Anti-racism in Schools: A question of leadership?

Abstract

Between 1999 and 2003 a number of principals (n=35) from a range of schools in Western Australia were interviewed to investigate the extent to which the state's Antiracism policy and guidelines for complaint resolution (1998) had impacted on the day-to-day management of schools. These principals overwhelmingly reported that racism was not a problem within their schools. At the same time they constructed racism in terms of individual pathologies and suggested that any racist incidents, should these arise, could be dealt with more than adequately under various school-based behaviour management or anti-bullying policies. There were no real differences in responses over time, nor were there any discernible patterns according to type of school. The findings suggest that the majority of these school managers did not understand the nature and extent of racism and were ill-equipped to deal with the more covert expressions of racism.

Racism: The word nobody likes

Racism, the word nobody likes. Whites who don't want to confront Racism and who don't name themselves white recoil in horror from it, shun it like the plague. To mention the word in their company disrupts their comfortable complacency … . Racism is a slippery subject, one which evades confrontation, yet one which overshadows every aspect of our lives. (Anzaldua, 1990, p. xix)

Writing from the perspective of a woman of colour, Gloria Anzaldua eloquently made the point that racism is a major issue for people of colour, that it “overshadows every aspect of our lives.” At the same time she maintained that racism is a word that “disrupts [the] comfortable complacency” of whites, because those of us who are white can afford to ignore racism because it does not happen to us. In Australia the Office of Multicultural Interests, for example, has suggested:

While many Australians recognise racism as a problem of international scope, there appears to be a reluctance to recognise its manifestations in Australia. There can also be a tendency to believe that racists and racism refer largely to extremists. (Office of Multicultural Interests, 2004, p. 11)

Although as a nation we like to think of ourselves as non-racist, according to Stephenson (1997), p. 1) “racism is deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of Australian society and, as such, racist practices may be routinely enacted by people who do not consciously accept racist views.” As Anzaldua has pointed out, racism is “a slippery subject” and racist practices can be difficult to pin down. In other words “what is meant by being racist is not necessarily clear or agreed upon, even though much discussion proceeds as if there were taken for granted criteria for determining racism” (McLeod, 2003, p. 34).

What has emerged over the last decade or so is an acknowledgment of the complexities of racism; that racism is “not a static, fixed, or coherent set of beliefs that uniformly influences the way individuals think and behave regardless of context” (Connolly, 1996, p. 174). The work of Rizvi (1993) in Australia and Gillborn (1995) in the UK, for example, has demonstrated just how contradictory racist beliefs and practices are and how they are located in quite specific contexts and sets of social relations. Nevertheless, a racist is invariably constructed in essentialist terms as someone who discriminates on the basis of “race” or skin colour. Indeed, as Pettman maintained, a racist is someone who, according to “common sense,” is “bad, mad or misinformed, or even stupid” (Pettman, 1992, p. 56): someone who is, in fact, different from those of “us” who are not racist because we do not engage in overt acts of racial discrimination. This form of crude racism has, as Frankenberg (1993), p. 139) suggested, become “paradigmatic of racism”. However, racism goes beyond individual expressions of prejudice and “includes systematic, structural, unequal relations of power” (Raby, 2004, p. 380). Racism should, therefore, more properly be understood as:

the result of a complex interplay of individual attitudes, social values and institutional practices. It is expressed in the actions of individuals and institutions and is promoted in the ideology of popular culture. It changes its form in response to social change. (Department of Education and Training, n.d., p. 1)

Thus, “it is no longer useful … to speak of racism as if it were an homogeneous phenomenon” (Castles, 1996, p. 18) and an understanding of the complexities of racism becomes essential to recognize and counter it in its various guises. Given the focus of this paper it is particularly important to distinguish individual from institutional racism, which can be broadly understood as follows:

individual racism refers to the expression of racist attitudes in the behaviour of individuals in face-to-face situations, and institutional racism refers to complex structures and processes … which function to maintain racial inequality largely independent of the prejudice or tolerance of individuals. (Hollinsworth, 1998, p. 54)

With the wisdom of hindsight it is relatively easy to recognize the institutional racism in the explicit policies that legitimated the forced removal of indigenous children from their communities (for example, the Aborigines Act, 1905, Western Australia). It is, however, much more difficult to acknowledge that acts of omission, such as not including Aboriginal history in the curriculum, might also be classified as a specific form of institutional racism. Hollinsworth argued that institutional racism is frequently unintentional because the structures and processes that give rise to institutional racism have been so naturalized that they defy interrogation. As Yamato (1990, p. 20) remarked “racism is pervasive to the point that we take many of its manifestations for granted, believing ‘that's life’”. In other words, the ways in which “things are done” (for example, in schools) have the potential to be discriminatory even though school managers believe that they have a genuine commitment to “equal opportunity.”

Background to the Study

At the policy level there is some recognition that racism is the product of a complex interplay of individual attitudes, social values and institutional practices. In 1998, for example, the Education Department of Western Australia released its Anti-racism policy and guidelines for complaint resolution (Western Australia Department of Education, 1998). This includes an overarching statement, discussion of the policy's intent, and the legislative framework that has informed the policy. The document also outlines the responsibilities that schools and school managers have for its implementation.

Between 1999 and 2003, 35 principals from a range of schools in Western Australia were interviewed to investigate the extent to which this policy had impacted on the day-to-day management of schools. These interviews followed strict guidelines set by the interviewees and were, moreover, framed by certain relationships of power that mitigated against the researcher asking too many probing questions and “rocking the boat.” Schools were chosen on the basis of type and geographic location. All principals happened to be, perhaps not coincidentally given the preponderance of males in management positions, white and male. These principals (or in some cases their deputies or designated others) were asked whether the policy had been circulated within the school and whether there had been any staff discussions or professional development days focusing on the document and its implementation. Subsequent interview questions were explicitly based on the ways in which particular schools dealt with their responsibilities as outlined in the policy. More specifically, questions focused on, first, the extent to which the school developed and implemented programmes to promote an understanding of the causes and effects of racism among students and employees and encouraged schools to work towards racial harmony, and, second, the extent to which the school integrated knowledge and perspectives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples1 and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The data presented in this paper emerged in response to these questions.

The participating schools included primary and secondary schools, metropolitan and country schools, and parochial Catholic, as well as high fee-paying, high status independent schools. As a group, these schools cover the spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds, with some schools being culturally quite diverse with significant enrolments of Aboriginal students and/or children for whom English was not their mother tongue, while others were much more homogeneous in terms of their student populations. All responses are strictly anonymous. While future research might profitably compare approaches according to type of school, in this study principals and schools are not identified in any way.

Racism and Schools

Many researchers, both in Australia and overseas, have documented the presence of racism in education (see Cahill, 1996; Gillborn, 1996; Hatcher & Troyna, 1993; Nieto, 2004; Rizvi, 1993; Ryan, 2003). However, the literature also suggests that the existence of racism was frequently denied by school managers (Cahill, 1996; Groome & Hamilton, 1995; Lipman, 1998; Raby, 2004; Ryan, 2003). Cahill (1996), p. 81) maintained that: “the Australian literature sings in unison, though without much hard evidence, that racism in schools is less of a problem than elsewhere.” He further suggested that the nature and extent of racism was poorly understood and that “principals and teachers were not well-equipped to deal with the more covert expressions of racism” (Cahill, 1996, p. 94). However, he also maintained that: “Ethnic minority students, especially if not European, are more aware of and more the target of racist and similar actions than teaching staff realise, but they see it as a second-order problem” (p. 91). In a similar vein, Beresford (2003), p. 261) suggested that: “it is difficult to determine the extent of racism in schools. This is partly due to definitional problems: what constitutes racism is often perceived differently by minority and dominant groups.” These conclusions support the view that addressing racism is not an area in which schools are successful. Indeed, just over two decades ago Kalantzis (1985), p. 7) suggested that “there is a real fear and reluctance” to address issues of racism within Australian schools. This does not appear to have changed substantially in the intervening years.

More specifically, the Australian literature suggests that racism is a problem for indigenous students (Beresford, 2003; Groome, 1995; Long, Frigo, & Batten, 1998). Indigenous educators and communities have been painfully aware of this for some time. During a seminar arranged by the Equal Opportunity Commission, for example, the problems endemic to Aboriginal education in Western Australia were discussed. Chief among the issues cited were “racist attitudes among teachers and white students” (Equal Opportunity Commission, 1990, p. 6). More recently, the work of Martino (2003), which was part of a larger study that investigated the social construction of masculinities, found that almost all of the indigenous boys whom he interviewed claimed that racism at school not only flourished but was also condoned. These boys invariably mentioned the racist practices of white boys. One of the boys said:

I think one of the main problems at school would be racism. … It happens all the time, you get kids calling you black such and such, black whatever, something at the end of it. We just get really fired up … (Martino, 2003, p. 160)

However, racist behaviour was not always overt and often manifested in subtle or implicit ways and was, according to the students, largely ignored by their teachers. This is not something that is unique to the schools that participated in that particular study. According to Groome the common experience of Aboriginal parents and students is that, despite the existence of racial harassment legislation and policies in many states, many schools still tend to condone prejudice. He argued that:

Only rarely is it treated in the same way as issues such as smoking and violations of the uniform codes. This lack of concern troubles many Aboriginal families. It tends to confirm their views that schools were either not concerned about Aboriginal children, or are actively hostile to them. (Groome, 1995, p. 78)

There is, moreover, evidence from outside Australia that suggests that racism affects the academic performance of minority students (see, for example, Blair, 2002; Leeman, 2003). In Australia Groome maintained that racism should be seen as a key element in the overall lack of success of indigenous students because it “deflects Aboriginal children from entering fully into the life of the school” (Groome, 1995, p. 76). Indeed, it has been suggested that dealing with racism must be a key strategy if indigenous school attendance and underachievement is to improve (Beresford & Partington, 2003; Bourke, Rigby, & Burden, 2000). Within the context of nationwide concerns about indigenous underachievement in education (Australian Principals’ Association Professional Development Council, 2003; Commonwealth Government Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005; Western Australia Department of Education, 2002) the connection between racism and educational outcomes ought to be of some disquiet. However, at the school level at least, this connection tends to be denied because other than the most blatant and obvious excesses of crude racism, racist practices are normalized. As David Hollinsworth (1998) has suggested:

Social structures and processes become taken-for-granted and their consequences in maintaining racial inequality go largely undetected. [It is experienced by Aboriginal people as the] pin-pricking of domination, abuse of personal power, utter paternalism, open contempt and total indifference. (p. 55)

It is precisely these taken-for-granted processes—articulated as the “pin-pricking of domination” in the quotation above—that lie at the heart of institutional racism and was expressed by many of the principals who participated in this present study as: “We have no racism at this school.”

“We Have No Racism at this School”

Despite evidence to the contrary, by far the majority of the principals who were interviewed seemed to want to disavow any knowledge of racism within their schools. Thus, interviewees commented along the following lines:

We've never had incidents of this kind at school.

We have had no reports of racial discrimination since the school opened.

There has been no racial discrimination—this has not been an issue.

During my time there have been no incidents of racial discrimination.

One principal had an interesting perspective about the reporting of racist behaviour. He commented that: “Complaints about racial harassment are absent because within the school it would be considered to be ‘dobbing’—any student making a complaint would be ostracised”. The principal was quick to point out that the school had, in fact, a number of policies in place that prevented racial harassment from occurring in the first place. Other principals qualified their denial of racist practices at school by stating that if it were to occur they would know how to deal with it:

We would investigate the nature of the complaint—you need to be a very good listener—ensure that it was actually racial discrimination.

We have never had any racial complaints—if we had an incident we would talk and use “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”

Any issues we have are dealt with through our bullying policy.

There is very little racial harassment among children—our school ethos is based on acceptance and tolerance—there is no need for specific strategies—incidents of any kind are few and far between—we would deal with racial slurs as they happen.

Racism is generally not a problem at school—it is not a major issue—if it happened we would deal with it.

For the majority of these school managers racism was indeed not a major concern. It was of no concern because they had constructed racism in terms of individual “bad behaviour.” The subtext in the utterances above was that that anti-racism initiatives represented “much ado about nothing” because instances of “actual racial discrimination” were few and far between.

Only a few principals acknowledged that racism might be “a bit of an issue.” However, there were disturbing aspects to some of these principals’ take on what the issues actually were. Their admission that racist practices occurred within their schools was immediately qualified by suggestions that racism was a problem originating with Aboriginal students or parents, that it was in fact a form of “reverse racism” (Ryan, 2003, p. 152). They made comments such as: “It's a bit of a problem due to Aboriginal kids not bringing stuff to school and ‘borrowing’ from others,” or “we sometimes have fights between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal kids” and “Aboriginal children engage in inter-racial taunting and discrimination.” The inferences seemed to be that it was the indigenous students who caused the fighting and that it was non-indigenous students who bore the brunt of racial taunts.

Others acknowledged the presence of racism within their communities but immediately saw fit to defend their school staff from any possible charge that they might be racist and held the parents of Aboriginal students responsible for causing problems where none existed. These principals became almost hostile and commented:

We rarely see racism at the school—it is definitely not an issue with staff.. When it arises it is generally adults pressing ideas on impressionable children.

My staff is not racist at all and it is the parents who tend to cause problems.

Given the conditions under which the interviewees had agreed to be interviewed these comments were not followed up.

“I Am Not Aware That There is a Policy But I Guess We Are Following It Anyway”

Over half (54%) of the principals who were interviewed had either not heard of the anti-racism policy, had not read it, or could not locate it. Even though these principals freely admitted to not being familiar with this policy, many claimed to be conversant with the basic principles it contained. As their comments indicate, the “basic principles” to which they referred were grounded in the understanding that racism is confined to a simple phenomenon that manifests at the individual level. Thus, responses ranged from:

What policy?

Can't say I am aware of this particular policy.

It's an old policy and I can't remember seeing it but I am familiar with many aspects of the policy.

I must admit I've never heard of it. When I knew you were coming I made some inquiries but could not locate it within the school. I was overseas at the time of its release.

No, I can't recall it but we cover racism adequately within our other policies—these come under “What is a Catholic school?”

I can't recall seeing the policy but there is no need for it as there have been no racial attacks brought to my attention. The school's behaviour management policy and values codes is quite sufficient to deal with incidents of this type should they occur.

I am not aware that there is a policy but I guess we are following it anyway—staff already know what is expected of them in regards how to act appropriately.

No, can't say that I have but we have other policies in place. All staff are expected to complete some sort of cross-cultural training.

These comments exemplify a number of points: first, they show quite clearly that racism is not given priority status; second, it is not recognized in its multiple manifestations but is simplistically subsumed under the rubric of “bad behaviour,” and, third, everyone wants to be seen to be addressing racism even though its expressions are poorly understood.

Only a handful of the principals interviewed (4 out of 35, or 11%) had specific knowledge of the policy and had, to varying degrees, discussed its contents and implications with staff. One school, for example, reported having several professional development days, while another reported that the contents of the policy had been circulated via the school newsletter and discussed more fully at a meeting with parents. It was unclear, however, whether this was followed up with specific practice. Another principal commented that the policy was available to all staff and that the school was writing its own policy based on this. Yet another principal, who appeared well versed with both contents and implications, suggested rather insightfully that: “schools are frightened of the policy because some teachers feel that they may use racist language by mistake.”

Generally, the principals who had seen or even read the policy made comments regarding racism as a specific area of concern not very dissimilar from those made by principals who claimed little or no knowledge of the policy. In sum, the overall feeling was that an anti-racism policy was largely superfluous in that schools already had a sound understanding of the thrust of the policy and that the few incidences of racism were amply dealt with through other school-based policies. Many of these principals suggested that schools were already proactive in the area of anti-racism and referred to their school's behaviour management or specific anti-bullying policies as evidence for this. Thus, of the 35 schools who participated, 16 principals cited their behaviour management policy, 8 cited a school-based anti-bullying policy and a further 9 maintained in various ways that children learned that racism was wrong through a process of “affirming cultural difference and modeling respect.” Typical comments included the following:

Our students wouldn't really understand about racism but we are aware that this is an important issue and we as a staff role model and promote anti-racism in a positive way.

As a principal I do not see the need for it because our school is a Christian school where children learn the value of human life and having respect for individual differences. They are taught that racism is wrong.

We base our approach on no tolerance for bullying. We emphasize values and virtues.

The policy document is kept in the staffroom. We have staff discussions on cultural awareness but not specifically anti-racism. We promote cultural awareness.

Clearly these principals had constructed racism in terms of individual pathologies and subscribed to the notion that racism could be adequately addressed through cultural awareness and “being nice” without engaging with “questions of power and racism in inter-personal and institutional contexts” (Gillborn, 1995, p. 6).

Two principals had delegated responsibility for implementation (or lack thereof). One had passed responsibility for the policy to the LOTE (Languages Other Than English) teacher. Another said: “Our AIEO (Aboriginal and Islander Education Officer) deals with this stuff.” The very act of delegating to these particular staff members is indicative of the fact that racism is invariably linked to the “other”, i.e. racism is thought to be a “problem” for those constructed as different. In this light is not surprising that responsibility for disseminating the policy was not, for example, delegated to the mathematics or the science teacher.

The Aboriginal member of staff had the only copy of the document. She was delighted to be interviewed because she felt that racism was a real issue at the school and that “if ever a school needed an anti-racism policy, it's this one.” She said that she had approached the principal about racist comments made by teachers but that “nothing is ever done” and that when children reported racist incidents they tended to be dismissed or dealt with rather superficially through the school's behaviour management policy. Contrary to the principal's assertion that Aboriginal Studies was taught throughout the school, the AIEO maintained that this was not so and that any culturally specific activities, such as NAIDOC (National Aboriginal and Islander Day of Celebration)2 week was left to her to organize. The language teacher was unavailable to be interviewed. Only two schools appeared to be proactive in addressing racism.

Ways of Dealing with Racism: “We have lots of different programmes, really”

As I have indicated previously, many of the interviewees stated that they had no need of yet another policy because racism was not an issue and, furthermore, the issues were already being addressed. Overall, responses suggested that ways in which schools could better foster explicit understanding of the causes and effects of racism among students and employees were fraught with misconceptions about the nature and cause of racism(s). One principal said: “We have no tolerance for racism. We value a safe environment, and anyway children are generally ignorant of racism.” Another principal felt that anti-racist initiatives would stir up trouble. Yet another principal felt that addressing the causes and effects of racism was not something that could be effectively done at school and cited an incident when special awards for indigenous students had caused racial tension and that this “had to be hidden from non-indigenous parents to smooth things over.” Others were more circumspect and thought that cultural awareness and leading by example would be the best approach to “nipping racism in the bud.”

The majority of respondents were quick to point out that the school ran a number of cultural awareness programmes that were designed to foster “knowledge and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds” and that this covered any requirement to combat racism. While there were variations, in general these programmes ranged from making reference to teaching about “values and virtues” or citing the society and environment curriculum as the vehicle for “addressing these issues.” Others pointed to various language programmes (such as Italian, French, German, Indonesian, and Japanese) or programmes that would generally be described as being of the “spaghetti and folk-dance” variety. The following are not atypical comments:

We have many students who are religious and cannot eat certain things—we use that to encourage respect for differences—we also have Italian classes after school.

In our Early Childhood programme we have parents come in and share their culture with the classes—this week we're going to talk about Asia—the primary students have a lot of information in the library—but the real thing would be through example—we have four nationalities represented on our staff—the curriculum framework encourages teachers to get the kids to understand cultural works of art and working together in harmony.

Our values education program is very strong—we teach about cultural differences through Society and Environment.

We have a cultural exchange programme with Japan.

We have a welcome sign in four different languages—we have a feature wall that was painted by tribal Elders—the Aboriginal flag is raised on Open Days along with the Australian flag.

We do a lot of cultural activities—use guests—this week we've done a lot of Aboriginal painting.

We have been on an excursion.

We hold a NAIDOC week parade—students did lots of art work—painted a banner of a snake.

It is clear that many of these activities fall within the “benevolent multiculturalism” approach that is superficial and reductionist. While this approach represents a start it does not go far enough because it:

reflects a white view of black cultures as homogenous, static and conflict-free. It is preoccupied with exotic aspects of cultural difference and ignores the effects of racism. After all, just to learn about other people's cultures is not to learn about the racism of one's own. (Sarup, cited in Hollinsworth, 1998, p. 302)

Where principals said that they ran specific indigenous studies programmes—rather than seeing it as something that happened on an ad hoc basis or something that was subsumed under other learning areas—this tended to seen as an optional extra, something on the periphery of the core business of schooling. Such programmes were invariably left to indigenous community members to organize.

We had Aboriginal Elders come and bless the school on our anniversary—the artist in residence last year was of Aboriginal descent—we have a parent committee made up of diverse cultures.

Usually Aboriginal groups come to school and talk to kids.

Aboriginal community organizes talks on art and music—the school values parental input.

Our ASSPA (Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness) committee provides positive role models—we have lots of cultural activities.

While involving indigenous community members is something to be applauded, these activities continue to focus on the exotic aspects of cultural difference and ignore the causes and effects of racism. As the Aboriginal education worker who was quoted earlier indicated, at the school where she worked community members were relatively powerless and certainly not free to develop programmes outside the “exotic culture” paradigm. It is not too much of a leap of the imagination to suggest that she is not alone in her assessment of the ways in which power operates within schools in general.

Discussion of Findings

While the literature dealing explicitly with racism and school leadership is not extensive, particularly in Australia, in reviewing the responses of the group of school principals who participated in this present study and contextualizing these within the existing literature, some overall trends that are not idiosyncratic to this group of principals, emerge. Ryan (2003), writing from Canada, suggested that many principals were “reluctant to acknowledge that racism occurred in their schools [and that those who did acknowledge it] tended to emphasize its insignificant nature” (p. 149). He called these findings “puzzling and troubling” (p. 149) and proposed several explanations. He suggested, first, that administrators simply could not see racism, second, that it is possible that principals may feel that they need to convey a positive image of their schools, and, third, that principals may not acknowledge racism because of the narrow way in which they view racism. Ryan's explanations certainly have a ring of “truth” when considering this study. Some principals, for example, said:

Racism isn't a problem—we would regard a racist slur as a put-down and the consequences would be the same as any other put-down. The students are aware that there are put-downs and that there are very bad put-downs—everyone is aware of the consequences of this kind of behaviour.

There's possibly some racism—but it would go with bullying and teasing—there is no school policy on racism—the school policy on bullying includes calling kids names and that sort of thing. Every year we've surveyed the kids on types of bullying and the worst type of bullying is calling kids names—most have to do with body shape but some of the kids say “colour of my skin” because we have a few African children here, so I don't know whether that is racism or not.

The environment we provide is one where everyone is really the same in that regardless of their background everyone is treated the same. We don't draw out groups.

Many of the interviewees prided themselves that they treated everyone “the same”, thereby missing the point that the playing field is not a level one and that equal treatment does not guarantee equitable outcomes. In order to achieve “equal” outcomes it is imperative to be aware that “unequal treatment” can often be the more appropriate course of action, whether this be in terms of the curriculum or the management of different types of “put-downs”. Given that equity is often confused with equal treatment and given further that the nature of racism is so poorly understood with no agreed upon definitions on what constitutes ethnic or racial conflict, it is not surprising that so many principals in this study subsumed anti-racism under their school-based behaviour management or anti-bullying policies. These policies were seen to apply to all students equally and were, therefore, considered to be equitable. Such policies were, moreover, considered to be quite sufficient to deal with racist incidents should they occur.

If racism is consistently constructed as simply a form of individual prejudice or something that “kids just naturally do in the heat of the moment without meaning anything by it” then it makes sense to see racism as no more than a particular form of bullying, rather than something that exists at the level of institutional practice. It is certainly easier to focus on rectifying individual aberrant behaviour than to deconstruct pervasive and normalized praxis, such as not seeing reports of racism as anything other than ‘normal’ schoolyard bullying. Moreover, because racism is so “loaded and negative” (Raby, 2004, p. 372), it may be more expedient to call it something else, something that can be more easily identified and “fixed.”

It is also not surprising that anti-racism was frequently conflated with “being culturally sensitive” or “being culturally aware.” While some schools reported interesting and potentially useful programmes, for many the underlying assumptions seemed to be that anti-racism would be picked up through osmosis, as is evident in pronouncements such as: “Example is the greatest area of promotion of understanding when it comes to racism” and “In our school code of behaviour the students are encouraged to treat all people in the community with respect and this includes all nationalities.” As Nieto (2004) suggested:

Racism is seldom mentioned in school (it is bad, a dirty word) and, therefore, is not dealt with. Unfortunately many teachers think that simply having lessons in getting along or celebrating Human Relations week will make students non-racist or non-discriminatory in general (p. 348).

Where specific cultural awareness programmes existed these were, more often than not, confined to the “boomerang and didgeridoo” syndrome or to the study of another (European) language. As the previously cited quotations indicate, cultural awareness programmes only addressed the superficial aspects of culture, such as flying the Aboriginal flag, focusing on song and dance, or tokenistically celebrating the “one-off” events of NAIDOC week or Harmony Day, while the rest of the school year was devoted to “business as usual.” Such approaches “homogenize and dehistoricize … but do not challenge the judgemental and moralising tone of race relations” (Hollinsworth, 1998, p. 278).

There appeared, moreover, to be little concerted effort to address Aboriginal studies on a more rigorous basis. Indeed, in many cases even superficially teaching about indigenous history and culture was left to individual teachers. Contrary to policy that Aboriginal studies should be for all students irrespective of cultural background (Royal Commission, 1991; Ministerial Council into Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1995), the prevailing thinking seemed to be that only schools with substantial enrolments of indigenous students required the inclusion of Aboriginal studies. One principal said:

Aboriginal Studies is not compulsory—we leave that up to individual teachers—we teach French so students can be exposed to different cultures—when I worked at a school with 70% Aboriginal kids it was different.

In direct contradiction to this, two respondents (whose schools contained a sizeable proportion of Aboriginal students) stated categorically that teaching about Aboriginal culture and history was not the school's responsibility and that indigenous parents preferred to teach Aboriginal culture and history themselves. While indigenous communities certainly have the right to determine who should teach aspects of indigenous culture and to have a voice in what should be taught, this principal was ill-informed in his position that Aboriginal studies was of benefit only to indigenous students.

The Importance of School Leadership

Perhaps one ought not to be taken aback to find that over half of the principals who were interviewed for this present study had either not heard of the anti-racism policy, had not read it, or could not locate it because according to Leeman (2003) “policies focusing on inter-cultural education rarely make it into the everyday routines of schools” (p. 37). In Australia an abundance of policies and other documents exist that are designed to address racism and inter-ethnic tensions within schools and local communities. Cahill (1996) cited a review of such documents conducted in 1993 by Morrissey and Mitchell and concluded:

Their enthusiasm was mixed with concern about the sustainability of projects unless quickly followed up and they wondered what would happen to the “plethora” of training kits that had been generated. (Cahill, 1996, p. 81)

If the responses of the principals who participated in this study were any indication, the answer would be that they sink without much of a trace. Certainly, as Blair (2002)) has pointed out “production of the policy is the easier part of the task” (p. 184). At the bureaucratic/governmental level it is expedient to be seen to be addressing particular issues and even easier to formulate policy, pass it down the line, and expect school managers to implement it with little back up or support. As one principal said: “I've received four [policies] in the last six months which are important and need to be implemented.” Within this context, a policy such as the Western Australian Antiracism policy and guidelines represents yet another directive issued from “above” in a climate that stresses accountability in terms of instrumental and measurable outcomes and that expects school leaders to be good corporate players. It has even been suggested that within the “new” leadership paradigm being “too democratic and talking too much about social justice” runs the risk of being stereotyped as an “old-fashioned” leader (McInerney, 2003, pp. 63–64).

There can be no doubt that school management teams face a difficult task. While they “have an important role to play in the battle against racism” (Ryan, 2003, p. 158), management culture militates against this. Following Fidler (1997), I would suggest that leadership can be differentiated from management by its more “proactive orientation and by its inspirational qualities” (p. 23). Given the increasingly managerial slant that the job of school principal seems to be taking (McInerney, 2003) it is perhaps not surprising that there is little room left for principals to be the sort of leaders who are able to develop “proactive, rather than only reactive, approaches to addressing conflict and building positive interethnic relations” (Henze, Katz, & Norte, 2000, p. 195). Nevertheless, this is a task that must be addressed if school principals wish to pay more than lip-service to the notion of ensuring equitable outcomes for all their students regardless of cultural background. For, despite the difficulties and complexities of the job, principals are “pivotal in shaping the culture of schools” (McInerney, 2003, p. 75) and “can have a decisive effect on racist and anti-racist practices in their respective schools” (Ryan, 2003, p. 158). This can only happen, however, through “strong and radical transformative leadership” (Blair, 2002, p. 185). Within the context of addressing racism head-on Blair (2002) has elaborated what she means by this in the following two quotes:

Strong leadership in this context … implies the strength to deal with difficult and contentious issues and to critically examine those practices that are routinised or institutionalised in the school and to ask the crucial question, “who is falling through the net or who is being served by our taken-for-granted ways of doing things.” (p. 185)

Leadership [is] both complex and challenging. It requires that a school be, in its vision and practices, a democratic institution when the very fact of diversity implies multiple priorities and possible contradictory demands … a leader needs to consult widely and take into account the many and varied opinions and perspectives [she/he also] needs to be prepared to institute policies that may not be popular with all members of staff. They must be able to gain the support of members of the school community and to reconcile differences, but also to be resolute in the face of opposition … such leaders are as yet rare. (p. 190)

The antithesis of the type of leadership envisaged by Blair is typified by the principal who commented:

The Anti-Racism document is located in the library for all staff to look at. I discussed with staff whether they would like to have an international day calendared into our diary. No one showed any interest in this. It was clear to me I wasn't going to get their support so there wasn't much point. I suppose we should have a professional development day.

Regrettably this type of laissez-faire leadership appears to be all too common.

Conclusions

The principals who participated in this study overwhelmingly reported that racism was not a problem within their schools. At the same time they constructed racism only in terms of individual pathologies and suggested that any racist incidents, should these arise, could be dealt with more than adequately under various school-based behaviour management or anti-bullying policies. There were no real differences in responses over the five years that interviews were conducted, nor were there any discernible patterns in terms of responses arising from different types of school. In analysing the interviews the conclusion becomes inescapable that the majority of the school managers neither noticed the presence of racism in their schools nor did they understand the multiplicities of ways in which racism works. Anzaldua's conclusion that racism is the “word nobody likes” (1990, p. xix) appears particularly pertinent.

However, in a somewhat apologist vein I want to avoid the temptation of drawing too many conclusions. Certainly the data is suggestive of many things, but given the nature of the methodology I do not want to claim that these interviews represent the total “reality” of the school principals, vis-à-vis racism, who participated in this study. Even though the words of the respondents are reproduced verbatim, there was no scope to ask in-depth questions or to follow up comments that under different circumstances could and should have been followed up. These principals had agreed to answer specific questions related to the state's anti-racism policy and had agreed to be interviewed on the understanding that the interviews would be brief. Without those undertakings many of the interviews would not have taken place. The findings should, therefore, be seen as an incomplete, if evocative snapshot of responses about “yet another policy,” rather than an accurate picture of the real state of play. Nevertheless, this snapshot demands further investigation into the ways in which Australian schools deal with racism, or indeed the ways in which they are proactive in implementing specific anti-racist strategies.

Notes

1. The issue of naming indigenous peoples in neo-colonial societies is always highly problematic. In my home state, for example, it would be preferable to use descriptors such as Nyungar, Yamaji, or Wongi, etc., instead of Aboriginal. However, given the dispossession and dislocation of indigenous peoples it cannot be assumed that all indigenous people living in Nyungar country are indeed Nyungar. In this paper I therefore use Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples or indigenous interchangeably.

2. NAIDOC originally stood for ‘National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee’. This committee was once responsible for organising national activities during NAIDOC week (see histroy of NAIDOC), and its acronym has become the name of the week itself.