INTERRACIAL VOICE (IV): What exactly does the Center for the Study of Biracial Children do?

FRANCIS WARDLE (FW): We do a variety of things. One is just to be available to the media on issues surrounding interracial families and biracial children. I get many calls from newspapers, television shows...48 Hours and CBS are trying to do a show on interracial families. I got a call from Nickelodeon, New Republic, Village Voice, you name it. So one of the things is to respond to those calls and try to give accurate information about biracial children and interracial families. As I'm sure you know, there's very little information out there, and 99.9% of what's available is wrong. So, one of the things we do is to respond to questions from the media.

Another thing is to be pro-active and call the media to let them know when they are making mistakes. About a year ago Ebony (magazine) did an article, and (Alvin) Poussaint was talking about some of the problems with black relationships, and he took some swipes at interracial relationships. So, I wrote a letter to Ebony, and they actually printed it. The letter talked about the reality of our relationships.

Another thing we do is to work with a variety of students, mainly graduate students, who are doing papers. Apparently, it's quite popular these days to do graduate papers on interracial relationships and biracial children. So, I receive many calls from those students.

IV: Is that more of a fad?

FW: It's definitely a fad. We respond to that both with material and with telephone interviews. Also, we develop material for educational publications. You probably know that multicultural education is hot right now, but nobody addressing multicultural education even recognizes that our kids exist. When they do, they just lump them in with the minority heritage and that's it.

IV: Aren't multicultural and multiracial two different things?

FW: Yes. They do get confused, and one of the things we do at the Center is to try to articulate the difference and also say, Look, if you're providing materials and how-tos for teachers to support the identity of diversity in school programs -- which is what multicultural ed is about -- you cannot ignore the mixed-race child, which they do. So, I've written several articles for young children for the journal of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which is an organization that's been in the forefront of addressing both multicultural education and what they call anti-bias education. I've also written for Child Care Information Exchange which is another early-childhood publication. I've also written some letters to Scholastic and other people who feel they're being pro-active in terms of multicultural ed but who ignore our kids.

Also, I've published a lot of photographs of biracial children -- mostly my own -- and interracial families, trying to get that into the marketplace. Journals, magazines and textbooks have picked up some of our pictures. Quite frankly, one of the reasons why I established the Center was to do it before some university would do it and screw it up.

IV: Why do you think they'd screw it up?

FW: I know they'd screw it up because universities are too much into political correctness, and the politically correct position on multiracial families and children is that they are black.

IV: Of course. Now, you're married to a black woman?

FW: Yes. My wife is black from Kansas City. She has some Native American heritage and some Asian heritage, which is not unusual. We also have four wonderful children, ages ranging from 8-16. Three girls and a boy.

IV: Are you originally from Denver?

FW: No. I'm from England. I came to the United States in 1964 at the age of 16 and lived in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Kansas City and now Denver.

IV: What's your academic background?

FW: I have a B.A. in Art Education, a Masters in Cultural Foundations of Education and a Ph.D. in Early Childhood Education and Infancy.

IV: Do you work out of your home?

FW: I do two things. In terms of the Center, I work out of my home, but I also have a regular job to bring in the income to survive.

IV: What's the state of the interracial community in Colorado?

FW: Colorado is an interesting item. We live here by choice. We would not live anywhere else in the States. We think it's probably the best place to raise an interracial family.

IV: Why?

FW: I don't know. We don't know why it is, but we've found it to be very supportive. Our kids are often called for radio and television shows. They were called by the producer of Linda Ellerbee's Nickelodeon show, and she rejected them when they told her that they hadn't had any problems.

IV: She wanted a tragic story.

FW: Absolutely. They all want tragic stories. They've been called by other papers, and when they say “look we don't have any problems,” they get dumped.

IV: That's like the daytime television talk shows. They only put on the most dysfunctional people.

FW: Newspapers, too. I was called to be the expert for the Shirley show in Canada -- which is like a Donahue equivalent -- but when I articulated that I felt that, given certain supports, biracial children would be healthy, they said “we don't want you.” So, that's a tremendous problem we have to deal with at this point, the selective use of dysfunctional children and experts who say our children are going to be dysfunctional. I don't know the answer to that.

Back to Denver, we just have found the city to be very open. There are many interracial families here. There's a kind of Western Live & Let Live; you can do what you like. You can marry whomever you want. You can raise your kids any way you want, so long as you don't step on our turf.

IV: Outside of your Center, though, is there any established support group in Denver?

FW: Yeah. There's at least two groups. One is out of Boulder, which is 30 miles from here, and I presented to them. They do have biological families, but there are quite a few families that have adopted interracially. So, they deal with the stupidity of the Black Social Workers Association and all that garbage. Then there's a group that -- I think the person in charge lives in Pine, which is up in the mountains -- holds discussions in Denver. One of the interesting things about this area, though -- because there's a laissez faire, live and let live attitude -- there's not a big need for the groups as there are in other places.

IV: Such as, West Coast, East Coast?

FW: East Coast, yeah.

IV: Did you find more racial tensions and polarization on the East Coast when you lived here, as opposed to out West?

FW: Well, I think there's a lot more. I can't say in terms of family because we lived in Pennsylvania for a year, but we lived in a Hutterian community which is an isolated religious community. They have no contact with the outside world, so we didn't have to deal with that. Within the community, they are not only Christians who believe in brotherly love, but they practice it, so we had no problems. As far as they were concerned, our kids were God's children like anyone else's. I do have friends in New York and in Washington, though, and I read about the Kwanzaa incident in Boston, and I would not live in those communities.

IV: How did you react to that Kwanzaa episode (INTERRACIAL VOICE, January 1994 issue)?

FW: I think it's obscene. It's obscene for two reasons. One, it doesn't understand -- getting back to multiculturalism -- that multicultural education or support is not segregation. That's not what multiculturalism is all about. It's about everybody enjoying the cultures of each other. Two, it denies the biracial child any kind of access to the black heritage, which is ridiculous.

IV: What then do you think about the initiative to establish a multiracial category on the Census?

FW: Well, I have some concerns about it. I mean, there's no question that our schools and our government ignore the existence of children of mixed-race heritage. That's ridiculous; obviously these kids exist, and they need to be recognized both by their schools and by their government. I think that the interpretation of the racial categories is wrong, however. It came out of the civil rights legislation to make sure that funds were distributed equitably. The intent was not to make sure that funds were targeted for minorities; that was never the intent of that legislation. It was to make sure that they weren't targeted for whites basically. I think, though, that we need to be careful -- in my mind at least -- since racial categories are arbitrary, capricious and divisive. We need to go beyond that and say that we won't have any.

IV: Can we so easily arrive at that point, however, where we don't have any categories at all? Are we intelligent enough as a species to make that step?

FW: We'd better be.

IV: Or don't we have to take a gradient approach, that intermediate step of establishing this category? Then in the future, perhaps, we'll become sufficiently enlightened to eliminate all racial categories.

FW: Well, I'm not sure. That's a good question. I think we need to be careful to look at the purpose of the categories and how they're being used; I think they're being used in largely divisive ways, and being used by demographic folks to do all sorts of sociological analysis about black folks and white folks. The problem is, of course, that they don't include the mixed-race heritage.

To me it's a non-question because I don't think we'll come up with a multiracial category. I don't think that will ever be approved.

IV: It's certainly a political hot potato.

FW: Yes, and I say that for two reasons. One is the minority groups won't allow it, but the other reason is that the demographic folks won't allow it. All of these studies on ethnic differences and so forth would go out the window. I mean at what point do you say that the person is pure race or multiracial? Very few people, including you and me, can say we're pure race. I can't even say that.

IV: Eventually what we want, I suppose, is for people to understand that there should be no racial divisions. Before we can get to that point, however, the multiracial category can possibly trigger a much needed, much delayed and honest dialogue amongst all groups concerning the insanity of racial categories.

FW: Right. I think it's needed, and I think we need to be -- on a personal level -- very dogmatic, that “if you don't think I exist, then I won't fill out your bloody category.” Our family doesn't; we don't fill them out.

IV: What about the approach of Susan Graham's Project Race? She's going about it on a state-by-state basis and has had a limited amount of success to date.

FW: This is where I sometimes take issue with AMEA. I think we have to fight the enemy on every level we can. I think we need to do it on the local level; we do it on the family level by not filling out the forms anymore. We say “look, it says to check an accurate category, but if you don't give us an accurate category, we won't fill it out.”

So, I think we need to do it wherever we can, and I applaud Susan for what's she's doing on a local level.

IV: If it came about that the multiracial category had been approved by the legislatures of a number of states that represented more than half of this country's population, wouldn't that make it the de facto law of the land? Wouldn't the category automatically become national in scope?

FW: Well, what will happen very soon is that there will be a great debate as to what to do about some states that will have okayed the multiracial category, although OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and the federal government says “thou shalt make sure that you categorize all federal dollars according to this system.” Because those states' laws that Susan is pushing will be in violation of federal law.

IV: That's a good way of putting it.

FW: And that's wonderful. I think the best way to destroy laws is to show that they don't make any sense. The way to do that is to perpetuate your own rules, your own legislation, your own laws that say, suddenly, “you know this makes no sense; let's throw the whole thing out.”

IV: You're suggesting that AMEA is only fighting on one front -- before Congress. What else should they be doing?

FW: Well, I have mixed emotions about telling anyone what they should do, because I think my responsibility is to do what I believe I should do, which is primarily to raise a healthy family and then to do what I can in terms of writing.

IV: You have, however, made a conscious effort to put yourself out there as the head of an agency, and there's nothing wrong with offering competing or differing views.

FW: My real feeling is that a national organization's number one priority is to support local efforts, under whatever aegis they occur. So long as the local effort causes the movement to go forward, they should receive support from the national organization. And you know from having studied civil rights how the NAACP, CORE and SNCC all fought with each other, and they fought with Paul Robeson and with everyone else. That's silly. We need to put all the limited energy, effort and money against the enemy. Local groups and other organizations that are trying to eliminate racism and trying to support interracial families are not the enemy.

IV: Are you implying that AMEA views the local groups as enemies?

FW: Well, they shouldn't even think in those terms. I feel that a national organization that is designed to meet the needs of interracial families, biracial children and multiracial adults should support any effort, anywhere in the country that furthers the movement.

IV: Let's say you were going to start your own national group from scratch. How would you go about it?

FW: Well, one of the big issues is dollars and how to get them. The other issue is how do you reach consensus. When I originally got involved with this issue about ten years ago, I argued that we probably aren't ready for a national organization. A national organization presumes a single or fairly united consciousness as to how we are going to deal with the issues.

IV: A monolithic mindset?

FW: Yes, well, at least a consensus. You know after two or three-hundred years of rejecting the very existence of multiracial people and biracial children, I don't think we can suddenly jump to the table and say “these are our positions.” I think we should be open to debate, and there is still debate. There's debate on the issue of categories. There's debate on the issue of the identity of our children. There's debate on the issue of whether we need to align ourselves politically with minority groups, or whether we should define our own group, or whether we say in effect “we are individuals who will choose where we want to fit politically.” I'm concerned that we tried to come to a consensus too soon; we're still in the debate stage.

IV: Isn't debate really a good thing? Should it get to the point where everybody accepts solely one viewpoint?

FW: No, but the conflict between Susan and AMEA was trying to come to a position on categories, and it was immature. At the very least, it was too early.

IV: You're saying that they should have met beforehand and thrashed it out, and maybe a national conference should even now be convened to discuss these issues.

FW: Or maybe we should say that, at this point, we're too new a movement to even come to consensus, so let's back everyone's approach to dealing with this issue that our kids are not recognized, that individuals of mixed-heritage are not recognized by our own government.

IV: So, should we abandon the 2000 Census initiative?

FW: No, I think what we should do is...my analogy for social change is a balloon...where you get as many pins as possible and you prick that balloon as many times...until the balloon bursts. My approach with this issue is we attack it from all fronts, and to me the most important front is to say “our children have a right to an identity” and part of that identity is defined by the way the government views them. Denying them an identity is un-American, illegal and many other things.

IV: In terms of some of the incidents that have occurred around the country that were not necessarily in the backyard of any local group -- for example the Kwanzaa incident in Boston, the Morocco, Indiana case where a couple of biracial boys were roughed up by white supremacists -- what should be the role of a national organization there, where there are no local groups or chapters? How should a national organization react?

FW: Well, my feeling about social change in 20th Century America is that you make it or break it through the media. The media is what controls this society right now in terms of ideas and issues. So, I think that any national group's primary focus should be how to leverage the media for our ends. Of course, these kinds of incidents are windows where you do that. The biggest to me is this whole Kean College (New Jersey) issue surrounding the Nation of Islam. Yes, we've heard from the Jews, and we've heard from the Black Caucus, and we've heard from other people, but the bottom-line issue on that is the 100% opposition to interracial relationships. That speech was all about “We hate whites.” We as an organization have to understand that they're also saying that interracial relationships and biracial children are unnatural and unacceptable.

IV: What are your thoughts on the covenant entered into by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Nation of Islam?

FW: I dropped all loyalty to the NAACP since they supported the black social workers' position on transracial adoption. I mean the NAACP has shown me that they have no interest in diversity in that regard.

IV: Why then would AMEA seek support from the NAACP or any other traditional civil rights organization as it relates to the multiracial category?

FW: Well, that gets back to my concern about national organizations maybe being ahead of the issue. You can get so wrapped up into politics, so wrapped up into the end justifying the means -- which I'm sure would be the response to your question -- and I've chosen not to do that. I've chosen to stay out of the national arena in terms of that politics, even though on their initial letterhead, I was listed as an advisor to AMEA.

IV: Aren't the politics of this issue inevitable, though?

FW: Well, I'm not sure. We could talk a long time...I tend to be an anarchist. My father was in Germany when Hitler declared war on England, and I have some real fears about what politics can do in terms of racism and hatred. I'm careful not to enter the political arena without an ultimate commitment, which is always to go back to what I believe which is equality of everybody and never selling myself short on any issue. I don't believe that the end ever justifies the means, and I believe that policy has lead to many of the evils of the world. Hitler's ends initially were pretty laudable. He wanted to give Germans self-pride...

IV: Improve the economy.

FW: Yes. All the things that Farrakhan is talking about.

IV: Most speeches or diatribes by black nationalist-separatists or white supremacist-segregationists do contain some smattering of the truth that they start out with. No one is totally wrong, and no one is totally right. It's where they want to go, to wind up with those truths.

FW: Correct. Working with the NAACP and the Urban League is a waste of time because ultimately they will oppose the multiracial initiative for purely political reasons. So, that's why I find it difficult even getting into the argument. I don't think it's going to get anywhere.

Also, the important issue to me, because I'm much more concerned about children and the needs of our kids as opposed to the politics, is that our kids are getting the distress and the harassment from the black kids and not so much from white kids. Trying to work with the NAACP and those other organizations is perpetuating the myth that biracial kids are accepted by the black community and not the white community, and that's just not true anymore.

IV: That's true, and by continuing to work with the NAACP, aren't you also -- perhaps subconsciously -- perpetuating the myth that mixed-race kids are really just black when all is said and done?

FW: Very much so.

IV: That we're more than just kissing cousins, we're black.

FW: Yes, and one of the difficulties for our kids is that they don't have any role models, and the reason they don't have role models is because any successful multiracial person is immediately grabbed by the black community -- except, they're ours. Lani Guinier being a good example. Her mother is Jewish, yet she's black. My kids are gymnasts, and Betty Akino was one in the last Olympics. Her mother is Bulgarian, and her father Nigerian, yet she was portrayed as black. So, our kids don't even have role models.

IV: Right, and if they claim to be white, then they're considered to be traitors to the black race.

FW: Yes, and my wife points out that -- and she's very dark -- what the black community does, too, that's very negative, is they put up the biracial or the very light-skinned black as the image for the dark-skinned black kids.

IV: Well, most of the models in Ebony are actually mixed-race women and men.

FW: So they perpetuate this notion that somehow the dark black child is somehow not as beautiful as the biracial child.

IV: On the other hand, so that we're not seen as absolving the white community of all blame in this regard, it was the slavemasters that created the old Jim Crow divisions of mulatto, octoroon, etc. in an effort to keep white blood pure. FW: That's what's so frustrating. The one-drop rule was created by whites to make sure that whites wouldn't marry blacks and produce biracial children. Now, however, who is perpetuating the one-drop rule? The black community. That's what's so infuriating.

IV: They've gone into agreement, perhaps unwittingly, with the old slavemasters.

FW: That's what's frustrating, and they can't see it, or they don't want to.

IV: Doesn't it get back to the feared loss of political power accrued since the civil rights days if they willingly cut loose the light-skinned segment of the black population?

FW: I also think that a part of it is their own racism. There still is within the black community a prejudice against dark-skinned black people. Somehow, they're unwilling to deal with that.

IV: When we use terms like dark-skinned or light-skinned blacks, aren't we still feeding right into that? Isn't light-skinned black an oxymoron?

FW: Yes.

IV: No such thing.

FW: Right.

IV: Can't be.

FW: But one of the tragedies of the Black Social Workers mandate against the adoption of biracial or black kids into white homes is that most black couples who adopt, actually adopt biracial children because they want the lighter-skinned child.

IV: I guess you're aware that Senator Metzenbaum has introduced legislation to reform transracial adoption regulations.

FW: Yes, and from what I've read, it's been watered down. According to Elizabeth Bartholet it is so bad that, if it was passed now, it would be worse than none at all.

IV: Well, it'll be interesting to see how it works out. Francis Wardle, thanks for a great interview.

FW: Thank you, Charles.

©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.