As Rachel Dolezal resigns, a renewed US debate on what it means to be black

Rachel Dolezal stepped down Monday from the presidency of the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the NAACP after a national furor erupted over her racial identity.

Young Kwak
Kitara Johnson speaks to the media during a demonstration for local NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal to step down Monday, June 15, 2015, in Spokane, Wash. Dolezal resigned as president of the NAACP's Spokane chapter Monday just days after her parents said she is a white woman posing as black.

When Mark Naison became one of the first white professors in the budding field of African-American studies 45 years ago, some of his black peers disapproved, he says. Others were willing to give him a chance, saying, “OK, he’s here. Let’s see what he does.”

“I’m a white guy who is part of the black community,” says Professor Naison, who has taught at Fordham University in New York since 1970. “I’m somebody who found this place in the black community as an openly white person, who embraces the study of black history, and who has a feeling, an emotional attachment to a lot of black culture.”

So in some respects, Naison can relate to the story of Rachel Dolezal, the former president of the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who resigned on Monday after a national furor erupted over her racial identity. Ms. Dolezal’s parents outed the social justice activist and part-time African-American studies professor, saying their ethnically white daughter has repeatedly misrepresented her racial background – and even the identity of her father and other family members.

“I feel bad for her, and I feel like she did something really stupid,” Naison says. “I try to get white people to be anti-racist activists, but not by renouncing their whiteness and becoming black, but by renouncing their racism and privilege. She did neither. She took a shortcut.”

Indeed, the Dolezal saga has touched a raw cultural nerve. Beyond her alleged deceptions, her story has evoked questions about the malleability of racial and cultural identity. And it’s renewed the debate about what it means to be black in America.

“We understand that identity is not something that is intrinsic or essential, but it is something that is constructed,” says Clarence Lang, professor of African and African-American studies at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. “This doesn't mean that identity or race is arbitrary,” he says, “but race certainly isn’t about biology, because we know that if you try to define race that way, it ultimately falls apart.”

The controversy surrounding Dolezal comes amid another national discussion about identity, as Caitlyn Jenner has made a public transition from a man to a woman over the past few months.

Some conservatives have been contrasting Ms. Jenner’s “brave” story with Dolezal’s surreptitious transformation from a white girl to a black woman, seeing contradiction and irony as scorn continues to be heaped on the civil rights leader.

“Just last week the President of the United States congratulated Bruce Jenner on his courageous decision to pretend to be a woman, and the entire left bursting into spasms of ecstasy over a collectively insane decision to ratify the notion that men can magically become women,” wrote Ben Shapiro on the conservative Breitbart website. “Today, the entire left is struggling to explain how a white woman who identifies herself as black is not, in fact, black.”

Last week, too, the feminist filmmaker Elinor Burkett asked “What Makes a Woman?” in The New York Times, expressing ambivalence toward the idea that Jenner, without having “accrued certain experiences” and “endured certain indignities,” could simply call herself a woman.

In Dolezal’s resignation letter, posted to the Spokane NAACP Facebook page, she said that “challenging the construct of race is at the core of evolving human consciousness.” She did not, however, address her parents’ accusations that she has been lying or explain why she told her peers and employer that she was at least partially black.

But even if race is indeed a social construct, there are nevertheless experiences that define being black in America, says Professor Lang, echoing the arguments of Ms. Burkett.

“If the argument is going to be that race is arbitrary, and we can really choose whatever subjectivity we want, and that subjectivity that we choose ought to be accepted and legitimated, then we would still have to explain [all the social disparities] in black people’s experience,” Lang says. “I don’t know how Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray identified themselves racially, but we know that sociologically, they were African-American.”

American history is full of other instances where race and identity came into play. Hundreds of thousands of black people intentionally sought to live as white people – a phenomenon called “passing” and an attempt to attain the cultural privileges of being white.

And with the notorious “one drop” rule, even people who were white in every way could be legally considered black if there was even a trace of black ancestry.

Yet the “godfather of rhythm and blues,” the bandleader Johnny Otis, was one example of a white person who famously re-identified as a black man in the 1940s and ’50s. “As a kid, I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black.”

“But the difference is, he didn’t lie about it,” says Naison. “He was totally transparent about what he did and why he did it, and he was totally accepted.”

Naison’s formative experience happened when he was a senior in college back in the 1960s. “My family was not so complicated like Dolezal’s,” he says. “When I fell in love with a black woman, I was simply kicked out of my family and adopted by hers.”

“But I didn’t become black,” he says. “I became the white guy living in a black family, and teaching in a black studies department.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to