Jane Elliott: The Struggle Between Racism And Education

Divided

In today’s society there are a lot of people that are divided about the issue of racism. How we see each other and how we interact is becoming more and more important as our world becomes smaller. Some people believe racism doesn’t exist, others believe racism is everywhere. This paper will be about Jane Elliott who is an anti-racism activist and educator. Ms. Elliott conducted an experiment in 1970 among 3rd grade students that dealt specifically with racism which had some very startling results. Since then she has conducted this experiment several times with college students and other adults as well with some shocking results.

The experiment was simple, divide a classroom into brown-eyed and blue-eyed (light eyed) students. Treat one group of students better than the other and make them think because of their eye color they are smarter than the other group. Spend the day promoting those beliefs and watch how students react.

I think this experiment might have worked so well with children because they do not have as much knowledge or understanding on the subject of race as adults would. They know what their parents tell them, how things are

perceived on the television and the type of society people are living in the rural Caucasian town they are growing up in. As adults looking back on the project they were talking about how their children will learn from them to not to be prejudice, but one of the students not necessarily disagreeing with that, but trying to explain kids learn from outside the home as well. Children will pick up things from friends and other outside sources or vice versa. This project for example was taught in the school, but who’s to say the kids didn’t go home and have their parents say “no, your teacher is wrong” in that case the child won’t learn the lesson because of home influence. I think the children were able to carry this on into adulthood because a lesson is exactly what it was. It is called an experiment, but I look at it as a learning experience for young children to understand the way of the world from different perspectives and cultures or in this case eye color. I think Jane Elliott’s idea of trying this with kids first was absolutely phenomenal. The children’s responses were very logical to anything the teacher questioned. At that age there seems to be no filter and I love it. Having the children walk in someone else’s shoes (or moccasins) is definitely a key factor to the success of this project. The fact that the teacher was able to split a classroom so one side created feelings of hate towards the other in half a day was success in the lesson. Another factor of success was the teacher’s ability to coach one eye color into thinking something was wrong with the other. The ability to make one eye color feel so powerful over the other with the teacher using a few discouraging words.
I don’t believe this experiment could be conducted in today’s society for many reasons. First, because parents would probably not allow their children to be in this type of experiment. They would not want their children to be treated differently than other students even if it was to teach them a lesson. Second in our politically correct culture this type of activity would probably end up getting a teacher fired or in serious trouble even if the activity is designed to show different perspectives in the way we treat each other. The chances of liability would be too much of a risk. For example, if students started to become bullied by other students because of the factors the teacher implemented to show a difference between them parents would be outraged
There can be advantages and disadvantages growing up in an urban versus rural society as it relates to diverse interpersonal skills.

Advantages to growing up in an urban environment include a greater chance of mixing cultures and developing relationships with people from different backgrounds. This is due to the sheer amount of different cultures available in an urban environment. The advantages of a rural environment may not include as diverse a background but quality relationships can still be found. The disadvantages to either environment can be found in human nature. For example, even in a diverse environment where people come from different backgrounds people will still segregate themselves into different groups, if not by color than by wealth, religious beliefs, sports affiliation, academic ability or

popularity.
There are two major differences dealing with children vs grown-ups. The first is that the children are expressing view points and ideas that may not be their actual but that of their parents. So it may be easier to mold their impressions of diversity. When dealing with adults the participants are using their own view points and experiences to shape how the experiment goes. This means the adults experiment may not work as well because of their own perceived knowledge and experience. The second major difference is with the presenter and how she conducted the project being more confrontational with grown-ups. Because of this change in attitude with Jane Elliott the results could be different since you are changing pieces of the experiment.
Throughout this process there have been many videos that show how children and adults react when they are treated differently than other right in front of them. Is this a true representation of racism or easily manipulated scenario that brings out the best and worst in a group? It is hard to decide based on the limited evidence that has been provided. The issue of race and how we treat each other is very complex and I believe goes to the very heart of who human beings are. It is in our nature to banned with like-minded and familiar people. This might be traced back to the beginning of our species for survival purposes. The experiment brings up good points, but may take a very narrow minded approach. Overall I would say it was interesting and showed us a glimmer of human nature, but doesn’t give us a solution to this problem if there truly s one.