“Because I Didn’t Have to Wear a Shirt to the Party”: Individualism and White Ignorance

Despite the growing Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, racially themed costume parties were still a tradition that fall at Bowdoin, as they were (or still are) on many historically and predominantly white (PWI) campuses. One of the more infamous happened every year, sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving, and was dubbed Cracksgiving—a combination referring to the “Pilgrims and Indians” Thanksgiving theme and the fact that it took place at “Crack House.” While my research did not reveal the origins of the house’s name, it is likely a reference to the racialized stereotype of drug users and unkempt houses. Crack House was a slovenly off-campus rental, handed down from year to year to (predominantly or exclusively white) members of the men’s lacrosse team, and known for its raucous parties. As Tristan (white man) reported in our interview, “I had never gone to Crack, but I heard a lot about it. It was like a myth on campus.” The invitation lists for Crack House parties were often exclusive and most students had never been inside, which only served to build its legendary status.

In November of 2014, in the middle of the second annual No Hate November campaign, the Cracksgiving party took place as usual. Ben (white man), a member of the lacrosse team, described: “Our team threw a Thanksgiving party or a party around Thanksgiving and a bunch of us dressed up—some of us as Native Americans, some of us as pilgrims.” Because seasoned team members had been privately reprimanded for the same party theme in prior years, returning students knew administrators did not consider the theme appropriate. But they carried on with the tradition because the college’s individualistic response led them to believe that only players wearing offensive costumes would get in trouble. In other words, the individualistic nature of the college’s reprimands gave upperclassmen a loophole to continue their tradition, an example of the kinds of agency individuals possess within organizational mandates and of how rules become decoupled from practices in a racialized manner.

Upperclassmen who had been previously reprimanded for offensive costumes did not dress up, but, at their urging, the same party and the same costumes recurred. Instead of educating their peers on the harmful impacts of the costumes, upperclassmen deliberately encouraged their impressionable teammates to perpetuate the practice while staying silent about the potential repercussions. Trevor (white man), also a member of the lacrosse team, recalled the power dynamics underpinning how the costume party played out: “I was not one of the people who dressed up, but . . . I very easily could have been. . . . Upperclassmen—who knew the repercussions for it—would tell [underclassmen] to dress up. . . . A lot of times they would tell freshmen [to] dress up and [we] would—having no idea we weren’t supposed to or ever thinking how it could affect some other people.” Anticipating only minor disciplinary consequences (if any), upperclassmen reframed getting reprimanded for cultural appropriation into a rite of passage for new teammates. Since administrators had only ever punished students who actually wore offensive costumes, the upperclassmen knew they could continue to throw and attend the party without getting in trouble themselves. For the predominantly white men’s lacrosse team, individualistic consequences did not act as a deterrent, but instead as a perverse incentive.

Many of the freshmen who dressed up for the party were, in fact, clueless. Ben, who dressed up and attended the party, reported: “I wasn’t acting with any sort of intention or malice or anything like that. I remember telling the deans [when they asked], ‘Why did you choose to dress up as a Native American as opposed to a pilgrim?’ And to me the answer was so clear, I was like, ‘Because it was way cheaper and I didn’t have to wear a shirt at the party!’ And [the dean] was kind of taken aback by it at first, but I guess it was so candid that she was like, ‘Oh, I guess I can’t really not believe you.’ That was my whole thought process.” Because of the ways the racial contract is buttressed by white ignorance, Ben’s ignorance was entirely believable to the dean.

Arguing that ignorance, like knowledge, is a social product grounded in both explicit and tacit practices, sociologist Jennifer Mueller’s work shows how racial ignorance works as a core process that helps “maintain white supremacy by allowing white people to experience their inequitable and unjust power, status, and wealth as legitimate.” Dominant groups hold a rational investment in not understanding racism and racial domination; the “possessive investment in whiteness” creates real material and psychic benefits. All major US institutions have been formed as white institutions and structured to normalize white interests as common interests. As a result, as philosopher Charles Mills argued, white people act ignorantly because they can trust that societal institutions will approve of their racialized not-knowing. As in Sarah Mayorga’s conceptualization of the diversity ideology, in the eyes of white administrators, Ben’s lack of intent to harm mattered more than the impact of his actions. Thus, in Ben’s recounting of his disciplinary hearing, his straightforward revelation of his own racialized ignorance was met with sincere belief and acceptance. Through the lens of racialized organizations theory, this example shows how whiteness acted as a beneficial credential to enhance the agency of white students.