did in the staff-student interaction. In this space it is he who feels at risk of being alienated. His silence is prefaced on the assumption that speaking out against his colleagues and the system’ inhibits his ability to bring about change. He felt that ‘whole confrontation simply the department. His inability to confront the system left ‘polarized’ him feeling complicit, disempowered and unable to support those colleagues who attempted to challenge the comments. He chose rather to or ‘conservative’ ‘retreat’ leave it’ and it out and wait’ until the older colleagues retire ‘just ‘sit ‘conservative’ from UCT. It doesn’t help those people They can’t see what they’re doing. just a kind … …It’s of entrenched system they’ve come to grow up in When they leave, I think … things will change. (Rob) Using metaphors of warfare Rob positioned himself as an education activist whose was what apartheid education entrenched’. He argued that UCT had ‘battle’ ‘fighting a racist social structure… which you become part of involuntarily, [even ‘inherited … if] you don’t want to be part of it’. He referred repeatedly to his fear that black students might see him as being part of the racial hierarchy at UCT. Thus Rob fears being a victim of stigma by association, which he chooses to manage through voicing objections in some spaces, while remaining silent in others. The tension between and silence can be interpreted in several ways. On the one hand Rob’s selective silence, when he witnesses white colleagues making comments’, unintentionally contributes to the discourse of whiteness as ‘conservative normal. However, his silence could also be viewed as an active strategy (Vice 2010). The utility of silence in staff only spaces is to avoid alienating himself from white academics, so that when he does voice objections he is more likely to be taken seriously. However his primary concern is to manage the stigma of being white in
did in the staff-student interaction. In this space it is he who feels at risk of being alienated. His silence is prefaced on the assumption that speaking out against his colleagues and the ‘whole system’ inhibits his ability to bring about change. He felt that confrontation simply ‘polarized’ the department. His inability to confront the system left him feeling complicit, disempowered and unable to support those colleagues who attempted to challenge the ‘conservative’ comments. He chose rather to ‘retreat’ or ‘just leave it’ and ‘sit it out and wait’ until the older ‘conservative’ colleagues retire from UCT. It doesn’t help those people … They can’t see what they’re doing. …It’s just a kind of entrenched system they’ve come to grow up in … When they leave, I think things will change. (Rob) Using metaphors of warfare Rob positioned himself as an education activist whose ‘battle’ was ‘fighting what apartheid education entrenched’. He argued that UCT had ‘inherited … a racist social structure… which you become part of involuntarily, [even if] you don’t want to be part of it’. He referred repeatedly to his fear that black students might see him as being part of the racial hierarchy at UCT. Thus Rob fears being a victim of stigma by association, which he chooses to manage through voicing objections in some spaces, while remaining silent in others. The tension between and silence can be interpreted in several ways. On the one hand Rob’s selective silence, when he witnesses white colleagues making ‘conservative comments’, unintentionally contributes to the discourse of whiteness as normal. However, his silence could also be viewed as an active strategy (Vice 2010). The utility of silence in staff only spaces is to avoid alienating himself from white academics, so that when he does voice objections he is more likely to be taken seriously. However his primary concern is to manage the stigma of being white in