Children Are Not
Colorblind: How Young
Children Learn Race
Erin N. Winkle r, Ph.D.
Unive rsity o f Wisc o nsin-Milwa uke e
Hirsc hfe ld , 2008; Ka tz, 2003; Ka tz & Ko fkin,
The re is a myth in p o p ula r c ulture tha t
1997; Pa tte rso n & Big le r, 2006; Va n Ausd a le &
yo ung c hild re n a re “ c o lo rb lind ” o r d o n’ t
Fe a g in, 2001). This re se a rc h sug g e sts tha t we
no tic e ra c e . By this lo g ic , c hild re n a re
must re think wha t we “ kno w” a b o ut yo ung
“ b la nk sla te s” who c a nno t d e ve lo p ra c ia l
c hild re n a nd ra c e .
p re jud ic e s until the y a re e xp lic itly ta ug ht
to d o so . This le a d s ma ny
a d ults to a rg ue tha t we
What do children
sho uld no t d isc uss ra c e
Research clearly shows
with p re sc ho o le rs b e c a use
learn, and when?
the y a re “ to o yo ung ,” a nd
that children not only
In a stud y tha t fo llo we d
e ve n me ntio ning ra c e will
recognize race from a
a p p ro xima te ly 200 b la c k a nd
“ p ut id e a s in the ir he a d s” o r
very
young
age,
but
also
white c hild re n fro m the a g e s
“ p o iso n the ir mind s.” Whe n
o f six mo nths to six ye a rs, Ka tz
develop racial biases by
yo ung c hild re n ta lk a b o ut
a nd Ko fkin (1997) fo und tha t
ra c e o r e xp re ss a ny b ia s,
ages three to five.
infa nts a re a b le to no nve rb a lly
it is o fte n e ithe r d ismisse d
c a te g o rize p e o p le b y ra c e
(“ She d o e sn’ t kno w wha t
a nd g e nd e r a t six mo nths
she ’ s sa ying .”), b la me d
o f a g e . The infa nts lo o ke d
o n p a re nts o r o the r a d ults (“ So me o ne
signiicantly longer at an unfamiliar face of a
must ha ve sa id tha t a t ho me .”), o r o nly
d iffe re nt ra c e tha n the y d id a t a n unfa milia r
ind ire c tly a d d re sse d a s g e ne ra l b a d
fa c e o f the ir sa me ra c e . The re se a rc he rs
b e ha vio r (“ We d o n’ t sa y thing s like tha t
argue that, because this inding is very
b e c a use it hurts p e o p le ’ s fe e ling s.”).
c o nsiste nt in six-mo nth-o ld s, “ initia l a wa re ne ss
Ho we ve r, c urre nt p syc ho lo g ic a l re se a rc h
[o f ra c e ] p ro b a b ly b e g ins e ve n e a rlie r” (Ka tz
sug g e sts this a p p ro a c h is a ll wro ng . In
& Ko fkin, 1997, p . 55).
fa c t, re se a rc h c le a rly sho ws tha t c hild re n
no t o nly re c o g nize ra c e fro m a ve ry
To d d le rs a s yo ung a s two ye a rs use ra c ia l
yo ung a g e , b ut a lso d e ve lo p ra c ia l
c a te g o rie s to re a so n a b o ut p e o p le ’ s
biases by ages three to ive that do not
b e ha vio rs (Hirsc hfe ld , 2008), a nd nume ro us
ne c e ssa rily re se mb le the ra c ia l a ttitud e s
studies show that three- to ive-year-olds not
o f a d ults in the ir live s (Ab o ud , 2008;
o nly c a te g o rize p e o p le b y ra c e , b ut e xp re ss
All rig hts re se rve d .
1
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
b ia se s so e a rly in life , e ve n if no o ne a ro und
the m is te a c hing the m to d o so ? And why is
ra c e a so c ia l c a te g o ry to whic h the y a tta c h
me a ning ? Why no t he ig ht o r ha irstyle o r le ftha nd e d ne ss? Sc ho la rs a rg ue tha t the re a re
b o th inte rna l (b io lo g ic a l a nd c o g nitive ) a nd
e xte rna l (e nviro nme nta l a nd so c ie ta l) fa c to rs
a t p la y.
b ia s b a se d o n ra c e (Ab o ud , 2008; Hirsc hfe ld ,
2008; Ka tz, 2003; Pa tte rso n & Big le r, 2006). In a
ye a rlo ng stud y, Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in (2001)
found that three- to ive-year-olds in a racially
a nd e thnic a lly d ive rse d a y c a re c e nte r use d
ra c ia l c a te g o rie s to id e ntify the mse lve s a nd
o the rs, to inc lud e o r e xc lud e c hild re n fro m
a c tivitie s, a nd to ne g o tia te p o we r in the ir
o wn so c ia l/ p la y ne two rks.
First, the imma ture c o g nitive struc ture s o f
p re sc ho o le rs ma ke the m rife fo r ste re o typ ing
(Ab o ud , 2008; Hirsc hfe ld , 2008; Ka tz & Ko fkin,
1997). While yo ung c hild re n a re a b le to
c a te g o rize p e o p le b y ra c e , the y a re o fte n
no t a b le to c a te g o rize a p e rso n a c c o rd ing
to multip le d ime nsio ns a t o nc e (Ab o ud ,
2008). Thus, the y e ng a g e in “ tra nsd uc tive
re a so ning ” – whe n the y se e p e o p le who a re
a like in o ne d ime nsio n
(e .g ., skin c o lo r), the y
p re sume the y a re a like
in o the r d ime nsio ns a s
we ll (e .g ., a b ilitie s o r
inte llig e nc e ) (Ka tz & Ko fkin,
1997; Pa tte rso n & Big le r,
2006).
How and why does this
happen?
Re se a rc h ha s d isp ro ve d the p o p ula r b e lie f
tha t c hild re n o nly ha ve ra c ia l b ia se s if the y
a re d ire c tly ta ug ht to d o so . Nume ro us stud ie s
ha ve sho wn tha t c hild re n’ s ra c ia l b e lie fs
a re no t signiicantly or
re lia b ly re la te d to tho se o f
the ir p a re nts (Hirsc hfe ld ,
2008; Ka tz, 2003;
Pa tte rso n & Big le r, 2006).
While this ma y se e m
c o unte rintuitive , Hirsc hfe ld
(2008) sa ys it sho uld no t
surp rise us. Child re n, he
a rg ue s, a re mo tiva te d
to le a rn a nd c o nfo rm to
the b ro a d e r c ultura l a nd
so c ia l no rms tha t will he lp
the m func tio n in so c ie ty.
In o rd e r to g a ug e the se
“ c o mmunity no rms,”
c hild re n ha ve to g a the r
info rma tio n fro m a b ro a d
ra ng e o f so urc e s – no t
just the ir o wn fa milie s. He g ive s the e xa mp le
o f a c c e nts a s a wa y o f illustra ting his p o int.
If c hild re n lo o ke d o nly o r e ve n mo stly to
the ir p a re nts to le a rn b e ha vio rs a nd no rms,
the n we wo uld e xp e c t c hild re n o f no nna tive
sp e a ke rs to a c q uire the ir p a re nts’ a c c e nts.
Inste a d , c hild re n a c q uire the no rma tive
a c c e nt o f the re g io n whe re the y a re g ro wing
up (Hirsc hfe ld , 2008).
Se c o nd , fa c to rs in
c hild re n’ s e nviro nme nts,
a nd in o ur so c ie ty a s a
who le , te a c h c hild re n tha t
ra c e is a so c ia l c a te g o ry
of signiicance. Bigler and
he r c o lle a g ue s fo und tha t
e nviro nme nts te a c h yo ung
c hild re n whic h c a te g o rie s
se e m to b e mo st imp o rta nt
(Big le r & Lib e n, 2007;
Pa tte rso n & Big le r, 2006). Child re n the n
a tta c h me a ning to tho se so c ia l c a te g o rie s
o n the ir o wn, witho ut a d ult instruc tio n.
Pa tte rso n a nd Big le r (2006) a rg ue tha t e ve n
a se e ming ly inno c uo us sta te me nt like , “ Go o d
mo rning , b o ys a nd g irls,” he lp s c hild re n
infe r tha t g e nd e r is a n imp o rta nt so c ia l
c a te g o ry, a nd c hild re n c a n the n a tta c h
the ir o wn me a ning s to g e nd e r c a te g o rie s
(e .g ., “ Girls a re sma rte r.”), o r infe r the m fro m
the ir e nviro nme nt (e .g ., “ Only me n c a n b e
Pre sid e nt o f the Unite d Sta te s.”), e ve n if a d ults
d o no t me ntio n o r e nd o rse tho se id e a s.
So , c hild re n c o lle c t info rma tio n fro m the
wo rld a ro und the m in o rd e r to a c tive ly
c o nstruc t the ir o wn b e lie fs (Pa tte rso n &
Big le r, 2006). But why d o c hild re n fo rm ra c ia l
All rig hts re se rve d .
2
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
Ta tum, 1997). Ta tum (1997) a rg ue s tha t this
me ssa g e is so p re va le nt in o ur so c ie ty it is
like “ smo g in the a ir. So me time s it is so thic k
it is visib le , o the r time s it is le ss a p p a re nt, b ut
a lwa ys, d a y in a nd d a y o ut, we a re b re a thing
it in” (p . 6). Fo r ve ry yo ung c hild re n, this
“ smo g ” c o me s in the fo rm o f p ic ture b o o ks,
c hild re n’ s mo vie s, te le visio n, a nd c hild re n’ s
so ng s, whic h a ll inc lud e sub tle me ssa g e s tha t
white ne ss is p re fe ra b le (Giro ux, 2001; Gra ve s,
1999; Ka tz, 2003; Mc Into sh, 1990; Murra y
& Ma nd a ra , 2002; Ta tum, 1997). Eve n the
la ng ua g e a nd symb o lism we use d a ily te nd s
to a sso c ia te p o sitive thing s with white (e .g .,
“ p urity,” “ c le a n,” “ Sno w
White ,” “ the g o o d witc h”)
a nd ne g a tive thing s
with b la c k (e .g ., “ e vil,”
“ sin,” “ d irty,” “ the wic ke d
witc h”), a nd stud ie s ha ve
sho wn tha t c hild re n d o
g e ne ra lize the se ling uistic
c o nno ta tio ns to p e o p le
(Ka tz, 2003; Ta tum, 1997).
Child re n a lso le a rn whic h so c ia l c a te g o rie s
a re imp o rta nt b y o b se rving the ir
e nviro nme nts. The y a re like ly to no tic e tha t
the p e o p le in the ir fa milie s o r ne ig hb o rho o d s
a re a ll d iffe re nt he ig hts a nd ha ve d iffe re nt
ha irstyle s, b ut p e rha p s a lmo st a ll ha ve the
sa me skin c o lo r. The re fo re , c hild re n ma y
a ssume tha t the y sho uld a vo id o r d islike
p e o p le with d iffe re nt skin c o lo rs tha n the ir
o wn, e ve n if no a d ult e ve r sa ys this to the m
(Ab o ud , 2005). Simila rly, c hild re n ma y no tic e
whe n g o ing to the sto re o r the d o c to r’ s
ofice or riding the bus that height and
ha irstyle d o no t se e m re la te d to o c c up a tio n
o r ne ig hb o rho o d , b ut skin
c o lo r d o e s. The se p a tte rns
fo rm wha t Big le r & Lib e n
(2007) c a ll a “ c o g nitive
p uzzle fo r c hild re n to so lve ”
(p . 164). Whe n c hild re n
no tic e the se p a tte rns, the y
o fte n “ infe r tha t the se a re
no rms o r rule s” (Ab o ud ,
2008, p . 58) a nd tha t the
p a tte rns “ must ha ve b e e n
c a use d b y me a ning ful
inhe re nt d iffe re nc e s
b e twe e n g ro up s” (Big le r &
Lib e n, 2007, p . 164).
Re se a rc he rs ha ve fo und
tha t e ve n ve ry yo ung
c hild re n d e ve lo p wha t
p syc ho lo g ists c a ll “ ing ro up b ia s,” o r fa vo ritism
to wa rd s the g ro up s in
whic h the y a re me mb e rs
(Pa tte rso n & Big le r, 2006).
Ho we ve r, a s c hild re n
b e c o me mo re a wa re
o f so c ie ta l no rms tha t
fa vo r c e rta in g ro up s o ve r
o the rs, the y will o fte n sho w a b ia s to wa rd
the so c ia lly p rivile g e d g ro up . In the ir stud y
fo llo wing a g ro up o f b la c k a nd white c hild re n
o ve r time , Ka tz a nd Ko fkin (1997) fo und tha t
a ll o f the c hild re n e xp re sse d a n in-g ro up b ia s
a t the a g e o f 30 mo nths. Whe n a ske d to
c ho o se a p o te ntia l p la yma te fro m a mo ng
p ho to s o f unfa milia r white a nd b la c k b o ys
a nd g irls, a ll o f the c hild re n c ho se a sa me ra c e p la yma te . Ho we ve r, b y 36 mo nths, “ the
ma jo rity o f b o th b la c k a nd white c hild re n
c ho se white p la yma te s” (p . 59) a nd this
p a tte rn he ld a t the 60-mo nth ma rk, a ltho ug h
it d e c re a se d slig htly a t tha t p o int.
Altho ug h c hild re n o fte n
a tta c h me a ning to ra c e
witho ut a d ults d ire c tly
te lling the m to d o so , it is
imp o rta nt to no te tha t “ the
b ia se s c hild re n e xhib it a re
no t ra nd o m” (Ka tz & Ko fkin,
1997, p. 62). In fact, they often “relect both
sub tle a nd no t so sub tle me ssa g e s a b o ut the
re la tive d e sira b ility o f b e lo ng ing to o ne so c ia l
g ro up a s o p p o se d to a no the r” (Ka tz & Ko fkin,
1997, p . 62). In o the r wo rd s, c hild re n p ic k up
o n the wa ys in whic h white ne ss is no rma lize d
a nd p rivile g e d in U.S. so c ie ty.
Wha t d o e s this me a n? Co nsc io usly o r
unc o nsc io usly, mid d le -c la ss white c ulture
is p re se nte d a s a no rm o r a sta nd a rd in
the Unite d Sta te s in te rms o f a p p e a ra nc e ,
b e a uty, la ng ua g e , c ultura l p ra c tic e s, fo o d ,
a nd so o n (Jo hnso n, 2006; Mc Into sh, 1990;
All rig hts re se rve d .
3
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
a b o ut c ulture a nd id e ntity with the ir ve ry
yo ung c hild re n, b ut ta lk a b o ut ra c ia l ine q uity
a nd p re p a ra tio n fo r d isc rimina tio n we re
mo re like ly to o c c ur a s the c hild re n g re w
o ld e r. Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in (2001) a rg ue
tha t a ll c hild re n sho uld b e a c tive ly ta ug ht
to re c o g nize a nd re je c t the “ smo g ” o f white
p rivile g e , b ut tha t, if a nti-b ia s e d uc a tio n e xists
in sc ho o l c urric ula a t a ll, it te nd s to b e to o
little , to o la te .
What should caregivers do?
So me time s a d ults a re sile nt o n the issue
o f ra c e , p re jud ic e , a nd ra c ia l ine q uity
b e c a use we o urse lve s a re no t c o mfo rta b le
ta lking a b o ut the m. So me time s we g ive
no info rma tio n o r ina c c ura te info rma tio n
b e c a use we o urse lve s d o no t fully und e rsta nd
ho w ra c ism wo rks, why ra c ia l ine q uity still
e xists in o ur so c ie ty so ma ny ye a rs a fte r the
Civil Rig hts Mo ve me nt, o r wha t we c a n
d o a b o ut it. Re me mb e r, a d ults ha ve a lso
b e e n so c ia lize d into so c ie ty a nd a re a lso
“ b re a thing the smo g ” o f c ultura l ra c ism o n
a d a ily b a sis. Altho ug h ra c e a nd ra c ism a re
dificult topics, it is important to educate
o urse lve s a nd d isc uss the m with c hild re n
in a n a g e -a p p ro p ria te wa y. So , wha t c a n
c a re g ive rs o f yo ung c hild re n d o ?
The authors argue that this is a relection of
so c ie ta l no rms, no ting tha t, in a va rie ty o f
stud ie s, “ white c hild re n ra re ly e xhib it a nything
o the r tha n a p ro -white b ia s” (p . 62), while
children of color as young as ive years old
sho w e vid e nc e o f b e ing a wa re o f, a nd
ne g a tive ly imp a c te d b y, ste re o typ e s a b o ut
the ir ra c ia l g ro up (Hirsc hfe ld , 2008). No t
surp rising ly the n, re se a rc h sho ws tha t p a re nts
o f c hild re n o f c o lo r a re muc h mo re like ly to
ta lk to the ir c hild re n a b o ut ra c e a nd ra c ism
tha n white p a re nts. The se p a re nts must te a c h
the ir c hild re n ho w to func tio n in a ra c ia lly
ine q uita b le so c ie ty, while still ma inta ining
ra c ia l p rid e a nd a p o sitive se nse o f se lf (Ha le Be nso n, 1990; Hug he s e t a l., 2006; Le sa ne Bro wn, 2006). In this p ro c e ss, c a lle d ra c ia l
so c ia liza tio n, p a re nts o f c hild re n o f c o lo r he lp
the ir c hild re n le a rn whic h so c ie ta l me ssa g e s
“to ilter out, [and which] to promote” (Boykin
& Elliso n, 1995, p . 124).
Talk about it!
Whe n a d ults think tha t ve ry yo ung c hild re n
d o no t no tic e o r c a nno t und e rsta nd ra c e
a nd ra c ism, the y a vo id ta lking a b o ut it with
c hild re n in a me a ning ful wa y. Ka tz a nd he r
c o lle a g ue s fo und tha t p a re nts o f ve ry yo ung
c hild re n ta lk fre e ly a b o ut g e nd e r, b ut no t
a b o ut ra c e (Ka tz & Ko fkin, 1997). This sile nc e
a b o ut ra c e d o e s no t ke e p c hild re n fro m
no tic ing ra c e a nd d e ve lo p ing ra c ia l b ia se s
a nd p re jud ic e s, it just ke e p s the m fro m ta lking
a b o ut it (Ab o ud , 2005; Ta tum, 1997). Co nsid e r
the fo llo wing e xa mp le fro m p syc ho lo g ist
Be ve rly Ta tum (1997).
Ho we ve r, stud ie s sho w tha t e ve n p a re nts
o f c o lo r o fte n think tha t p re sc ho o l-a g e d
c hild re n a re to o yo ung to ha ve so me o f the se
d isc ussio ns. Ka tz a nd Ko fkin (1997) fo und tha t
b la c k p a re nts we re mo re like ly to ta lk a b o ut
ra c ia l id e ntity with the ir p re sc ho o le rs tha n
we re white p a re nts (48% o f b la c k p a re nts
vs. 12% o f white p a re nts), b ut ne ithe r b la c k
no r white p a re nts we re like ly to d isc uss
the ra c ia l d iffe re nc e s the ir c hild re n sa w in
me d ia , o n p la yg ro und s, o r in sto re s a t this
a g e . Hug he s & Che n (1999) a lso fo und tha t
Afric a n Ame ric a n p a re nts we re like ly to ta lk
All rig hts re se rve d .
A White mo the r a nd p re sc ho o l c hild
a re sho p p ing a t the g ro c e ry sto re .
The y p a ss a Bla c k wo ma n a nd c hild ,
a nd the White c hild sa ys lo ud ly,
4
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
the c o mp le xitie s o f this issue . This re sults in
a kind of supericial multicultural education
tha t fo c use s o nly o n the c e le b ra tio n o f
c ulture a nd ind ivid ua l he ro e s, a nd le a ve s
o ut a ny d isc ussio n o f struc tura l ine q ua litie s
(Hirsc hfe ld , 2008; Le wis, 2003; Va n Ausd a le
& Fe a g in, 2001). Inste a d , c hild re n sho uld b e
“ p re se nte d with a p p ro p ria te – no t d umb e d
d o wn – d e sc rip tio ns o f the na ture a nd sc o p e
o f struc tura l ra c ia l ine q uity,” so tha t the y
c a n “ a p p re c ia te the g ro up na ture o f ra c ia l
p re jud ic e ” (Hirsc hfe ld , 2008, p . 49). On this
p o int, Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in (2001) o ffe r the
fo llo wing a d vic e to c a re g ive rs o f p re sc ho o la g e c hild re n.
“ Mo mmy, lo o k a t tha t g irl! Why is
she so d irty? ” (Co nfusing d a rk skin
with d irt is a c o mmo n misc o nc e p tio n
a mo ng White p re sc ho o l c hild re n.)
The White mo the r, e mb a rra sse d
b y he r c hild ’ s c o mme nt, re sp o nd s
q uic kly with a “ Ssh!”
An a p p ro p ria te re sp o nse mig ht
ha ve b e e n: “ Ho ne y, tha t little g irl
is no t d irty. He r skin is a s c le a n a s
yo urs. It’ s just a d iffe re nt c o lo r. Just
like we ha ve d iffe re nt c o lo r ha ir,
p e o p le ha ve d iffe re nt skin c o lo rs.”
If the c hild still se e me d inte re ste d ,
the e xp la na tio n o f me la nin c o uld b e
a d d e d . Pe rha p s a fra id o f sa ying the
wro ng thing , ho we ve r, ma ny p a re nts
d o n’ t o ffe r a n e xp la na tio n. The y sto p
a t “ Ssh,” sile nc ing the c hild b ut no t
re sp o nd ing to the q ue stio n o r the
re a so ning und e rlying it. Child re n who
ha ve b e e n sile nc e d o fte n e no ug h
le a rn no t to ta lk a b o ut ra c e p ub lic ly.
The ir q ue stio ns d o n’ t g o a wa y, the y
just g o una ske d . (p . 36)
[D]o n’ t e nc o ura g e c hild re n to
b e lie ve tha t ne g a tive ra c ia l ta lk o r
d isc rimina to ry a c tio n is the c o nd uc t
o f o nly “ sic k” ind ivid ua ls o r tha t it
indicates a peculiar character law
o r just “ b a d ” b e ha vio r. Ta lk a b o ut
the fa c t tha t the so c ia l wo rld we live
in is o fte n unfa ir to p e o p le o f c o lo r
simp ly b e c a use the y a re p e o p le o f
c o lo r a nd tha t p e rsisting ra c ia l-e thnic
ine q ua litie s a re unjust a nd mo ra lly
wro ng . Ma ke it c le a r tha t ra c ia le thnic p re jud ic e a nd d isc rimina tio n
a re p a rt o f a la rg e r so c ie ty tha t
ne e d s re fo rm a nd no t just so me thing
tha t ind ivid ua ls d o . (p . 208)
The le sso n fo r c a re g ive rs o f yo ung c hild re n
is: Do no t shush c hild re n o r shut d o wn the
c o nve rsa tio n. Inste a d , e ng a g e in o p e n,
ho ne st, fre q ue nt, a nd a g e -a p p ro p ria te
c o nve rsa tio n a b o ut ra c e , ra c ia l d iffe re nc e s,
a nd e ve n ra c ia l ine q uity a nd ra c ism.
Re se a rc h ha s sho wn tha t suc h c o nve rsa tio ns
a re a sso c ia te d with lo we r le ve ls o f b ia s in
yo ung c hild re n (Ka tz, 2003). Le t g o o f the
no tio n tha t yo u a re “ p utting id e a s in the ir
he a d s” b y ta lking a b o ut ra c e ; a s we ha ve
se e n, re se a rc h sho ws tha t yo ung c hild re n
no tic e ra c e a nd d ra w c o nc lusio ns a b o ut
d iffe re nc e o n the ir o wn. Sc ho la rs p o int o ut
tha t a vo id ing c o nve rsa tio n a b o ut ra c e o nly
e nc o ura g e s “ p re va le nt ste re o typ e s [to ]
re ma in unc ha ng e d ” (a s c ite d b y Ka tz &
Ko fkin, 1997, p . 56).
Ed uc a tio na l re so urc e s fo r yo ung c hild re n
o fte n p re se nt the issue o f ra c ia l d isc rimina tio n
a s so me thing tha t ha p p e ne d in the p a st,
Be ac c urate and age -appropriate .
Hirsc hfe ld (2008) a rg ue s tha t whe n a d ults
d o d isc uss ra c e with yo ung c hild re n, the y
o fte n d ilute the d isc ussio n b e c a use the y
b e lie ve yo ung c hild re n c a nno t und e rsta nd
All rig hts re se rve d .
5
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
tha t yo ur ro le is c ritic a l! Be a le rt, a nd whe n
inc id e nts d o a rise , a vo id using va g ue sc o ld ing
a b o ut “ hurting fe e ling s” o r “ b e ing me a n,” b ut
rather discuss the issue in a speciic, head-on
wa y.
ha s b e e n e ntire ly o ve rc o me , a nd is to d a y
o nly p e rp e tra te d b y a fe w b a d ind ivid ua ls.
Iro nic a lly, the se re so urc e s c a n a c tua lly
re info rc e ra c ia l p re jud ic e in c hild re n
(Hirsc hfe ld , 2008) b e c a use the ta ke -a wa y
me ssa g e c a n b e tha t a ny re ma ining
ine q ua litie s we se e to d a y a re e ithe r na tura l
o r the fa ult o f p e o p le who suffe r fro m
the m, a nd tha t ra c ia l ine q uity is no t the
re sp o nsib ility o f “ g o o d , no rma l p e o p le .” As
suc h, p syc ho lo g ists a rg ue tha t it is imp o rta nt
to p re se nt ra c ism a nd o the r so c ia l ine q uitie s
in a mo re a c c ura te wa y, so c hild re n c a n
und e rsta nd ho w d isc rimina tio n re a lly wo rks
a nd re c o g nize tha t it is a so c ie ta l p ro b le m,
no t a n ind ivid ua l p ro b le m.
Mo re o ve r, c a re g ive rs sho uld kno w tha t this
is a n imp o rta nt issue in a ll c la ssro o ms, e ve n
(a nd p e rha p s e sp e c ia lly) if the re is no ra c ia l
o r e thnic d ive rsity in tha t c la ssro o m o r lo c a l
a re a . Child re n p ic k up id e a s a b o ut ra c e fro m
o ur b ro a d e r p o p ula r c ulture – re me mb e r
the “ smo g in the a ir,” a nd the le ss a c tua l,
me a ning ful c o nta c t the y ha ve with p e o p le
fro m o the r ra c ia l g ro up s b e sid e s the ir o wn,
the mo re like ly the y a re to re ta in hig he r le ve ls
o f p re jud ic e (Allp o rt, 1954; Ab o ud , 2008;
Pe ttig re w & Tro p p , 2006).
Take it se riously.
Enc ourage c omple x thinking.
Be c a use o f the ina c c ura te b ut d e e p se a te d fo lk b e lie f tha t “ c hild re n c a nno t
b e p re jud ic e d ,” ma ny a d ults c ho o se to
ig no re o r b rush o ff inc id e nc e s in whic h
yo ung c hild re n e xp re ss b ia s. Sc ho la rs wa rn
a g a inst this, a rg uing
tha t this o nly fue ls the
ire of developing
p re jud ic e s (Ab o ud ,
2008; Hirsc hfe ld , 2008;
Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in,
2001). Do no t p re sume
tha t c hild re n ha ve to
e xhib it stro ng , ha te fully
ra c ist a ttitud e s in
o rd e r to ha rb o r ra c ia l
p re jud ic e (Ab o ud ,
2008). Also b e a wa re
the re is e vid e nc e
p re sc ho o le rs ra ise
issue s o f ra c e within
the ir o wn p e e r g ro up s
mo re fre q ue ntly tha n
the ir a d ult c a re g ive rs
kno w (Ta tum, 1997;
Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in,
2001). If na me -c a lling
o r o the r d isc rimina tio n
ha p p e ns a t sc ho o l a nd
the n g o e s e ithe r unno tic e d o r is no t d isc usse d
b y a d ults, c hild re n infe r tha t the b e ha vio r is
wid e ly a c c e p te d (Ab o ud , 2008). This me a ns
All rig hts re se rve d .
Ab o ud (2008) a rg ue s tha t a nti-b ia s
inte rve ntio ns with yo ung c hild re n a re to o
o fte n b a se d o nly “ o n the fa lse p re mise tha t
p re jud ic e is d ue to
ig no ra nc e ” (p . 68). In
fa c t, she a rg ue s, just
p ro vid ing info rma tio n
is no t e no ug h b e c a use
yo ung c hild re n
so me time s re je c t
info rma tio n tha t g o e s
a g a inst the ir e xisting
in-g ro up b ia se s. So
wha t c a n b e d o ne ?
Stud ie s ha ve sho wn
tha t te a c hing yo ung
c hild re n to think in a
mo re c o mp le x wa y c a n
b e e ffe c tive in re d uc ing
p re jud ic e . Whe n
c hild re n a re ta ug ht to
p a y a tte ntio n to multip le
a ttrib ute s o f a p e rso n
a t o nc e (e .g ., no t just
ra c e ), re d uc e d le ve ls o f
b ia s a re sho wn (Ab o ud ,
2008). So , in a d d itio n to
g iving a c c ura te info rma tio n a b o ut ra c e a nd
ra c ism, c a re g ive rs sho uld fo c us o n te a c hing
c hild re n to think c ritic a lly (Ta tum, 1997).
6
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
Empowe r!
References
Pe rha p s the mo st imp o rta nt thing c a re g ive rs
c a n d o is p ro vid e c hild re n with id e a s a b o ut
how to ight against the continuing racial
ine q uity a nd d isc rimina tio n in o ur so c ie ty
(Ta tum, 1997; Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in, 2001).
Emp o we r the c hild re n! Ac tive ly se e k o ut
a nti-ra c ist ro le mo d e ls in yo ur c o mmunity a nd
in the b ro a d e r so c ie ty, a nd e xp o se yo ung
c hild re n to the se ro le mo d e ls (Ta tum, 1997;
Va n Ausd a le & Fe a g in, 2001). Sho w c hild re n
tha t, while we d o fa c e tro ub ling p ro b le ms a s
a so c ie ty, the re a re p e o p le a nd o rg a niza tio ns
tha t a re inve ste d in ma king p o sitive c ha ng e .
Sho w c hild re n the y c a n he lp to o ! Invo lve
the m in p ro je c ts tha t a llo w re a l p a rtic ip a tio n
in the p ro c e ss o f c ha ng e . Fo r mo re id e a s, se e
“ Ad d itio na l Re so urc e s fo r Ed uc a to rs” b e lo w.
Allp o rt, G. W. (1954). The na ture o f p re judic e . Ca mb rid g e ,
MA: Pe rse us Pub lishing .
Ab o ud , F. E. (2008). A so c ia l-c o g nitive d e ve lo p me nta l
the o ry o f p re jud ic e . In S. M. Quinta na & C. Mc Ko wn (Ed s.),
Ha ndb o o k o f ra c e , ra c ism, a nd the de ve lo p ing c hild (p p .
55–71). Ho b o ke n, NJ: Jo hn Wile y & So ns.
Ab o ud , F. E. (2005). The d e ve lo p me nt o f p re jud ic e in
c hild ho o d a nd a d o le sc e nc e . In J. F. Do vid io , P. S. Glic k, &
L. A. Rud ma n (Ed s.), On the na ture o f p re judic e : Fifty ye a rs
a fte r Allp o rt (p p . 310–326). Ma ld e n, MA: Bla c kwe ll.
Big le r, R. S., & Lib e n, L.S. (2007). De ve lo p me nta l
inte rg ro up the o ry: Exp la ining a nd re d uc ing c hild re n’ s
so c ia l ste re o typ ing a nd p re jud ic e . Curre nt Dire c tio ns in
Psyc ho lo g ic a l Sc ie nc e , 16, 162–166.
Bo ykin, A. W., & Elliso n, C. M. (1995). The multip le e c o lo g ie s
o f b la c k yo uth so c ia liza tio n: An Afro g ra p hic a na lysis. In R.
L. Ta ylo r (Ed .), Afric a n-Ame ric a n yo uth: The ir so c ia l a nd
e c o no mic sta tus in the Unite d Sta te s (p p . 93–128). We stp o rt,
CT: Pra e g e r.
Giro ux, H. A. (2001). The mo use tha t ro a re d: Disne y a nd the
e nd o f inno c e nc e . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleield.
Conclusion
Gra ve s, S. B. (1999). Te le visio n a nd p re jud ic e re d uc tio n:
Whe n d o e s te le visio n a s a vic a rio us e xp e rie nc e ma ke a
d iffe re nc e ? Jo urna l o f So c ia l Issue s, 55(4), 707–727.
In o rd e r to a d d re ss issue s o f ra c ia l b ia s
a nd p re jud ic e with c hild re n a nd he lp
the m und e rsta nd ra c e a nd ine q uity in o ur
society, caregivers must irst be comfortable
a d d re ssing the se issue s the mse lve s. Afte r
a ll, a d ults ha ve a lso b e e n so c ia lize d into a
c ulture tha t sile nc e s c o nve rsa tio ns a b o ut
ra c e a nd a c ulture in whic h sub tle ra c ia lize d
ima g e s a re a ll a ro und us. Va n Ausd a le &
Fe a g in (2001) re mind us tha t e d uc a ting
c hild re n a b o ut the se issue s “ re q uire s tha t we
re think o ur id e a s a b o ut se ve ra l d ime nsio ns
o f e ve ryd a y life , inc lud ing the na ture o f
ra c ia l a nd e thnic o p p re ssio n, the inte lle c tua l
c a p a c ity o f c hild re n, o ur willing ne ss to e ffe c t
c ha ng e s in o p p re ssive so c ia l c o nd itio ns, a nd
the e xte nt o f c hild re n’ s so c ia l skills” (p . 199).
This is dificult but important work, and early
c hild ho o d e d uc a to rs p la y a c ritic a l ro le .
Ha le -Be nso n, J. (1990). Visio ns fo r c hild re n: Ed uc a ting b la c k
c hild re n in the c o nte xt o f the ir c ulture . In K. Lo mo te y (Ed .),
Go ing to sc ho o l: The Afric a n-Ame ric a n e xp e rie nc e (p p .
209–222). Buffa lo , NY: Sta te Unive rsity o f Ne w Yo rk Pre ss.
Hirsc hfe ld , L. A. (2008). Child re n’ s d e ve lo p ing c o nc e p tio ns
o f ra c e . In S. M. Quinta na & C. Mc Ko wn (Ed s.), Ha ndb o o k
o f ra c e , ra c ism, a nd the de ve lo p ing c hild (p p . 37–54).
Ho b o ke n, NJ: Jo hn Wile y & So ns.
Hug he s, D., & Che n, L. (1999). The na ture o f p a re nts’ ra c e re la te d c o mmunic a tio ns to c hild re n: A d e ve lo p me nta l
p e rsp e c tive . In L. Ba lte r & C. S. Ta mis-Le Mo nd a (Ed s.), Child
p syc ho lo g y: A ha ndb o o k o f c o nte mp o ra ry issue s (p p .
467–490). Phila d e lp hia , PA: Psyc ho lo g y Pre ss.
Hug he s, D., Ro d rig ue z, J., Smith, E. P., Jo hnso n, D. J.,
Ste ve nso n, H. C., & Sp ic e r, P. (2006). Pa re nts’ e thnic / ra c ia l
so c ia liza tio n p ra c tic e s: A re vie w o f re se a rc h a nd d ire c tio ns
fo r future stud y. De ve lo p me nta l Psyc ho lo g y, 42(5), 747–770.
Jo hnso n, A. G. (2006). Privile g e , p o we r, a nd diffe re nc e (2nd
e d .). Ne w Yo rk, NY: Mc Gra w-Hill.
Ka tz, P. A. (2003). Ra c ists o r to le ra nt multic ultura lists? Ho w d o
the y b e g in? Ame ric a n Psyc ho lo g ist, 58(11), 897–909.
Additional resources for
educators:
Ka tz, P. A., & Ko fkin, J. A. (1997). Ra c e , g e nd e r, a nd yo ung
c hild re n. In S. S. Lutha r & J. A. Bura c k (Ed s.), De ve lo p me nta l
p syc ho p a tho lo g y: Pe rsp e c tive s o n a djustme nt, risk, a nd
diso rde r (p p . 51–74). Ne w Yo rk, NY: Ca mb rid g e Unive rsity
Pre ss.
www.to le ra nc e .o rg
www.te a c hing fo rc ha ng e .o rg
Le sa ne -Bro wn, C. L. (2006). A re vie w o f ra c e so c ia liza tio n
within b la c k fa milie s. De ve lo p me nta l Re vie w, 26, 400–426.
All rig hts re se rve d .
7
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
Le wis, A. E. (2003). Ra c e in the sc ho o lya rd: Ne g o tia ting the
c o lo r line in c la ssro o ms a nd c o mmunitie s. Ne w Brunswic k,
NJ: Rutg e rs Unive rsity Pre ss.
Mc Into sh, P. (1990). White p rivile g e : Unp a c king the invisib le
kna p sa c k. Inde p e nde nt Sc ho o l, 49, 31–36.
Murra y, C. B., & Ma nd a ra , J. (2002). Ra c ia l id e ntity
d e ve lo p me nt in Afric a n Ame ric a n c hild re n: Co g nitive a nd
e xp e rie ntia l a nte c e d e nts. In H. P. Mc Ad o o (Ed .), Bla c k
c hildre n: So c ia l, e duc a tio na l, a nd p a re nta l e nviro nme nts
(p p . 73–96). Tho usa nd Oa ks, CA: Sa g e Pub lic a tio ns.
The Child Development Associates (CDA)
competencies that can be linked to this article
are:
• To support social and emotional development
and to provide positive guidance
For more information on the CDA competency
requirements, contact the Council for Early
Childhood Recognition at 800-424-4310 or visit
www.cdacouncil.org.
Pa tte rso n, M. M., & Big le r, R. S. (2006). Pre sc ho o l c hild re n’ s
a tte ntio n to e nviro nme nta l me ssa g e s a b o ut g ro up s: So c ia l
c a te g o riza tio n a nd the o rig ins o f inte rg ro up b ia s. Child
De ve lo p me nt, 77, 847–860.
The Certiied Childcare Professionals (CCP)
professional ability areas linked to this article are:
Pe ttig re w, T. F., & Tro p p , L. R. (2006). A me ta -a na lytic te st o f
inte rg ro up c o nta c t the o ry. Jo urna l o f Pe rso na lity a nd So c ia l
Psyc ho lo g y, 90, 751–783.
• The ability to enhance the social and emotional
development of young children.
For more information on the CCP certiication,
contact the National Child Care Association at
800-543-7161 or visit www.nccanet.org.
Ta tum, B. D. (1997). Why a re a ll the b la c k kids sitting
to g e the r in the c a fe te ria ? And o the r c o nve rsa tio ns a b o ut
ra c e . Ne w Yo rk, NY: Ba sic Bo o ks.
Va n Ausd a le , D., & Fe a g in, J. R. (2001). The irst R: How
c hildre n le a rn ra c e a nd ra c ism. La nha m, MD: Ro wma n &
Littleield.
AUTHOR NARRATIVE:
Erin N. Winkle r re c e ive d he r
Ph.D. in Afric a n Ame ric a n
Stud ie s fro m the Unive rsity o f
Ca lifo rnia , Be rke le y, in 2005.
She is a n a ssista nt p ro fe sso r
in the De p a rtme nt o f Afric o lo g y a t the
Unive rsity o f Wisc o nsin-Milwa uke e , whe re she
te a c he s c o urse s o n the ra c ia l so c ia liza tio n
o f c hild re n, the p syc ho lo g y o f ra c ism, a nd
re p re se nta tio ns o f ra c e in U.S. p o p ula r c ulture .
She is c urre ntly c o nd uc ting re se a rc h o n the
ra c ia l so c ia liza tio n e xp e rie nc e s o f Afric a n
Ame ric a n c hild re n a nd o n the p e d a g o g y o f
ra c ism in unive rsity “ d ive rsity re q uire me nt”
c o urse s.
All rig hts re se rve d .
8
PACE Vo l. 3- No . 3 | © 2009 Hig hRe a c h Le a rning ® Inc .
Erin Winkler