In Henrietta's mind, they were responsible citizens capable of making decisions whereas the students did not have the abilities or the right "attitude" to make responsible decisions for the Action Read program.

Vicky, one board member who saw the value in having that "different perspective" on the board, was frustrated with Henrietta, who positioned the students within a deficit model, doubting their abilities and dedication to serve as board members. Vicky informed me that:

Henrietta is very nervous about student involvement on the board because of the responsibilities of directors and she feels that student can't, how could students be fully aware... that the responsibility that you're asking them to bear is something that they couldn't even properly envisage.

Young (1993) believes that the "privileged usually are not inclined to protect or advance the interests of the oppressed, partly because their social position prevents them from understanding those interests, and partly because to some degree their privilege depends on the continued oppression of others" (p.310). Henrietta appeared to equate literacy with intelligence, cognition, and rationality, all of which she deems to be superior traits belonging to the literate population. Using this line of reasoning, Henrietta believed that individuals with low literacy skills, such as the students, did not have the cognition, intelligence or rationality to serve on the board. Throughout her tenure as chair of the board, Henrietta effectively used her privilege as a white, middle-class, well educated woman to exclude the students from participation at the board level. The assumptions behind her words shaped the social relations between board members and students as well as the practices and processes of Action Read's board. Rather than wanting to transform the social relations between board members and students, Henrietta chose to perpetuate the status quo through the preservation of boundaries and hierarchies which excluded students from the decision-making process. Towards the end of the study, Henrietta was challenged by the staff and Vicky and action in the form of a brief was taken to explore the "feasibility" of having students serve on the board. The brief read as follows:

Action Read's mission is to help adults learn to read so that they can become fully functioning and participating members of society. But we don't have any students on the board. Why not? Are there any good reasons AGAINST doing so? And good reasons FOR doing so? This would require a change in the bylaws, but that's easily done. To discuss this intelligently, we need background information on organizations that have taken this route, why, how it works, liabilities and so on.

After the board meeting, Jody informed me that

everyone felt uncomfortable with Vicky's brief. Henrietta apparently said that board members need to be able to think and to have a commitment to the goals of the program. It was left that a by-law committee will be struck to look at increasing the size of the board as well as the feasibility of students serving on it. (Fieldnotes, May 25, 1993).