On Friday, June 12 the internet and cable news outlets exploded with the news that Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Spokane, Washington Chapter of the NAACP is a white woman who has been living her life dressed in blackface for the last 10 years. Dolezal teaches Africana Studies at a university in Washington and stated in her bio that she graduated from Howard University, a prestigious historically black college. It sounds like an article from The Onion, but at this point, it appears to be true.
So now, the think pieces have begun about race, gender, white privilege, blackface, and the intersectionality of all of them. How was a white woman who was born in Montana allowed to do blackness for 10 years? Who is the hair stylist that was doing her sew-ins, so that her naturally straight tresses would appear kinky? Do the ends justify the means. How mad can we be at Rachel Dolezal if she was doing the work to better the lives of people of color? Why didn’t anyone check her resume and background before making her the face of colored people’s oppression?
There are so many things at play here, I don’t know where to start. We have a white privilege problem and a colorism problem. The fact that Dolezal was able to wake up one day and decide to be black is the penultimate example of white privilege. She was able to choose to don the hair styles, wear the kente cloth, talk the talk– all without actually having to experience the realities of being a black woman. Then, we have the white savior problem. A white woman (or presumably light-skinned woman) was allowed to rise to a position of leadership in an organization designed to advance the rights of people of color without anyone questioning her credentials. No one checked to see whether she graduated from Howard, really????!!! Because she was light-eyed and light-skinned, her truth was presumed to be the truth. This is our biggest national problem.
Then, I can’t even get started on the mental health issues at play here. She has a personality disorder. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I cannot say which one, but there’s is definitely something off there. I don’t where this story will take us as it unfolds, but I am a culture and not a costume. Blackface is never okay, whether you’re doing the work to advance the rights of people of color or not. This is 2015 and it feels more like 1965 everyday. I will be following this story.
Since the entire story is based on one source, estranged parents she’s been fighting in court over an abuse case, let’s see a DNA or paternity test. Her Mama might have “stepped out” on Dad. Stranger things have happened, especially in dysfunctional families. It’s easy to determine who is telling the truth about her genotype.
Yeah, Rachel told some lies, out of shame or whatever. But surely the University where she taught verified her degrees before hiring her.
The NAACP doesn’t really care what race you say you are, or what your education is. Only that you support their goals. They’ve made a statement supporting her work on their behalf. If she’s white, she wouldn’t be the first white person in their administrative ranks. The first president of the NAACP (for 20 years) was a white activist lawyer named Moorfield Storey.
Hi Mikey. I agree with your comments. I have updated the post title to say “IF it is true,” which is what I was trying to convey the whole time– an emphasis on the IF factor here. I also don’t have a problem with people of any race being involved with the NAACP or any organization that advances justice and equality for oppressed groups. I think it’s a great thing when people of different backgrounds come together. Another thing I want to make clear is that if she is black, then her being light-skinned does not make her story any less valid. As a black person who is of a lighter complexion, I would never question her blackness in that way. But, if she is white, then I question why she felt the need to lie. She’s doing noble work either way.