Racism In Education
Racism in Education by Barbara Ransby
Frankly, I am not terribly concerned about whether or not Michigan gets a larger percentage of the limited number of Black students allowed into college each year, I am more concerned about increasing that limited number. That is something we really have not talked about very much. The bottom line is that, ideally, college education should be a right and not a privilege.
On July 11, the united coalition Against racism (UCAR) held a day long teach-in on racism in education. Two panels made up of faculty and students explored not only issues of Minority access to education but also what it is we are demanding access to. The consensus was that any anti-racist Campus movement must address both the practices that exclude people of color, as well as exactly what is taught to those of us who are allowed in.
The problem of racism in education can be, for the sake of discussion, divided into three categories: (1) the exclusionary policies of colleges and universities, (2) the role of schools and colleges as mechanisms of social control, and (3) the elitist and racist process of educating and what is being taught.
First of all, before evaluating how well schools do what they do, it is important to clarify what the goal and purpose of schools are in our society. Do they, in fact, seek to educate and enlighten young people and to teach them to be critical thinkers, or do they primarily prepare young people for their future roles in life, as doctors, lawyers, professors, janitors and mechanics? If the latter is true then providing a full education as a right to all young people is not, in fact, the mission of the American educational system.
It is no coincidence that the Black high school drop-out rate is so high and that Black unemployment is comparably high. It would represent a radical disruption to the American labor market if most Black and Latino youth were given educational opportunities comparable to those of their white middle class counterparts. If schools guaranteed that students realized their fullest intellectual potential we would be a society of highly trained experts, all with an equally legitimate claim to a comfortable middle class job and lifestyle.
Since there are seemingly not enough middle class comforts to go around - largely because the upper class has more than its share - there has to be some weeding out process which determines who will enjoy such comforts and who will not. The educational system, in large part, facilitates this process, through tracking in elementary schools, and testing, competitive grading and high tuition costs at the college level. Since the history of racism in America is a history of economic exploitation and political and economic exclusion, unequal access to education is also color-coded.
Of course some argue that tracking, standardized testing and curve grading are simply means by which the system determines who is "qualified" and who is not, rather than a set of artificial criteria established for the purpose of exclusion. But these measures do not offer any type of objective criteria for who could conceivably succeed in a given profession, they simply offer a convenient method for designating who will fill the limited number of professional jobs that exist. They are not an objective measure of cognitive ability but more of socio-economic class background, race and culture.
For example, many entry level government jobs formerly required only a high school diploma, however as the number of high school graduates increased over time so did the criteria for access to such jobs; now a bachelors degree is required for many of the same jobs. This change occurred not because the actual work requirements have changed, but simply to decrease the pool of eligible applicants.
Therefore, at the college level when we talk about increasing the number of "qualified" Minority students and being careful not to "lower our standards," we must recognize these catchwords as being synonymous with the politics of exclusion. First of all, what determines who is qualified? A numerical score on an SAT test, proven to be biased? And what does it mean to lower our standards? Does the school really think that someone with a 3.5 grade point average is "smarter" than someone with a 3.3?
What do these numbers really tell us about the human beings to whom they are attached? Do they tell us if the person will be a compassionate or caring social worker? Do they tell us if the person will be a sensitive and creative teacher? Do they tell us if the person will be a conscientious and devoted scientist? There are other qualities, many of which do not lend themselves to quantification, which determine our worth as people and our ability to do a whole variety of jobs in this society.
The criteria for determining who will be admitted to colleges and thus be eligible for many of the more desirable jobs in our society is limited at best. More accurately it is racially, culturally and class biased. In fighting for more people of color to be admitted to schools like Michigan, what we really have to talk about is expanding the criteria for admissions and expanding the entire pool of Minority students from which Michigan draws. Frankly, I am not terribly concerned about whether or not Michigan gets a larger percentage of the limited number of Black students allowed into college each year, I am more concerned about increasing that limited number. That is something we really have not talked about very much. The bottom line is that, ideally, college education should be a right and not a privilege.
Could we, in 1987, imagine turning away a 5 year old from kindergarten because his or her parents could not afford the cost of educating the child, or because the child knew 10 instead of 12 of his or her colors, or could not remember the entire alphabet? If we shudder at the thought of writing off a young mind at age 5, how can we justify doing so at age 17 or 18? This is precisely what the University does when it sets exclusionary criteria that determines who deserves college training and who does not.
Economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis suggest in their 1976 book that ". . . by integrating new generations into the social order, the schools are constrained to justify and reproduce inequality rather than correct it" Just as the exclusionary practices of colleges and universities serve to reinforce an unjust social order, the school system also reinforces a certain set of values and behaviors among young people. Conformity, obedience and deference to authority are behaviors reinforced at every level of the American educational system. In elementary school children are taught to be quiet, stand in line, and not to speak until spoken to. Many public high schools, especially ones in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods, have become increasingly regimented and militarized. Armed police stand outside the schools and inside there are elaborate identification systems which look more like prison security systems than high school corridors.
The rationale for this is that the students are being protected from one another, but there is no excuse for schools spending more money on security than on education. If, in fact, more resources were put into creative teaching programs, college scholarships and jobs for graduates, there would be less of a need for such elaborate security systems to deter young criminals, there would undoubtedly be fewer of them. However, if the schools do, in fact, prepare young people for their future roles in life, then perhaps the regimentation of the schools is appropriate training since a frightening percentage of Black high school graduates are enlisting in the military to escape the unemployment lines.
Even at the college level, however, conformity and deference to authority are rewarded behaviors. The false dichotomy between learning and teaching which empowers faculty and disempowers students, further socializes us to fit into and not challenge the existing hierarchies. Obviously, some of the students least likely to fit in are Third World students. Overall, despite its reverence for democratic ideals, the American academy is a rather undemocratic institution. Students, who make up the largest sector of the campus community, are virtually excluded from any real decision-making, and non-teaching employees share a similar fate (with the exception of administrators).
Student governments were sanctioned by University administrators in the late 60's and early 70's as a way, not to expand student input, but to circumscribe and contain student protests. They became the safe but relatively ineffectual channels through which students were expected to voice their concerns. An additional concession at U-M is one hour of "free" speech daily on the diag. So, the University is not, as it asserts, a free marketplace of ideas, but often a repressive institution that promotes free speech for some, sometime, and as long as the ideas do not translate into action.
Finally, not only how the transmission of knowledge is organized, but the content of that knowledge reflects the racism and ethnocentrism of American educational institutions. Most major undergraduate curriculums require students to take some science course and some additional courses in the humanities and social sciences. Most students graduate, however, with little or no knowledge about Third World countries or the racial and cultural diversity of their own society. Afro American and Chicano studies courses are seen as "exotic" and interesting subjects a handful of white students may take after their requirements are filled. Native American studies courses are sadly nonexistent on most campuses.
Ideally, survey courses dealing with the American experience should inescapably deal with race and racism and the pivotal role Blacks in particular have played in building the American economy and influencing its politics and culture. However, the politics of exclusion are as much in place in the classrooms of the University as they are in the admissions office.
Therefore, combatting campus racism is a struggle that must be fought on many fronts and in many arenas. In fact, the fight against racism in education extends far beyond the schools and universities, but must extend to the problems and inequities manifest in the society as a whole. Racism is reflected not only in who is allowed into the University, but who is excluded. It is reflected not only in the small percentage of Minority students, but in the proportionately high number of campus workers in the lowest echelons of the University hierarchy. It is also reflected in the Jim Crow public school system which college students come from and the types of jobs that await them when they graduate, if they graduate. In formulating future political strategies to combat racism UCAR will be striving to build closer links with the community and formulating a vision of racism and strategies to fight it that address the larger picture as well as our immediate concerns as University students.