“I Am Also in the Position to Use My Whiteness to Help Them Out”: The Communication of Whiteness in Service Learning

Abstract

In this essay, we examine the relationship between Whiteness theory and service learning, specifically through an examination of an intercultural communication course we taught. In our analysis of student-written assignments, we reveal how service learning provides a context for students to rehearse and affirm White privilege, despite the fact that they have been exposed to critical theories of Whiteness before engaging in service learning projects. Specifically, we identify and examine two rhetorical strategies that perpetuate White privilege in the context of service learning: (1) the conflation of being White with Whiteness, and (2) using White privilege for charity. Our analysis contributes a significant critique of the use of service learning in communication courses.

Keywords:

• Communication Pedagogy
• Service Learning
• Whiteness

A previous version of this paper was presented at the Western States Communication Association conference in Seattle, WA, in February 2007. The authors would like to thank the editor, the two anonymous reviewers, and Ann Darling and Isaac Gottesman for their assistance in the development and revision of this essay.

Notes

See also: Albrecht, 2005; Bahk and Jandt, 2004; Bonilla-Silva and Forman, 2000; Crenshaw, 1997; Cushman, 2005; Jackson, 1999; Kendrick, 2005; Kennedy, Middleton, and Ratcliffe, 2005; Nakayama and Krizek, 1995; Nakayama and Martin, 1998; Prendergast and Shor, 2005; Shome, 2000; Welch, 2005; West, 2005.

Nakayama and Krizek (1995) identify six rhetorical strategies of Whiteness: linking White to power, negative definitions of White, naturalized definitions of White, confusing Whiteness with nationality, refusal to label oneself, and linking White with European ancestry. Warren and Hytten (2004) discuss four faces of Whiteness: Torpefied, Missionary, Intellectualizer, and Cynic.

The course was cross-listed through the Department of Communication and the Ethnic Studies Program. Enrollment for the course consisted of 32 undergraduate students—2 freshmen, 4 sophomores, 15 juniors, and 11 seniors. There were 16 males and 16 females in the class. We do not have ethnic or racial information on the students; however, the majority of the class self-identified as White or European American in the first journal assignment that asked students how they would answer the question, “Who am I?”

This project was approved through the IRB process. Students chose whether or not to participate in this study by granting or denying permission for us to use their written assignments as a source of data. In total, 19 out of 32 students agreed to contribute their course written assignments to this study. Of those 19 students, 17 contributed their journal, consisting of 13 journal assignments. On average, each writing assignment was 1–2 typed pages. In addition, 13 of the 19 students contributed final projects to our study, consisting of their final group paper and written reflection on their service learning project. We were not in the classroom when students decided if they would participate in the study. An unaffiliated graduate student explained the study and collected consent forms. The unaffiliated graduate student made it clear that the students' participation in the study would have no effect on their grade and that the consent forms would be kept in a locked cabinet in the graduate student's office until after the course was over and final grades had been assigned. Student written assignments were copied, coded, and analyzed after students completed the course and received their final grade. Each participating student was assigned a pseudonym and no record was kept that would link student names to the pseudonyms.

At the same time we acknowledge that our students were well aware they would be graded for their journal work.

All student names are pseudonyms.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Danielle Endres

Danielle Endres is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah.

Mary Gould

Mary Gould is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah.