Structural Racism in the American Educational System – A Brief Investigation
In “CRiT walking race, place, and space in the academy,” Giles and Hughes describe the structural racism in the American school system as a “hegemonic architecture of educational cultures” (689). Their article provides an explanation and description of critical race theory, a method of analysis used to describe the effects of racism in society, operating on three basic premises: “that racism is pervasive; that racism is permanent; and that racism must be challenged” (Vaught & Castagno 96). This paper aims to make a brief investigation into the structural racism within the American school system, making use of theories from Giles and Hughes. Two examples will be used, Vaught and Castagno’s investigation of the teachers in Zion and Jericho school districts, West Coast and Rocky Mountain urban school districts respectively, and Santos, et al.’s investigation of UC admissions following the passing of Proposition 209, which eliminated the consideration of race into the admissions process of the University of California’s eight campuses. Although the two articles used are not directly related they both provide clear illustrations of structural racism within the entire educational system of the United States.
Giles and Hughes make use of Ian Lopez’ definition of racism in their explanation of critical race theory, “race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions” (689). Education provides an excellent medium for both “macro forces” and “micro effects.” Beginning with Vaught and Castagno’s article, they found that despite white students in both school districts making up less than fifty percent of the student body, white teachers made up almost ninety percent of the faculty in both districts (97). The achievement gap between white and colored students in both districts was disparagingly high, the following excerpt is just one of Vaught and Castagno’s examples: “while over 70% of White students were passing the single, high-stakes test soon to be tied to graduation, 92% of African American children were failing it” (97).
Through a series of interviews with the staff of both districs Vaught and Castagno were able to confirm their thesis: “these White teachers understood White privilege as singularly an individual experience and failed to recognize its systemic, structural component. While they recognized the existence of White privilege, they did not acknowledge its distribution across Whites and across settings.” As Tim Wise describes in “White Like Me,” part of white privilege is the luxury of not acknowledging the additional education required by black students in order to exist as a minority. Whether or not a white person considers themselves close with black friends they can never know or understand the additional burdens that black parents face in educating and raising their children in order that they survive in a white dominated society (22). Therefore the appalling ratio of minority faculty to minority students provides insight into the extreme gap between the achievement levels of the white and minority students.
In 1998 California passed Proposition 209, eliminating the consideration of race from the admissions process across the eight UC campuses. Santos set out to investigate the effect this legislature had upon under-represented minorities (URMs). They hypothesized a drop in enrollment following the loss of affirmative action, based on the statistics that the majority of minority students in California are from low-income households and are dependent on proportionally more financial aid than white students (621). Despite their worldwide renown as quality educational institutions, the UC campuses were losing enrollment from URMs to out-of-state schools and private universities. Repealing affirmative action aid to minority students made these other colleges more appealing on the basis of race-based scholarships and grants (624). Based on a similar study of the University of Texas, Santos also inferred that the anti-affirmative action stance taken by UC “may imply to students that a particular campus is not welcoming to all racial/ethnic backgrounds,” therefore deterring minority applications to UC.
Giles and Hughes cite the definitions of Eurocentric and African-centered traditions as “I think therefore I am” and “I am because we are,” respectively. They go on to note that it is “the former tradition is reflected in the dominant policies of educational norms” (688). In a learning environment both dominated by a huge white majority in faculty and financial requirements almost unachievable by minorities it is easily understandable why there would be high achievement gaps between white and colored students. The odds are stacked heavily in favor of the traditionally affluent and Euro-cultured majority.
As “CRiT Walkers,” Giles and Hughes both acknowledge their responsibility to “nurture the next generation of students willing to fight against social injustice,” even if it involves avoiding the traditionally more highly-esteem institutions due to their placism (“compulsory restrictions, duplicity, and complicity simply due to where one is located in an academic space”). CRiT Walkers are one form of resistance to the structural racism within the American school system, and, along with other researchers, continue to illuminate the social injustice imbedded in our educational institutions.
References
Wise, T. J. (2005). White like me. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press.