Protecting White Privilege: How American International School Leaders Perpetuate Anti-Black Racism

• In Event: Navigating the Margins: Race, Power, Gender, and Transformation in International Education

Abstract

Purpose
This paper argues that U.S. supported American international school (SAIS) leaders’ actions and inactions to redress critical anti-Black incidents serve to protect white privilege in these schools. I ask: How do SAIS leaders perpetuate white privilege through their responses to anti-Black incidents?

Perspective
SAIS tend to purport principles of harmonious plurality, citing global, multicultural student bodies as evidence; yet SAIS are governed by overwhelmingly white leadership (Shaklee et al., 2019). In many ways, this leadership demographic creates an environment dominated by white perspectives and norms despite racial and ethnic plurality, often protecting and prioritizing the comfort and value of whiteness (Bunnell & Gardner-McTaggart, 2024; Gardner-McTaggart; 2021). Drawing on the concept of the "racial contract" (Mills, 1997), SAIS school leadership’s consistent prioritizing of whiteness while marginalizing Blackness creates an unspoken agreement to protect white interests at the expense of non-white individuals. In SAIS, this manifests as leaders ignoring or downplaying anti-Black racism. When leadership fails to address anti-Black racism, this denial, or participation, reinforces the idea that Black suffering is unworthy of attention, demonstrating adherence to the racial contract and investments in whiteness (Allen & Liou, 2019).

Methods
Data were collected from twelve Black American families who attended SAIS. The interviews took place online on nearly every continent. I used narrative as both phenomenon and inquiry in the qualitative design by capturing Black stories across time and space (Berry & Cook, 2019). Short-story cycles spanning from kindergarten through high school depicted critical incidents of anti-Black racialization. I analyzed how school leaders prioritized whiteness while marginalizing Blackness when presented with antiblack racialization.

Findings
My analysis revealed consistent anti-Black racism experiences among Black students, including use of racial slurs, physical assaults, over-policing of behavior, and applications of culturally deficit frameworks. When concerns were raised, SAIS school leadership often dismissed or downplayed concerns, citing school diversity as proof of antiracism. Moreover, school leadership frequently protected white students from consequences, blamed Black students, and ignored racial dynamics, focusing on superficial issues rather than systemic racism. For instance, when a white student assaulted a Black student, leadership focused on the Black student leaving the classroom rather than addressing the assault. The impacts on Black students were severe, including suicidal ideation, internalized racism, academic disengagement, and emotional distress.

Significance
How international school leaders respond to incidents of anti-Black racism in the school context is important because the response determines whether or not structural anti-Black racism will flourish or perish. The leadership failures in this study are not just lapses in judgment or a lack of awareness but reflect a deeper systemic acceptance of global anti-Blackness based on a white superiority racial contract that permeates educational institutions. The actions and inactions of SAIS leadership serves to perpetuate a system that minimizes, dismisses, and even enables anti-Black racism, failing to protect Black students. This work challenges SAIS leadership to confront white superiority’s fundamental incompatibility with Black liberation; mere reform may be insufficient. A complete reimagining of these educational spaces might be necessary to truly address racial hierarchies (Dumas & ross, 2016).

Author

• Teneshia A. Taylor, Self-employed