student overreacting, or does this situation reveal a lack of sensitivity or knowledge on my part?

3. Did this incident intentionally or unintentionally convey a negative stereo- type of a particular group?

4. Have I said or done similar things in the past? 5. Was my behavior in this situation immoral, unethical, or illegal? What are

the implications for my professional practice?

Examining one's own prejudices involves a high level of risk, some soul searching, and possible anxiety, but the best policy is to be honest with oneself. If the teacher finds out not only that he or she does possess particular prejudices, but that there is a consistent pattern of comments and behaviors that corroborate those prejudices, then it is incumbent on that teacher to intentionally change his or her behavior. Examples of comments that suggest prejudice are "I think they all belong in self-contained classes; all they do is ask dumb questions and hold up the class," "They don't want to learn, they just want to cause trouble," or "I don't know why I have to do all this extra work for them when they're not going to pass anyway!"

Real or perceived prejudices can sometimes be resolved at this level after genuine reflection and personal recalibration of one's belief system. But when there is a recurring pattern of insensitivity or prejudicial behavior, the teacher needs to do more than clarify his or her prejudices. It is time to move to another part of the plan, known as conferring with oneself.

Conferring with Oneself

This level involves a nonthreatening, voluntary, internal dialogue with oneself. The teacher is still in control of the process and can select positive or negative self-statements to alter his or her behavior. In the invitational context, self-talk (Stanley, 1991, 1992) is characterized by self-respect and does not lead to putdowns and other self-destructive behaviors. While it is necessary to be honest with oneself, it is not acceptable to be brutal.

Since self-statements can influence one's emotional state (Meichenbaum, 1985), it is important to be intentionally inviting with oneself, which, simply put, means the teacher uses adequate forethought before acting and uses both reason and emotion when deciding what to do about his or her prejudices. It


takes commitment to be intentional in one's thought processes and behavior as well as to make the appropriate choices. One has to choose to change even though the change may be stressful.

The teacher could benefit from intentional self-talk that is rational, accurate, functional, and task-focused, all of which are positive (Stanley, 1991). It is important for the teacher to constantly recalibrate his or her thinking, checking for currency. What may have been acceptable to say at one time may no longer be appropriate. For example, calling all African American and Hispanic children "disadvantaged" or referring to a child who is having a difficult time as "dumb" or "stupid" is linked to some form of prejudice and is considered unacceptable.

Some pertinent questions to consider in this self-dialogue on prejudices include:

1. Are my actions consistent with my beliefs about myself? 2. Do I send mixed messages? 3. Do I understand what my students and others expect of me? 4. Am I willing to try to accommodate them?

It is easy to become angry with oneself when an image discrepancy occurs, such as the teacher believing that he or she is fair-minded and finding evidence to the contrary. Accepting the facts, staying focused on the present situation, and setting goals for the future will help the teacher to overcome this hurdle. For example, if the teacher acknowledges prejudices and accepts responsibility, then his or her attention and energy can be focused on being more intentionally inviting with himself or herself and others. It could be the difference between saying to a mainstreamed student, "How can I help?" instead of "Keep up or go back to the self-contained class" or, to a bilingual student, "How do you say it in your language?" instead of "This is America, and here we speak English!"

On the other hand, if after self-assessment the teacher is unwilling or unable to accept any responsibility for his or her prejudices, and the prejudicial pattern of behavior continues, then a consultation with colleagues is the next appropriate step. This is where the process changes from being a private internal dialogue to being a private external dialogue. It may also change from voluntary to mandatory.

Consulting with Colleagues

Colleagues are engaged as peer consultants by the teacher or others in authority to address specifically those interactions perceived as difficult to handle alone. The process may become mandatory at this point, depending on the seriousness of the discriminatory behavior and the persistence of its pattern. Such cases may include frequent derogatory comments, the preferential treat-

90 THE URBAN REVIEW

ment of certain students, inappropriate or unfair grading practices, holding lower expectations for certain children, ignoring particular students' requests for help, stereotyping selected individuals or groups, or disproportionately sus- pending certain groups of students.

In any case, a fertile place to start is with issues that have been previously addressed during self-talk, but that have not been resolved. Actions to change persistent behaviors or "habits" should be discussed along with the potential consequences of not making the needed changes. This dialogue is respectful but direct. The peer consultant should expect and prepare for anger. The anger may be directed toward oneself, the colleague, or an absent party. In any case, the anger must be addressed before any progress can be made.

One way Purkey (1993) suggests handling an angry colleague who is wres- tling with accusations of prejudices is to allow him or her to "climb mad mountain," expressing his or her feelings without interruption. If the person is not allowed to fully express his or her strong sentiments, he or she will retreat momentarily and then recharge with more venom, determined to reach the top of mad mountain. Everybody loses in those failed attempts. The important thing to remember is to remain in the invitational stance. See that accused person as valuable, able, and responsible, and treat him or her accordingly.

Some questions the peer consultant might ask the teacher are

1. Do you feel you should change to accommodate the diversity in your class? 2. What efforts have you made to eliminate discriminatory behaviors and

comments from your professional and personal interactions with others? 3. What do you think should happen to a professional who intentionally disin-

vites students and others based on their intelligence, race, gender, language, family, or socioeconomic status?

4. Are you ready to face those consequences? 5. What actions are you willing to take to avoid those consequences?

The peer consultant is very important, because he or she facilitates the teacher's discovery of deep-seated beliefs, values, and practices, as well as of suitable strategies to overcome the identified biases. If the teacher trusts and respects the colleague, then he or she may choose to accept the peer assessment and advice and end the process here. But if after self-talk and peer consultation the teacher remains hostile, then it is time to move to a more intense step in the process known as confronting the crisis. The process now becomes totally mandatory, public, and out of the teacher's control. Depending on the school's gov- ernance structure, it will probably involve a higher authority than a colleague.

Confronting the Crisis

The crisis begins when the teacher becomes defensive and resistant to peer consultation and no compromise can be struck. Progress ceases until the teacher


faces both his or her hostility and his or her resistance to change. This may come only when forced by an external catalyst, such as a written complaint from a parent or student or a postobservation conference with a supervisor.

The pattern of prejudice must be meticulously documented, along with all of the interventions suggested or tried with the teacher. It must be clear that sin- cere attempts have been made to help the teacher overcome his or her prejudices. Consequences need to be clearly stated and linked to performance, so there can be no question about their propriety.

It is possible that, after the teacher has had an uninterrupted opportunity to be heard and the options have been presented, he or she will accept the invita- tion for help, which would be in the best interest of everyone. Teachers who lack sensitivity but are committed to change can be exposed to multicultural readings, videos, and audiotapes for personal use and for use with their students. They can develop both personally and professionally by attending confer- ences, seminars, and workshops on multicultural and invitational education, as well as joining and becoming active in professional organizations that promote sensitivity and equity (Reed, 1992b).

Some appropriate questions for the colleague or supervisor to ask when confronting a crisis with a prejudiced teacher are

1. Do you understand the implications of these charges? 2. Are you familiar with your rights under district policy? 3. Do you feel you have received adequate information and assistance in this

matter? 4. Do you feel that the consequences are fair and impartial? 5. Do you believe you have acted in the best interests of children and youth?

Confrontation doesn't always resolve issues, particularly when they are issues of prejudice. Sometimes it serves only to exacerbate the negative circumstances and causes the teacher to become more entrenched in the undesirable behavior. Once that happens, the process escalates to the last part, combating prejudices.

Combating Prejudices

Since the teacher's prejudice has not been counteracted at the lower levels, it is time to move to the most extreme course of action, which is combating prejudices. At this point, it is necessary to implement the stated consequences, but as always in invitational education, the focus is on the behavior, not the person. Combat is used as a verb not a noun. The goal is to combat prejudice, not the person. It is particularly important to continue to believe that people can change, given time and the proper resources.

If, after time has been spent within the context of the invitational approach conferring, consulting, and confronting the teacher's personal and professional

92 THE URBAN REVIEW

demeanor, it is determined that he or she continues to be a lethal presence in the classroom, the only thing left to do is to take the necessary action to remove him or her from the presence of children. Since this course of action will probably result in the termination of the teacher, it should be handled thoughtfully, should be well documented, and should be a last resort.

Some final questions for the colleague or supervisor to ask are

1. Have I done all I can do to help this person? 2. Has the system or district done all it can do? 3. Are there others who might help? 4. What is in the best interests of the children?

The final consideration must be in the best interests of the children. It is at no time acceptable for a professional to be intentionally disinviting according to invitational theory (Purkey and Novak, 1984). Once the teacher is aware of his or her prejudices and their deleterious effects on children and others, continuing in those practices is to make a conscious decision not to change. That decision is unacceptable and leaves the powers that be no other alternative but to seek dismissal.

Hilliard (1991) asked if educators had the will to educate all poor children. The question here is: Do educators have the will to educate all the children as they come with their myriad of differences? Through invitational theory, educators can begin the personal and professional journey of facing and overcoming the prejudices that keep them from delivering the best possible education to all children.

REFERENCES

Haberman, Martin (1987). Recruiting and Selecting Teachers for Urban Schools. New York: ERIC/ CUE.

Haberman, Martin (1994). Gentle teaching in a violent society. Educational Horizons 72(3): Hilliard, Asa G., III (1991). Do we have the will to educate all poor children? Educational Leader-

ship 49(1): 31-36. Mclntosh, Peggy (1988). White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to

See Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies. (Working Paper No. 89). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 262)

Meichenbaum, Donald (1985). Stress Inoculation Training. New York: Plenum Press. Novak, John M. (ed.) (1992). Advancing Invitational Thinking. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press. Pine, Gerald J., and Hilliard, Asa G., III (1990). Rx for racism: Imperatives for America's schools.

Phi Delta Kappan 71(8): 593-600. Purkey, William W. (1992). Conflict resolution: An invitational approach. Journal of Invitational

Theory and Practice 1(2): 111-116. Purkey, William W. (1993). Climbing mad mountain: How to be inviting in challenging situations.

Invitational Education Forum 14(2): 2.


Purkey, William W., and Novak, John M. (1984). Inviting School Success: A Self-Concept Approach to Teaching.and Learning, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Reed, Charlotte (1992a). Enhancing self-esteem in multicultural classrooms. Invitational Education Forum 13(2): 8-10.

Reed, Charlotte. (1992b). Invitational and multicultural perspectives: What do they have in com- mon? In John M. Novak (ed.), Advancing Invitational Thinking, pp. 47-75. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

Stanley, Paula H. (1991). Asymmetry in Internal Dialogue, Core Assumptions, Valence of Self- Statements and Counselor Trainee Effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Stanley, Paula H. (1992). Inviting things to do in the privacy of your own mind. In John M. Novak (ed.), Advancing Invitational Thinking, pp. 221-242. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

Overcoming prejudices: An invitational approach

Documents

Transcript of Overcoming prejudices: An invitational approach