where she states: > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse
Feel free to read the full context. So no, she may have not provided the slides. But yes, this is on point for her if you read even the smallest bit of her papers.
That's off the rails! How many Fortune 500 companies were circulating her books in "recommended reading lists?"
But she doesn't state that; she states that someone else characterized an effect that DiAngelo is discussing in those terms. You just clipped that sentence to obscure that: “Acknowledging this, Thandeka (1999) argues that raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse because...”
In exploring the emo-cognitive performance of White neurosis we draw from the interdisciplinary approach to critical Whiteness studies. For example theologian, Thandeka (1999) argues that Whites have cultivated a deep shame about anything racial because since birth they have been reared to claim they do not see race when in fact they do. Acknowledging this, Thandeka (1999) argues that raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse because “the child learnsto silence and then deny its own resonant feelings towards racially proscribed others, not because it wishes to become White, but because it wishes to remain within the community this is quite literally its life” (p. 24).
Caveat: I have no idea about any of this stuff in terms of its correctness or not.
They (it's not a sole-author paper) are very clearly not endorsing it as a literal description, while also quite explicitly endorsing the detailed and nuanced description of the effects of inculcating White identity which Thandeka uses to explain that rather inflammatory summary description, and also, implicitly through scare-quoted back-reference, adopting the summary as a metaphor, though implicitly as one not free of problems.
I also had to look up “white neurosis” to find out what it’s supposed to be (the previous articles assume it as an axiom). Amusingly, the top result on DuckDuckGo was an even nuttier website on the opposite side of the US spectrum¹ which quoted some academic as describing it as a new disorder that afflicts white people (presumably Americans) causing them to react “defensively, aggressively, or defectively” when they’re reprimanded for their privilege. I guess neuroses cover such a wide variety of mental states that you could make the case that an inability to relate with others of different skin colour is a type of neurosis but from the way the term is used, it sounds like it’s more loaded than that.
I stopped reading there because life’s too short and I started to become depressed considering that it’s likely only a matter of time before this sort of thinking crosses over to my side of the pond (as we refer to the Atlantic). The Covid-19 and other right-wing conspiracy theories have already caused enough societal damage. :(
1. https://needtoknow.news/2017/09/university-iowa-prof-identif... (the “Covid-19 is fake links on its side-bar were too much for me)
“emo-cognitive” is a rather obvious term for things that exist across both emotional and cognitive categories, that the two domains are viewed as cross-linked but that cross-domain terminology is unsettled seems clear (searching for “emo-cognitive” returns links like [0].)
[0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A+taxonomy+of+emotion+a...
> I also had to look up “white neurosis” to find out what it’s supposed to be
The subject paper is largely about what that (in the sense it's title is concerned with) is; why would you “look it up” rather than reading the paper itself?