This study guide is designed for university classrooms, work groups in organizations or any individual who wants to explore the ideas in the book in more depth. Please let us know if you are using this study guide, have any questions or would be interested in hosting the authors for a presentation and discussion. You can reach the authors at or .
Chapter 1 – The Color Bind. This chapter introduces the book by describing the two basic approaches to difference in the United States, color blindness and color cognizance. It also presents the idea of the color bind and what might be necessary to transcend it.
a. What is the “color bind”? (The chapter doesn’t offer a formal definition.) Do you think it’s a real phenomenon?
b. Do you feel caught in the color bind? Are there ways in which you shy away from talking about race and culture at work or in the classroom? Where do you think your fears come from (family socialization, work or school culture, etc.)?
c. Is the color bind operating in your classroom? Your workplace? Your work group? How can you tell?
d. What is the dilemma of probity vs generosity? Have you ever felt caught in that dilemma? If so, how have you tried to resolve it?
e. If you’ve been talking about these questions in a group, how has your discussion been influenced by the color bind? That is, did you find it difficult to even broach the topic of whether and how to talk about race and ethnicity?
Chapter 2 – Achieving Color Cognizance. This chapter explores previous research related to the color bind. It covers studies related to color blindness and color cognizance as well as studies of diversity in groups and organizations. It also describes the methods used in the study.
a. “The myth is that we should not see or discuss race because it is too dangerous: it invokes guilt, anger, shame, sorrow and fear. But our response is that we must talk about race and that it is possible to do so readily, productively and even enjoyably.” What’s your reaction to this quote?
b. Are you left with questions about definitions and terminology? What are they? How might you find answers to these questions?
c. Many of us grew up being taught color blindness as an aspiration. The idea was that one day race would be so irrelevant as to be nearly invisible. But the authors write that color blindness can actually reinforce existing racial hierarchies. How?
d. The authors argue that color cognizance is better than color blindness. What is color cognizance? Why do the authors suggest it is more beneficial than color blindness? Do you agree? Are there downsides to color cognizance? Does it depend on context? Think about the context in which you are working or studying.
e. What are learning behaviors and why might they help work groups break the color bind?
f. Why, according to the authors, is safety so important?
g. What is intergroup relations theory and what does it add to our understanding of whether classrooms or work groups can talk about race and ethnicity?
Chapter 3 – Race, Ethnicity and Culture: Reflection and Deflection. This chapter is about how social workers in the study drew on color blind and color-cognizant discourses as they engaged in their day-to-day work. The chapter is organized around several fundamental questions.
a. The authors write about actual conversations that social workers had in their agency. Were there things that they said or did not say about race and ethnicity that surprised you? How do their comments compare to those in your own classroom or workplace?
b. The relevance of race, culture, and ethnicity to social work might be more obvious than to a field like finance. Why should other industries or academic disciplines make open conversation about these topics a goal?
c. The chapter asks the question, Should clients be treated differently based on race or ethnicity? What are your thoughts and feelings about that question? Have you ever worked differently with students, clients, patients, customers or co-workers based on their racial or cultural background? Reflecting back, was that the right decision?
d. The authors write, “there doesn’t have to be a choice between seeing individuals as fully unique (and therefore culture doesn’t matter) or seeing cultures as completely homogeneous (and therefore individuals don’t matter.)” What is the alternative? How would the conversation or the work be different?
e. The chapter also asks whether and how social workers draw on their own background in their work with clients. The reality is that most of us draw on our backgrounds, although we may not be aware of it. How do you draw on your own racial/cultural background in your study or work? Do you think this is beneficial or detrimental?
f. The chapter then poses a final question: Should clients and social workers be matched by race and ethnicity? What are the pros and cons of matching, according to the chapter? What does this make you think about matching in your own context? Have you ever had the experience of being matched and, if so, what was it like?
g. The authors also write about “color minimization” in this chapter. What is color minimization? Do you see any evidence of it in your organization or classroom and if so, what purpose do you think it serves?
Chapter 4 – Color-Cognizant Practice: Team North. Team North, profiled in this chapter, was the only team that was color cognizant in that it regularly discussed issues related to race and ethnicity in its team meetings. The authors suggest that Team North had several characteristics which enabled it to transcend the color bind: a number of members who were color cognizant, a sense of relative safety, and the capacity to explore and reflect on its work.
a. Has your work group or classroom ever had conversations with some similarity to Team North’s conversations related to race and culture? If so, what kinds of things have you talked about? Do you think those conversations were productive? What factors do you believe enabled them to happen? That is, were there people, contexts, or processes in place that facilitated the conversation?
b. Do people in your context – in your class or in your organization – vary in terms of their color awareness? Are there some that tend more towards color blindness and others towards color cognizance? Where do you think you stand on that scale?
c. Did you have strong positive or negative reactions to any of the members of Team North? Was there someone you felt was similar to or different from you? Was there anyone you identified with?
d. Members of Team North stood out for being aware of their own biases. How important is this, do you think, in your particular context? What might be some of your biases and how do you think they may affect you at work or school?”
e. The authors make a distinction between cultural cognizance and full color cognizance. What is that distinction and why does it matter?
f. The authors argue that a sense of being relatively safe is required for teams to have conversations about race. Do you feel pretty safe in your environment, or not? Why or why not? How does your relative sense of safety affect your tendency to engage race and culture? Do you think others feel safe?
g. The authors also make a distinction between psychological safety and identity safety. What is that distinction? Is that a useful distinction for you or possibly others in your context?
h. Team North engaged in several “learning behaviors” that contributed to their capacity to talk about race and culture. These include productive resolution of conflict, experimentation, and self-reflection. Think about your own classroom or work team and its ability to engage in these actions.
Chapter Five – Color-Evasive Practice: Team East. The authors label Team East “color evasive” because it rarely talked as a group about issues related to race and ethnicity. Like Team North, it had multiple members who were color cognizant in their own practice but they did not have team discussions about these issues. The authors argue that the team and office context – what they call the “intergroup incubator” – was the main culprit: the team did not feel safe for its members and was largely unable to engage in learning behaviors.
a. Do you agree with the authors that the intergroup incubator was largely responsible for the team’s inability to have discussions about race and culture? What else might have been going on?
b. Have you ever experienced a work or school environment that was similar to that of Team East – mired in conflict, unsafe, stuck? What was the impact of that environment on the people in the group and their work?
c. Did you see aspects of yourself in any of the members of Team East? What might that tell you about your own ability to engage in conversations about race?
d. The authors note that Team North, and not Team East, was able to use race and ethnicity diagnostically, though they characterize some comments by Team East members as empathic. What is the difference and why does it matter?
e. The office in which Team East was located had experienced an ugly racist incident which seemed to have continuing ramifications. Has your school or workplace ever experienced something like that, to your knowledge? What impact did it have, on individuals and on the group as a whole?
f. If you became the team leader of Team East, what steps would you take to bring the team together? If you were their supervisor, what would you do? How could your actions help enable the team to have conversations about race and culture?
Chapter Six – Color-Hostile Practice: Team South. Team South stands out because not only did it discuss race rarely, when it did, it sometimes did so derisively. For that reason, the authors call their practice “color hostile.” They suggest that the color blindness of team members as well as aspects of the intergroup incubator play a role.
a. Is it fair to call Team South color hostile? Why or why not?
b. Do you identify with any of the members of Team South? If so, how do you think your behaviors might affect other members of your workgroup or other students in your class?
c. The chapter describes how Bridget, of English and Irish descent, and Ana, of Portuguese descent, are working together on a case of a Portuguese family. Bridget and Rita, another team member, both seem to think that Ana’s connection to her Portuguese background makes her biased and less objective, while viewing Bridget as more objective. Do you agree? Why would Bridget and Rita see Bridget as less influenced by her background than Ana is by hers? What does this say about their capacity to value racial and cultural expertise?
d. Ana herself is very contradictory about whether she draws on this cultural expertise. How do you understand this inconsistency? Do you ever have mixed feelings about drawing on your own racial and cultural background? If so, how do you resolve those feelings?
e. How do you see the role of Brian, the team leader, and his impact on the team’s discussions about race? Are there people in your team or classroom who might have an outsized impact on team dynamics regarding race-related conversations?
f. The authors suggest that Radhi might be a team scapegoat. What do you think? Do you recognize people in your own work context who may be in a similar role?
g. The authors contrast Team South with Team North in that Team South seems very invested in how similar its members are while Team North seems to enjoy its diversity. Do the people in your school or work environment tend to emphasize similarity or difference? What do you see as the strengths or weaknesses of each approach?
h. As the team leader or the team’s supervisor, would you plan some kind of intervention with Team South? What would you do? What if you were a team member?
Chapter Seven – An Explanatory Model of Racial-Cultural Practice. This chapter summarizes the descriptions of Teams North, East and South, compares them, and then provides a theoretical model of what seems to enable or disable color-cognizant practice.
a. What is your reaction to the model? Does it accurately convey the key elements, in your opinion? And do the team-specific models capture what you think is most important about each team?
b. Using the chapter models as a guide, create a model of your classroom or workplace.
Chapter Eight – The Nature of the Terrain: Flaws and Contradictions. In this chapter the authors argue that making mistakes and being inconsistent are inevitable when exploring the territory of race and ethnicity. They begin by adding more complexity to the portraits of Teams North and South, showing how each had both strengths and weaknesses. They also explore their own flaws and contradictions by documenting some of their own arguments and what they learned from them.
a. How does the additional material on Team North and Team South affect your understanding of each team? Does it change your opinion of the team?
b. The authors argue that contradictions are in the “nature of the terrain.” Reflect on your own impulses regarding race and ethnicity, diversity and inclusion. Do you find inconsistencies or disjunctures? What do you make of them? Is there a way that, even if contradictory, all your thoughts and feelings contain elements of truth?
c. Do you see contradictions in how your organization or class thinks about or addresses issues related to race and culture? “The fertility of contradiction” is one of the subheads in the chapter. How could your class or organization fruitfully explore its inconsistencies?