Dr. George Sefa Dei was born in Ghana and gained his initial degree from the University of Ghana Legon. In 1979, he came to Canada to complete a masters degree at McMaster University and a doctorate at the University of Toronto. Following a post- doctorate at the University of Windsor, he returned in 1991 to the University of Toronto to take up a position at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).
Currently Full Professor and Associate Chair of Department of Sociology and Equity Studies, Dr. Dei is also the Head of the Centre for Integrative Anti-Racism Studies at OISE. His teaching and research interests range from Anti-Racism Studies and Indigenous Knowledge, through Development Education to International Development.
A prolific researcher and writer, in 1995 Dr. Dei completed a three-year study examining the experiences of Black/African Canadian students in the Ontario Public School system. This research became the core of the co-authored book Reconstructing `Drop-Out': A Critical Ethnography of the Dynamics of Black Students' Disengagement from School (1997).
Using the perspectives of the students and an integrative framework outlined in his book Anti-Racism: Education Theory and Practice (1996), Dr. Dei analyses the multiplicity of factors that contribute to students disengagement and "dropping out" of school.
Jennifer Kelly, author of Under the Gaze: Learning to be Black in White Society spoke with Dr. Dei in Edmonton in February 1999 at the Africa Society Conference.
Aurora: Could you describe the main focus of your research and analysis?
Dei:Generally, I operate within an anti-colonial discursive framework as a way to understand knowledge and how knowledge produces an understanding of ourselves and our relationships with each other. Specifically, in my schooling research, I operate within an anti-racist discursive framework. I feel these two frameworks are connected.
When I say anti-colonial framework, I am talking about how identity is understood by the people themselves in the aftermath of colonial relations. Colonial refers not simply to North/South, but also to the way in which knowledge can be imposed on others through imperial relations. It is also a discursive approach to interrogate why, within communities, some knowledge is validated or privileged as opposed to other forms of knowledge. That happens, for example, where male knowledge, or knowledge along the lines of gender, class, sexuality, or ethnicity is privileged over another form of knowledge.
Within the anti-racist discursive framework, I am interested in understanding how gender, class, sexuality, and ethnicity influence teaching, learning, and educational administration, and how that understanding helps us come to grips with issues such as students' engagement and disengagement from school. How are questions of identity, representation, and position relevant in understanding how people make sense of the knowledge imparted to them in the school system? How is power used to marginalize and put certain ideas across more forcefully than other ways? How do students deal with issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality?
Aurora: In your book Anti-Racism: Education Theory and Practice, you use the concept "integrative anti-racism." Could you expand on your use of that concept and how you draw on it in terms of the analysis you have identified previously.
Dei:I use the term as a way to build on some of the early ideas on anti- racism by people like Canadians Enid Lee, Barb Thomas, and Arun Mukherjee. There is also work by people like Phil Cohen, Chris Mullard, and Hatcher, as well as work by critical feminist scholars like Patricia Hill Collins, Angela Davies, bell hooks (sic), and many others.
Integrative anti-racism refers to the intersections of difference through a race-centric analysis. That means that when we talk of difference within an anti-racist framework, we are looking at how race intersects with other forms of difference, such as class, gender, and sexuality. In trying to understand education and social relations, it is important that we don't see ourselves as simply one thing. The self is complex, having multiple dimensions. One's race intersects with one's class, gender, and sexuality. Edward Said says that no one is purely one thing. We need to look at the fluidity of ourselves, the multiplicity of our identities, but in a way that will not marginalize race. I approach education through this race-centric analysis.
Aurora: I've heard you also use "interlocking" as well as "intersecting." Do you distinguish between the two?
Dei:Yes, I do make a distinction. Here I borrow from the works of people like Patricia Hill Collins who talks about multiple identities, or multiple oppressions, and of Rose Brewer who talks about simultaneity of oppressions.
The distinction is that when you talk of intersections, you can talk about how some issues become separated depending on the particular analysis you pursue. We know that race intersects with class, gender, and sexuality. Intersection analysis helps us to understand issues such as the criminalization of black youth in our society. And that means that people use an essentialized 1 notion of race to criminalize these youth. So you can use that analysis to understand the whole issue of criminalization.
That doesn't mean that when people use race to essentialize black youth and criminalize them, they do not talk about how, for example, race in itself is also intersected with gender, class, and sexuality. You can understand that through a race- centric analysis. The whole group is racialized, and on that basis they are criminalized
What I am saying, then, is that intersecting analysis must be approached at the level of discourse or as purely a discursive practice. In this example I am giving, race can be presented as a separate analytical category even as we recognize its intersections with other forms of difference. In other words, the discourse of criminality is heavily "raced" or read through the lens of race.
Interlocking analysis recognizes the extent to which it is very difficult to separate one's identities or categories. Interlocking analysis also includes politics. It includes one's political commitment to addressing the issue of multiple oppressions. It is not enough to talk about how these concepts interweave or how they are interlocked, but also to demonstrate a commitment to address the complexities of multiple oppressions or multiple identities. It is about political commitment and action.
Aurora:During your explanation you used the term "racialized." I wonder if you could explain your usage.
Dei: I am gesturing to a process of extending racial meaning to a process of extending racial meaning to a previously unclarified social meaning. See the work of Robert Miles. Racialization is not simply based on skin colour. Culture, language, and religion can also be used to racialize a group as different. There is also the whole issue of the use of power to construct these differences in the first place. It's not simply that differences exist, but also that some people have the power that allows them to use culture, language, religion, or skin colour to categorize people as different and subject them to differential or unequal treatment.
We have known how through history groups have been racialized through a process that allows them to be subjected to differential or unequal treatment because of some real, imagined, or presumed phenotypical, physical, or other cultural traits (for example, skin colour, language, culture, religion) and then on that basis accorded punishment, reward, or privilege. Some critical race theorists have looked at this "racialization" as happening through a labour migration process, as the case of early Chinese immigrant workers in Canada.
Aurora:Would you say that whites are racialized?
Dei:Yes. I think it is Ruth Frankenburg 2 who talks about the need to unmask whiteness as an unracialized identity. Whites can and have been racialized. We can look at it in terms of the extent to which they have been racialized for privilege. Or we can use it to understand how whiteness allows people to engage in transformative political projects. Whiteness is not simply the site of oppression or privilege; it can also be used to rupture some of the oppressive aspects of society. That means talking about personal implication, talking about personal politics and one's project to undermine or subvert oppressive structures or systems. Understanding whiteness can be a decolonizing project.
Aurora: So it can be used as a political strategy in order to break down the processes of oppression. Am I correct in that understanding?
Dei: Right.
Aurora: So, it can be seen as a breakthrough in terms of theorizing about "race." During the discussion so far, you have alluded to the importance of identity. Could you explain your understanding of this concept?
Dei:My understanding comes from the works of people like Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, and others who have written on the notion of identity. I see identity as a definition of selfhood, of personhood. But that is not all. It also includes the relationship between the self and the other. So there is a relational component to identity. You cannot understand the self unless you look at it in relation to the other. There is that dialogic relation.
Identity includes a uniqueness as well as a sameness. On one hand we can talk about the level of uniqueness an individual has, but also the sameness in how that individual relates to the other. And that needs to be understood in terms of the relational and dialogical component of it.
Identity is very powerful in helping us understand not only ourselves, but our place in society and how we connect with each other as a way to understand our collective destinies. Identity is powerfully linked with knowledge production. Who we are, the journeys that we've gone through, how we understand the self are all implicated in how we understand the society in which we live.
Postmodernists are very fond of talking about the fluid nature of identities. Identities are not static. Depending on the context that one finds herself or himself in, the identity can be negotiated, redefined, or reconstructed. Sometimes two identities overlap. In context A one may be able to define a particular identity and talk about the saliency of that identity. But when that person moves into context B, that saliency may be redefined in terms of a different identity. So it is very important to understand this complexity and the fluid nature of identity.
Something I picked up from one of my students, Jasmine Zine is the distinction between metaphor and the real. We can talk about the fluid nature of identities metaphorically, or we can talk about identities in the real sense. For example, the identity of skin colour is real. There is a permanence to it, because skin colour has been a permanent marker for distinction, for discrimination, for creating differences. It is very important for those of us who work within the anti-racism framework to make this distinction between the metaphor and the real. That means while we talk about the fluid, overlapping, interconnecting nature of identities or the multiple dimensions of identities, we also have to talk about, to some extent, how certain forms of identities become very real.
Aurora:Right, so even though you allow for a fluidity, you also recognize that at times, identity has a fixity.
Dei:Yes, and the thing about a fixed nature or the fluidity is that it is a social construct. And that is very powerful. Because they are socially constructed, they may be constructed differently in different contexts. The point is that people are still using the marker of skin colour to make that construction.
Aurora:We have talked about fixity and fluidity in terms of social contexts. How does such fixity and fluidity relate to historical contexts?
Dei:Throughout history, one marker that has always been used to identify or define people is skin colour. There have been redefinitions or different attempts to socially construct our understandings of skin colour, but the notion itself has been with us through time. That is what I mean by the permanence of skin colour.
Aurora: So far you have highlighted the relationship between identity, racialization, and power structures in society. Using your research project undertaken in the Ontario Public School System, I wonder if you could illustrate how useful you found these concepts when looking at the issue of education for minority students in a white- dominated society.
Dei:This project started in 1992 and was funded by the Social Science Research Council of Canada. It looked at the issue of student disengagement, or how we understand students dropping out of school. It was from viewpoint of the students themselves, how they articulate the factors that contribute to them leaving school prematurely. I got a lot of assistance from my graduate students at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.
We went into schools in the Toronto region and asked African-Canadians students and other minority students what they liked about school, what they disliked, who their favourite teacher was and why, and what they thought should be done about the problem of students dropping out. We also spoke to their teachers and parents as a way to cross- reference what the African-Canadian students were saying. So, we would go to a teacher and, for example, say, "Students tell us this is happening to them in the system. This is what students are saying about their school experience, that there is differential, negative treatment at school. How do you respond to that?"
One of the things that we discovered is the power of identity, the understanding of one's self and its relationship to the schooling process. Students struggle to identify, and that struggle is visible along two lines. One is the struggle to identify in terms of the curriculum and what goes on within the culture of the school. When these students go to school, there is constant negotiation, re-negotiation, and struggle to identify with what goes on within that environment. Sometimes, we heard students say they did not see themselves in the textbooks or in the examples used by educators. To the students this was a struggle, a struggleto identify with what goes on.
The second struggle of identity was more in terms of one's understanding of oneself. Students said they felt there was always an attempt to place them somewhere else, even when they wanted to stick out an identity of their own. For example, students said they were constantly asked where they were from, even if they were born here. If they responded that they were born here, the next question was, "No. Where are you really, really from? Your father or your mother." These students have to deal with that.
We also found a distinction between "racial identity" and "racialized identity." I picked up that distinction up from the works of my doctoral student, Awid Ibrahim, who is now teaching at the University of Ottawa. He borrows from the pioneering work of Stuart Hall. He speaks of racial identity as the notion of being black or white or Asian or first nations or aboriginal. Racialized identity is the act of "becoming black." It is a more politicized understanding of identity.
Some students engage in this political act of becoming black as a way to resist the majority and to deal with some of the exclusions they face in the school system. So it is a more politicized understanding of what goes on in the school system. That is why when we asked students how many black or African-Canadian teachers they have in their schools, the same group of students gave different answers. When we probed further, we noticed that students were saying that although there may be bodies that are African- Canadian or black, they are not seen that way because they do not have a politicized understanding of blackness or Africaness. Students did not see them as part of their group. People may be black in terms of racial identity, but not black in terms of a racialized identity, which is a politicized understanding.
Aurora: So you are saying that black is a political construct at one level and that it has multiple meanings and so we need to be able to understand quite clearly when a student uses the term black. When you make the distinction between racial and racialized identity, what do students use primarily then to identify themselves? What is it they are saying if they say they are black? Is it solely skin colour that they are referring to?
Dei:Yes, that is the entry point of the discussion. For students skin colour alone is a powerful notion. They define their anxieties, their fears, their aspirations through that lens. They use that to talk about who they are. But that is not enough. They move on and look at the politics of claiming that skin colour identity. The politics of claiming that skin colour identity is a racialized identity, which is the political act of becoming black.
Aurora:Just to pursue this a little, would you say that racial identity would be one that is more ascribed?
Dei:Yes, Right.
Aurora:Well, that makes a different distinction then.
Dei:Yes, it's ascribed, but at the same time it is a social construction.
Aurora: How does identity relate to power structures and the production of knowledge?
Dei:Many students see whiteness as a racialized identity. To have that racial identity is to have power and privilege. But they also recognize that you can have a racialized identity of being black and use it to subvert that power. And that means then to talk about agency 3 and the extent to which people can be empowered by claiming that identity. So, it is not simply that one group has power and they don't have it. They see that society accords power to some people on the basis of a racial identity, but by claiming their own identity they can subvert and challenge that power.
Students talk about the need to come together because they are black. Through collective politics they deal with the question of marginality. They do not see themselves as powerless; they see collectivity as a way to challenge authority structures that do not meet their needs and concerns. It is a means to ask for black or African teachers or for the curriculum to be diversified. They use the understanding of who they are to make it clear that they need to have these teachers, to have black history or African history, or to have a curriculum that reflects their diversity.
That understanding of power is not finite. It is more relational and it is changing at different levels. But having said that, I think I should also make the point that they are very cognizant of the rationality for dominance in society. And that rationality for dominance is encoded in that whole issue of power. Those who have power use it to sometimes dominate. Students feel that if you have authority, which is the dominant power, and do not use it to address our needs and concerns, we have an obligation to subvert that authority. So they become very disrespectful and disobedient, and they challenge that authority. When they do that, they are using a certain kind of power.
Aurora:How do the more easily recognized power structures in the school react to students evoking that racialized identity? What are the consequences?
Dei:There are varied consequences. When students use their power, it can be seen as a threat. It can be read as challenging well established systems of authority and power, and therefore there has to be a consequence. That's why some students complain about feeling like they are under a microscope, always being watched. The teacher's view is that these students tend to be very loud in the hallways. The educator reasserts her or his power and misunderstands what the students are complaining about. Students are complaining about the educator reasserting power to maintain law and order. It creates tension in the school environment.
Some students are seen as having a chip on their shoulder. Rather than paying sincere attention to the voice that these students are raising, those in positions of power and influence hear it as nagging, complaining, or making noise. The voice is silenced; concerns are not heard. That is another consequence.
Some students give examples of where somebody who always asks questions in the class is seen as disrespectful, abrasive, or violent. He or she may not get called upon when he has his hand up. This is another consequence. When the voice of identity is raised, it is seen as the voice of critique, rebellion, or subversion, and that voice is not heard.
Aurora:That's very interesting because what you've indicated there, is the ways in which some students become constructed as deviant and illdiciplined purely on the basis of trying to challenge a degree of stiltness and fixity in the ways in which schools are organized and knowledge is constructed and recognized. Now, to link what you have just said with your earlier comments on integrative analysis anti-racism. How do you see the complexity of race, class, and gender playing out in the lives of the students who participated in your research project?
Dei:Students show a very powerful understanding of the connections of these concepts. For example, when they speak about the need to have the curriculum diversified, it's not just about bringing in the works of Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela, or Frantz Fanon. They want to hear about Angela Davis, Patricia Hill Collins, and bell hooks. When students raise that voice, they are saying it is important not simply to address the race dimension of the absences in the curriculum, but also the gender dimension. Students articulate that.
Students know that certain things happen to them because they are African or black, but they also know that they are stereotyped for other reasons. They've heard the whole discourse around single parents and why their kids don't do well in school: they come from working class or single-parent households, or their parents spend all their time on things other than education
The labeling, the stereotyping, and the stigmatization that happens in the school system is heavily based on skin colour. Students are labeled as ignorant or incapable or less intelligent because of their skin colour. But students understand that classism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression can compound the issue of race. I remember one female black student saying, "We know that our black male counterparts have it tougher because they are seen as the violent ones, they are always under the gaze, they are labeled as criminals or streamed into sports." Students also report that African male or female students who tend to be very critical can be labeled as being aggressive or as unfeminine. These comments all reflect the complexity of students' understanding of the interplay of race, class, gender, and sexuality in the school system.
Aurora:From what you have said the whole issue is extremely complex and needs detailed study, so how can teachers and teacher educators gain a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which race works within the school environment? As well, bearing in mind that some readers may well dismiss your work as purely anecdotal, how would you see your work as being useful to teacher educators and teachers?
Dei: One of the greatest injustices and damage that an educator can do is to dismiss student voices as purely anecdotal. Students do not get their impressions out of the blue. These students have intelligent ideas, and they can articulate them. We need to hear the voices of concern about what happens to them in the school system. Students know the good teachers. They remember the teachers they liked. When you ask them why, they say, "She cared, she would listen, she would always ask me what can I do to help you?" Students also remember the bad ones, the ones who put them down, who labeled them, or thought they were violent or would never amount to anything in society. Students know that and articulate it.
Sometimes we interpret their silence to mean they do not understand what is happening to them, or that they lack the intellect to theorize about it. When we dismiss student voices or narratives, it is all part of the suspicion of anything that cannot be quantified and as so-called objectified. If you can quantify it, then you know that there is a problem. But we have to look also at the importance of voice and what it means to use voice to narrate actual experience.
I'm glad you asked what teacher educators can do. Every learner needs to know about the history of ideas and events that have shaped human growth and development. We don't need to teach about anti-racism only when we have minorities in the classroom. We cannot dismiss these as just special interest theories. If there are any special interests at all, it is those who want to protect the status quo because it is working for them and not for many others.
Students do not go to school as disembodied youth. They go to school with bodies that have race, class, gender, and sexuality. Educators have to deal with that. We have to understand that differences of race, gender, class, and sexuality provide a context for power and domination in our society. Educators need to have a theoretical understanding of what it means to be a raced subject, a gendered subject, a classed subject. Educators cannot talk about social justice without understanding that the foundation for social justice deals with questions of equity and difference. You can't talk about social justice in a vacuum. Social justice is drawn along the lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, and we can add culture and religion. Therefore, it is very important for faculties of education to have courses on race, class, and gender.
There is no way we can talk about education today which is anything but antiracist, antisexist, anticlassist. Antiracist education is good for everyone, not just for minorities, Enid Lee opined a long time ago. It is good for the teacher, it is good for the learner, it is good for the administrator, it is good for the policy maker, because how we come to understand our world is powerfully connected to how we make sense of our existence in society.
Aurora:In a sense, you are saying that regardless of where we live, and even in Alberta with a very small number of minorities, we still need an anti-racist education in order to recognize how constructions of racism operate within society. What would you way are the differences between a multicultural approach and an anti-racist approach? What might be lost if we adopted a multicultural approach that negates an integrative anti-racist approach?
Dei:I don't want to be dismissive of multiculturalism and multicultural education. It is important to talk about multiculturalism insofar as it is a politicized understanding of the issues. There is a peril in talking about culture in a depoliticized way as just being about food, habits, tastes, clothing, or customs. It is important to talk about who has the means to define that culture. We can't talk about culture and not talk about race, gender, and class. And that is where I see the connection between multiculturalism and antiracism. Racism is a question of power; it is about unequal relations of power in society; it is a question of how people use their racial identity to marginalize, exclude, and deny privilege and access to other groups in society. So, any discourse of multiculturalism should be able to deal with that, and that means working with the notion of antiracism.
Even though Alberta seems to be a homogeneous environment, we live in a global or transnational community. We have to look at how Alberta connects with other provinces and other parts of our communities. We need to train bodies who are not just going to function within that so-called homogeneous environment, but within a diverse global context.
Even in a supposedly homogeneous environment there has to be an entry point to teach about antiracism in the schools. There are different models for teaching antiracism. For example, we can teach antiracism through the entry point of whiteness. What does it mean to be white? There is more to whiteness than just power and privilege. Whiteness also allows one to rupture the status quo, to dissect and interrogate society, to talk about inequities and about personal complicity and responsibility in dealing with these issues.
It is not only those who have been minoritized or deprivileged who can speak about oppression. Those in positions of power and privilege also have an obligation to speak about these issues. The simple reason is that we are all in the same boat. We live in an interdependent world. We need to deal with the sense of complacency that since things are working for me, everything is fine. There are people who are not complacent about what is happening. There is a legitimate consent or claim if we talk about a lost sense of entitlement, a sense of belonging. People must have a sense of entitlement, and that means they have a sense that they lay claim to something, that they have a contribution to make and that their voice needs to be heard. But this sense of entitlement means responsibility.
We cannot continue to read our world in terms of those who have and those who have not. At one moment or in a given context one can be in the position of power and influence that in another position that same individual can be in the position where they have less power, or they are in the subordinate position. Those who have power and privilege are not going to stay in that position forever.
Aurora:Great, that's very, very, interesting and I like your concept of entitlement. I think that's definitely an area that needs to be pursued and developed. Now, in order to draw our interview to a close, I'd just like to ask you in what direction do you see your future work going? Are there any specific areas you would like to focus on?
Dei:Together with my graduate students at the University of Toronto, we are rethinking the whole issue of schooling and education in a Canadian context and within certain domains. One is spirituality, the other is indigenous knowledge, and third, seeing schools as working communities with shared rights and responsibilities for all members.
Let me start with the first one, spirituality. When I speak of spirituality I'm not talking about any subscription to a higher moral order. I'm talking about people's sense of the inner self and how they see their place in the world and within the community.
I see spiritual learning as grounding someone in their understanding of their inner self, and how the inner self connects with the outer – that means the relation between yourself and the other.
Focusing on indigenous knowledge means acknowledging that there are different ways of reading and interpreting the world. Eurocentric knowledge is just one way. For example the Eurocentric understanding of difference is imbued with the idea of superiority and inferiority. That is why some people don't want to talk about racial differences. They feel talking about racial differences will just create problems, because they understand difference simply in terms of identifying superiority and inferiority.
Another way of understanding difference is that each and every one of us has a contribution to make. We are in a circle. When we come around that circle, let's hear and understand the contributions that everyone has to make. Different does not necessarily mean unequal, difference can also be a sign of strength.
There is also the issue of social justice. An Eurocentric understanding of social justice is that everyone is treated the same. An alternative view of social justice says that people who have historically been disadvantaged cannot be seen as the same. When you treat everyone the same, you just end up reproducing the inequities. My beef with Eurocentricity is that it is presented as the only valid way of knowing. There are other ways of knowing. African students should be able to read the world through an African eye. First nations people should be able to view the world through an aboriginal eye. This is what I mean by indigenous creative, and contextualized knowledges.
Lastly, is the notion of community, which again includes an alternative understanding of difference. Community is not homogeneous. In order to talk about peaceful coexistence, we have to acknowledge, affirm, and validate the different strengths we all have. We cannot talk about community without dealing with the issue of power, which is imbedded in it. After all, difference both strengthens and fractures the community.
We have to think of a new form of schooling that is radically different from what we have now, and we are rethinking education in a way that includes all these concepts.
1Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffen's book provides a good resource for gaining understanding of some of the terms used in the interviews.
2The issue of identity and the need for a more integrative analysis that includes class, gender, and sexuality as well as race has been articulated in the work of theorists such as Hall, Gilroy, and hooks (sic). In particular, hooks has a chapter in her book which discusses "Essentialism and Experience" (pp 77-92).
3Richard Hatcher and Barry Troyna's (1993) article discusses empirical research on racialization and children. The research, undertaken in England, illustrates the complexity of "race" and how "racialization of children's attitudes and social behaviour are often fluid, fragmented, and inconsistent" (p.123).
4As well as the Hatcher and Troyna article, the edited collection by McCarthy and Crichlow (1993) is an excellent source for some of the more recent theoretical frameworks used in analysing race, identity, and representations in education.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., and Tiffen H. Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies. London: Routledge. 1998.
Dei, George Sefa. Anti-Racism: Theory and Practice. Halifax: Fernwood. 1996
Dei, George Sefa, with Josephine Mazzuca, Elizabeth McIsaac, and Jasmine Zine. Reconstructing `Drop-out': A Critical Ethnography of the Dynamics of Black Students' Disengagement from School. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.1997.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Powell, L., and Mun Wong, L. (eds.). Off White: Readings on Race, Power, and Society. New York: Routledge. 1997.
Frankenburg, Ruth. White Women Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 1993.
Gilroy, P., Hall, Stuart. "The Question of Cultural Identity." In S. Hall, D. Held, and T. McGrew (eds.), Modernity and Its Futures. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 1992.
Hatcher, Richard, and Troyna, Barry. "Racialization and Children." In C. McCarthy and W, Crichlow, Race, Identity, and Presentation in Education (pp. 109-125). New York: Routledge. 1993.
hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge. 1994.
Kelly, Jennifer. Under the Gaze: Learning to be Black in White Society. Halifax: Fernwood. 1998.
McCarthy, C. and Crichlow, W. Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York: Routledge. 1993.
Updates for Professor Dei can be found at OISE - Social Justice Education
Updated May 2018
© Copyright 1999 AURORA
Citation Format
Gismondi, Mike. (1999). Aurora interview with George Sefa DEI. Aurora