Lesson of a Lifetime
Her bold experiment to teach Iowa third graders about racial prejudice divided townspeople and thrust her onto the national stage. Decades later, Jane Elliott's students say the ordeal changed them for good
- By Stephen G. Bloom
- Smithsonian magazine, September 2005, Subscribe
On the morning of april 5, 1968, a Friday, Steven Armstrong stepped into Jane Elliott's third-grade classroom in Riceville, Iowa. "Hey, Mrs. Elliott," Steven yelled as he slung his books on his desk.
"They shot that King yesterday. Why'd they shoot that King?" All 28 children found their desks, and Elliott said she had something special for them to do, to begin to understand the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. the day before. "How do you think it would feel to be a Negro boy or girl?" she asked the children, who were white. "It would be hard to know, wouldn't it, unless we actually experienced discrimination ourselves. Would you like to find out?"
A chorus of "Yeahs" went up, and so began one of the most astonishing exercises ever conducted in an American classroom. Now, almost four decades later, Elliott's experiment still matters—to the grown children with whom she experimented, to the people of Riceville, population 840, who all but ran her out of town, and to thousands of people around the world who have also participated in an exercise based on the experiment. (She prefers the term "exercise.") It is sometimes cited as a landmark of social science. The textbook publisher McGraw-Hill has listed her on a timeline of key educators, along with Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Horace Mann, Booker T. Washington, Maria Montessori and 23 others. Yet what Elliott did continues to stir controversy. One scholar asserts that it is "Orwellian" and teaches whites "self-contempt." A columnist at a Denver newspaper called it "evil."
That spring morning 37 years ago, the blue-eyed children were set apart from the children with brown or green eyes. Elliott pulled out green construction paper armbands and asked each of the blue-eyed kids to wear one. "The browneyed people are the better people in this room," Elliott began. "They are cleaner and they are smarter."
She knew that the children weren't going to buy her pitch unless she came up with a reason, and the more scientific to these Space Age children of the 1960s, the better. "Eye color, hair color and skin color are caused by a chemical," Elliott went on, writing MELANIN on the blackboard. Melanin, she said, is what causes intelligence. The more melanin, the darker the person's eyes—and the smarter the person. "Brown-eyed people have more of that chemical in their eyes, so brown-eyed people are better than those with blue eyes," Elliott said. "Blue-eyed people sit around and do nothing. You give them something nice and they just wreck it." She could feel a chasm forming between the two groups of students.
"Do blue-eyed people remember what they've been taught?" Elliott asked.
"No!" the brown-eyed kids said.
Elliott rattled off the rules for the day, saying blue-eyed kids had to use paper cups if they drank from the water fountain. "Why?" one girl asked.
Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (9)
I had Mrs. Elliott as a teacher. My sister was in this exercise. First of all my sister was dark haired and had Blue eyes.
My parents still talk about this in a very GOOD way. I think she was a excellent teacher. We did not grow up in a town of prejudiced people. Was a quiet town and she gave us a hiccup which left a lot of the older people uncomfortable. Research this they have African American teachers doing this. So what she made money out of this...Bothers you cause you did not think of it first.
Good for you Mrs. Elliott...You had my sister Donna Jensen.
Posted by Patricia Jones on March 6,2012 | 09:49 PM
@ sarah elliott - love the irony of you supporting the elliott's exercise, and then in your next breath saying:
"White males have a very difficult time accepting this exercise...power and maintaining their hold on it eats up their souls.
May be the reason they die earlier than their female counterparts...?"
Are you seriously suggesting that only white men have a problem with this exercise and live shorter lives because of it? I doubt it. That kind of comment is precisely the attitude this exercise is supposed to attack.
In your attempt to show support for Elliott's anti-prejudice exercise you reveal your own prejudice. Perhaps you should read it again, because you have clearly failed to understand the principle behind it.
Also, thanks to all the others who put the xenophobic idiots in their place. I would applaud any teacher who did this exercise with my kids. Racism has no place in our modern day societies, and prejudice is an enemy we should all be aware of and fight at every opportunity.
Posted by unistudent79 on December 2,2011 | 11:09 AM
For those who think this a detriment to white children; listen to our brothers and sisters of color! Hear them when they tell you that if you think it unfair for white follks to experience this exercise for a few hours to a day-long workshop, then how do you rationalize how you have and do treat people of color, women, gays, etc. for a lifetime?
THANK YOU HELEN, black woman from Austrailia!
You said it...you said what mom says....you nailed it!
White males have a very difficult time accepting this exercise...power and maintaining their hold on it eats up their souls.
May be the reason they die earlier than their female counterparts...? idk. se
Posted by sarah elliott on November 5,2011 | 04:32 PM
I genuinely can't believe people have a problem with this genius. I had to check the dates of these comments to make sure they weren't posted in the 60s!
Ben Dover (nice name):
1. That wasn't her motivation and is irrelevant, like Kisara says you are probably reacting to the article only on an emotional level.
2. She does so to highlight that society does exactly the same thing to racial minorities.
3. This "cult of the expert" mentality is rather strange, what she has achieved should be based on its own merit. Even if she had qualifications I suspect you would have the same problems with her exercise. And I actually think it's quite impressive that she has gone down in history and is a part of many psychology degrees when she had no formal training.
4. Did you even read the article?
5. Again, no she doesn't, how much did you read of this?
Blue:
She was not a qualified psychologist but she was an experienced teacher and what she taught these kids was a valuable lesson for life about accepting others.
If she had asked for permission first then nothing would have come out of this and you know that as well as I do.
In my opinion this exercise should be mandatory. A class in empathy studies should be added to national curriculums and we should use this method to teach all children from an early age that discrimination is wrong.
Posted by Martin on May 20,2011 | 08:58 AM
This woman is brilliant, bluemlein I bet you're white? Having been treated in a manner of a black Australian through school and identifying as white out of the system it all rings so true, it's less than amusing that white people in a position of power won't sit through, for a few hours, what another race has to live with their entire lives.
Posted by Helen on May 14,2011 | 03:48 AM
if my child came home from school and told me about this psychological experiment i would blast the teacher right out of the water.
teachers are not trained psychologists unless they have a valid certificate that states that they are. they do NOT have the right to create silly little scenarios in their heads and impose them on very malleable young people. if elliott had asked anyone for permission first, she would have had to defend her reasoning and something more useful might have come out of it. but she did not.
just so you can place this comment in context - i am a very liberal white journalist and analyst. and i know the damage that can be done by mindless, off-hand comments, never mind deliberately structured "experiments" developed by trained psychologists and their cohort. and i do not, for one moment, believe that someone without an appreciation for the mystery of the developing mind should be permitted to whip up any sort of exercise on a whim.
Posted by bluemlein on April 25,2011 | 02:36 PM
@ Benjamin Dover:
I could not disagree with your sentiment more. Although it is yet to be determined whether or not the way Mrs. Jane Elliot performed this exercise with her students constitutes psychological damages, it is a fact that it is hard to conjure empathy for a person in a situation in which one has no experience. To the extent that Mrs. Elliot tries to teach others about discrimination and prejudice, her heart is in the right place. That she is able to make a living helping people understand the very real circumstances of discriminated minorities should not be held against her.
Your hyperbolic language suggests to me that you are reacting to what she is doing only on an emotional level. It seems to me that Mrs. Elliot is helping to make people aware of what they think and how they think when they see someone who is different from them. Some people will be upset and uncomfortable when they become aware of their prejudices and biases. But rather than get angry at Mrs. Elliot, perhaps they should analyze why they maintain these prejudices and whether or not they are truly justified. Far from "fomenting racial disharmony," she is bringing to light implicit discrimination and leaving people more sympathetic to the plights of others.
Posted by kisara_of_pern on February 28,2011 | 05:18 PM
With all due respect, these are the facts:
1. She's created a cottage industry for herself to the tune of $6,000/day in fees to appear, the sales of DVD's, CD's and other collateral material to profit from.
2. She penalizes people for things, actions and perceived attitudes they have not done or engaged it.
3. She has no training or academic background beyond that of your Bachelor's teaching certificate. Thus, her CV is rather barren of anything meaningful.
4. She demonizes people for the color of their skin and doesn't believe in rewarding performance, since it OBVIOUSLY MUST be related to skin color.
5. She foments racial disharmony.
Posted by Benjamin Dover on January 20,2011 | 11:50 AM
first time i ever heard of this lady and was curious, by the way say it one a dutch internetsite called holland.doc.nl, and was blown away --- having lived in the us -up untill my 12 - then gone back to europe and being felt outcast by the dutchfamily- not nowing why- this put alot in retrospective- and after that being conditioned by school- and not uderstanding why? this docu made alot understandable - and why we have so many problems here in europe and abroad(even why this computer is giving me strange signs about the way i write these english words - that should make sence to everyone!)abj - make a diff!
Posted by arthur on January 11,2011 | 05:42 PM