Equity in Education is Nice, But Do We Really Want It?

It is my experience in the Northeast that Urban schools are as segregated today as before Brown Vs. The Board of Education. The more afluent parents within these Urban schools keep their children in Public Schools as long as their children are in class with all those other children.

Correction
The more afluent parents keep their children in public schools as long as their children do not mingle with the poorest. It is not about race it is all about class

Easy to say that its about class but it's funny how much class maps onto race in these areas. Even the desegregation efforts in South Boston in the late 70's were resisted by lower income Whites.

In response to Norma's comment, class is usually used as a code term to cover up or minimize the importance of race as a role in academic and other disparities between Whites and underrepresented ethnic minorities. White people, like myself, feel less guilty when the problem is attributed to class. White folks have to do away with the guilt and admit that there is still covert racial oppression. I hope that people read this article and admit its validity.

I think income and race are both important factors--if you look around the world, you will see a huge achievement gap between poor and wealthy white children, so blaming academic underperformance on racial oppression obviously doesn't tell the whole story. But race clearly can play a role, too.

I must say that it's incredibly simplistic to say that its the "structural organization of schools that really determines who does well." There are thousands and thousands of schools across this country that don't ability group their students, not just the one that is discussed in this article. If that quote were true, then poor minority children at these schools would all be performing as well as their wealthy white peers...and that's just not happening.

Here is a very politically incorrect response, which will no doubt bring much criticism my way: How can we expect racial togetherness when we give a group such as M.E.C.h.A. ("FOr the race everything, outside the race, nothing") respected status on our college campuses and even our high school campuses. If a group of White students started a similar group, they'd be (rightfully) booted off campus, but for some reason, promoting the mentality of victimhood is O.K. ALso, is "ethnic studies" really about education, or is it about indoctrinating people into the idea that it's O.K. to hate and be distrustful if you are non-White?

In short, this country ALMOST had it right at the end of the 1960's. We were on our way to Martin Luther King's promised land of judging people by "The content of their charecter", but somehow multiculturalism took over where our differences keep getting emphasized and kids learn this and pass it on to their younger siblings and of course their is a lot of $$$ to be made by continuing "Chicano Studies" or "Black Studies" and then there are the politicians who of course want to keep this going. (John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich support reperations for slavery, and this is on their websites.)

My observations and readings suggest to me that if we would stop harping on our ethnic differences as the educations system seems entrenched in doing, kids would get together and things would get better. But with the leftist political correctness of today, we have driven right past the Promised Land and off into the Sea of Segregation. Lester Maddox would be proud.

If we had the same standard for all students, we could close the gap of academic achievement, but the self-appointed representatives of the Black and Latino communities would scream that it's too Eurocentric and the administrators would back right down. I've been to school board meetings per bilingual education and seen these tacticts (One guilt-ridden White teacher actually hystericall comparing ending bilingual education to "Hilter's Final Solution, or maybe he was just scared because his job was threatened)

Had we combined the old-fashioned concept of "The Melting Pot" where we strove for a common culture in which we all could communicate, with the noble goals of the early 1960's civil rights movement, we would not be in this mess, but sadly, the people running our country and education system don't get this.

“How can we expect racial togetherness when we give a group such as M.E.C.h.A. ("FOr the race everything, outside the race, nothing") respected status on our college campuses and even our high school campuses. If a group of White students started a similar group, they'd be (rightfully) booted off campus . . .”

Bill, but we have, and continue to give “respected” status to such groups on our campuses. These groups, known as fraternities and sororities possess a history of active discrimination that Robert Plotkin reminds us of:
“From the founding of the first fraternity in the U.S. until the end of the Civil War, fraternities did not have membership policies which discriminated on any characteristic other than sex. This was largely due, however, to the fact that the student body was composed almost exclusively of white Protestants. As the makeup of the student body began to change, Greek-letter organizations began adopting official policies discriminating against African Americans, Jews, Asian Americans, and other minorities. The racial and ethnic proscriptions were in some cases quite stringent; as late as 1953 it was the national policy of Lambda Chi Alpha to pledge only those ‘who are members of the Caucasian race who are of non-Semitic blood and believe in the principles of Christianity,’ rejecting those with even ‘one-eighth of proscribed blood.’”

Now, granted, things are not as ‘bad’ as they were before, but this has been in large part by the active work engaged in by so-called “minority” groups who organized their own frats and sororities. There is still much work to be done in this respect, as recent incidents of “hip-hop” and “ghetto” frat theme parties suggest. People are social beings, and if they are excluded from participating in one area of life, they still will attempt to organize in other ways. Thus, we have the emergence, development and continuation of separate frats, unions and business organizations to counter their exclusion from all-“white” organizations. The history of labor, and of the AFL, specifically is another prime example of this.

Bill, to engage in such an unimaginative stance as “political incorrectness” without a sense of why such groups emerged in the first place and why they may continue to exist not only rings of shallow historical depth and analysis, but also moves us away from tackling the issues this article attempts to underline.

Turning to the article itself, the question should not be whether we want equity in education – this question gets us nowhere, since only a fool would admit to not desiring equity, and it actually only has us engage in the type of defensive posturing by all sides that is unproductive – but rather turn to more substantive concerns. For example, What does it mean to provide a more “equitable” education? For what purposes do we provide such an education? Etc. We could teach only “common” values or a “common culture” (whatever those mean), but that doesn’t seem to make such sense in our contemporary world. That is, I would imagine that in part such an education would have to possess a strong “multicultural” bent to it, if only to better provide all students with the tools needed to actively engage in our global economy. It seems to me that a monolithic type education of the kind hinted at by Bill is counter productive, and actually hurtful not just to so-called minorities, but also to “whites,” who stand to learn much about interacting, negotiating, and communicating with others. How are we to know the “content of their character” if we don’t know and understand their histories and their traditions?

Completely ingnoring that race plays a huge role in the educational disparities between Whites and some marginalized groups of ethnic minorities is itself racist. When Latino chidren in Santa Barbara seek help from their high school counselors for placement in classes that would satisfy the requirements for admissions into four-year universities, the counselors, usually White, see brown faces and make assumptions about the individual and lower thier expectations. The college counselors then try to convince the brown students that a community college would better accomodate them. I guess my point is that in personal interactions people see race/color not socioeconomic status. They don't ask others what socioeconomic class they beolong to or how much thier parents make. People see race.
I have had many students throughout the years experience discrimination by counselors, teachers, and other school officials like the openning example. For instance, most stereotypes are not about class, they are about race. It's not about poor kids' parents not caring about schooling, it's usually about Mexican or Black parents not valuing education. Again, ignoring the huge role that race plays in the educational disparities between Whites and marginalized ethnic minorities is itself racist.

Much of the problem in education begins with cultural indoctrination and ethnocentrism within a child's immediate support group. Until we can address stereotyping committed by all ethnic groups, we cannot begin to acheive MLK's dream.

Dear Rene: Thank you for commenting on my "shallowness", now I will respond: You pull the same sophistic attempt at logic that has led us into this mess, which is to harp endlessly on the sins of Americas past, using them to justify your argument.

The whole point of the 60's was to get beyond that, and while you rightfully point out that M.E.C.h.A. is an simply a contemporary version of the Good 'Ol Boy tradition of Aryan racism, the whole point I tried to impress, obviously unsuccessfully, was that we must BREAK this cycle of "You did this to me...your people did this to my people..." or we will dissolve as what was once Yugoslavia was.

First of all, I don't need to be reminded of racism on college campuses; my mother, who was born in 1927, was excluded from a sorority because of her dark skin and believe me it's painful for me to even think about this. But luckily for her, she didn't have the paternalistic mentality of the modern school system shoved down her throat. Her parents told her that getting educated was the weapon against White racism. For the record, she's Assyrian and if you want to know more about it, google in "Assyrian Genocide" and read about a VERY unpleasant subject.

The point is, times DID change, my mother persevered,and thank God for the brave people who took to the streets and took on the White racist establishment, but to justify today's Brown racism because of what happened in the past, or even in the present, doesn't cut it.

Yes, as another person posted here, there is the low expectation on the part of counselors (sp?) but again, when it became obvious that many Mexican kids were falling behind because of poor English skills, the attempts to fix that problem by immersing them in English (which is the case with every single other ethnic group which comes to the U.S.,) was met with the same sophistic argument you pull here, which is that it's narrow-minded, so once again one can't win for trying

Yes, there has to be some "common culture" because we all ARE part of this common culture. A common culture which is an amalgam of many different cultures striving for a common goal: A better life than what we had in "The old Country". Where do you draw the line on multiculturalism? Remember when the Muslims flipped out when Denmark printed the cartoons that offended them? What if we had a similar situation in this country? Would you condone such conflict in this country as simple differences? Or say "You need to learn to get along"?

Here is another uncomfortable thing I'm going to bring up: About a year and a half ago, Melinda Brace, who is the daughter of Santa Barbara judge George Eskin and the step-daughter of former assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson pulled her 3rd-grade son out of Harding school. This made the News-Press since he was the last White child at that school. (I don't know if since then any other White children have enrolled) Ms. Brace had argued ad infinitum with other White parents telling them NOT to pull their kids out of Harding but she finally did it herself saying that she realized that despite all her efforts, the test scores were terrible, and said that she was tired of making her son a "Guinea Pig" and pointed out that when he had a birthday party, only one of his classmates attended this party, and not one of his classmates invited him to theirs. Now maybe her son is an unlikable kid that wouldn't be popular anywhere, but I think her message was clearly that he was the wrong color. Is THIS a successful example of racial identity? What is interesting is that all the people I've talked to who go to Mexico say they feel very welcome there, so what I'm describing above suggests that these young children are learning this in THIS country.

Rene: Clearly, you and I take opposite sides on this issue, and your side won long ago and has had control of the education system since, and all I can say is that those "shallow" people such as myself are not to blame for the mess we're in today. -Bill-

For the record, Meredith Brace's son was not the last white child at Harding then or ever, and according to the article at the time, she did not pull him because of terrible test scores. Instead, it was about a lack of enrichment opportunities and exactly what Bill's MAIN point is: he felt isolated. Bill is right on--our schools need to have deliberate policies and practices that help students reach across color and class to not only have the same educational opportunities but also to feel comfortable with each other. We can't just look at all one color classrooms and racially-based cliques hanging out at lunch and shrug our shoulders. There are solutions. I just don't think that getting rid of all ability grouping is the answer. Which, umm, was the original question from the article...

I stand corrected. It was Meredith, not Melinda Brace. -Bill-

Bill, I liked your letters. Two wrongs don't make a right. "It takes all kinds to run a world," but it helps if there's awareness of common purpose, vs Balkanization. Carlos Mencia isn't always funny, but his insistence that stereotypes have un chingo de validity is required medicine for our society. Especially in education - there's no perfect solution, but SNAFU will reign eternally if we don't accept some obvious facts. The PC tenet that any differences other than skin color are cultural doesn't help the debate. Most blacks and Mexicans won't ever achieve targeted test scores for the same reason that Olympic sprinting events will never be dominated by Jews. Que pena me da. Why not revise "equality" to mean equal chance?? AS far as self-tracking is concerned, peer pressure will win out, unfortunately. But counselors and teachers should be able to advise dusky children that it's helpful to learn the ways of white people, such as in college-prep courses. There's some awareness of this among Negros (sorry, it's to much work to say African American), but not among "La Raza, " as far as I know. Viva la clica! Anyway, I always thot community colleges were great places for those who weren't ready for universities. If a kid decides at 18 that his cohorts are doomed, and he decides to get on the career track, then city college awaits with open arms!

Actually, Bill, I would say we have much more in common than what may seem at first. Both of us, I believe, desire educational equity for all kids. How that is achieved, under what conditions, and for what purposes, seems to be some of the points of debate. History, utilized well, serves not, as you say, “to harp endlessly on the sins of Americas past,” but as barometer of our own present moment, and to remind us of what George Santayana so succinctly and eloquently stated: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' As a nation we could really use a refresher set of history courses to help put our current moment in sharper perspective. What sort of conclusions we would draw would be interesting to find out.

A society is not a static thing, or comprised of some single, unified set of memories somehow magically passed down intact from one generation to the next as DNA. Each generation must relearn, debate, and articulate what it means to be an “American,” and what rights and obligations such a privilege entails. And this is a process that is always ongoing, as Jefferson himself recognized when he stated that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance. Our ‘founding fathers,’ for instance, linked citizenship with race and class when they bestowed ‘naturalized citizenship’ on ‘free white persons’ in 1790. In the late 19th century this debate further concluded that only certain people could become citizens, or were desirable as immigrants, and we have such things as the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. During the last century, the Civil Rights Movement and other social movements sought to extend citizenship rights to segments of the population that had long been denied such rights. We again are having debates about what it means to a citizen. In 2005, for instance, Rep. Nathan Deal R-Ga., presented a bill to eliminate “birthright citizenship” (the right in which babies born in the US, even to parents in the country illegally, automatically become U.S. citizens), a move that has brought the idea of citizenship back into the national spotlight.

A more complete “American” history needs to account for as many of the experiences of “Americans” as possible, whether they are great heroes, or the lives of ordinary people. We need to know about the great industrialists, but also about the great labor movements that opposed their practices. That is, the history of labor struggle, for example, is American history, and not some aberrant or “revisionist” account. Additionally, this history must be willing to expose some of the “warts,” if you will, about our past. Chavez as a leader, for instance, had many that ask us to reevaluate some of his contributions. If we wish to create a “more perfect union,” we must know about our nation’s triumphs, but also about its less than friendly actions at home and on the world stage. Again, history is not about harping endlessly on the sins of the past – I agree that’s tiring – but more importantly as a way of helping us not only better understand our present moment, but also how to better act within it.

Such a history would help us better understand why some groups may react as they do in certain moments (the Rodney King ‘riots,’ the Muslim protests in Denmark, for example). That is, most “reactions” are not born out of single or isolated event, such as a cartoon or police beating, but have long roots to which that single event serves as a spark. Such events often have complex roots that extend beyond the moment in question, and if we don’t know them, we can perceive such a “reaction” to be the actions of a “spoiled” or “ungrateful child.” Understanding does not mean acceptance, however; but it does mean that we can see better why people may react the way that they do, and at the moments they do. Locating the current Minuteman movement within a history of such movements and ideology may help us better understand its logic, but this does not mean we have to tolerate it. A more nuanced history, I argue, can better equip us not just to “get along,” but to react to those things that go against the values (and not necessarily the culture) that we as a nation hold dear, such as “fairness,” “equity,” and “freedom” – values that are not stable entities, but ones that we need to continually relearn, debate and articulate. This often may require us to question those individuals and ideas we hold dear.

So, returning to your earlier comment, sure, we have differences, but the task is not to “win” the argument, but to extend and complicate the debate on all sides.

Rene: I will admit that I don't know the whole of what is taught in today's history courses, and with that in mind I will respond to what you have written.

I agree completely that we need to expose the ugly truth about Jefferson, and that which happened before and after Jefferson. If the schools are still teaching that those Founding Fathers who enslaved people are all great men, then I say the system needs revamping. If this is what's bothering you, then it's bothering me too and as you say we need to expose warts and all. Once again, I say this admitting that I don't know how they are portraying Jefferson, Washington, or another real tyrant, James K. Polk. On the other hand, history lessons could point out that people such as John Adams and Ben Franklin were vehemently anti-Slavery so therefore just by pointing these two things out, a LOT of underlying racial tension can be released in a positive way. (Sort of like lancing a boil, forgive the grotesque analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

What needs also to be taught is who the collective conscience changed in this country. Of course there is racism still coming from Whites, and for that matter, from other groups. But let's face it, the mere thought of interacial marraige even 50 (or less) years ago would have been unthinkable. By the time I went to high school back in the late 70', there was interracial dating left and right and I can honestly say that no one seemed to care, and if they DID, they kept it to themselves because they knew most of us had no problem with such mixed unions.

What I perceive, based on the evidence that I have seen in my 45 years of life experience, is that Ethnic Studies, Chicano Studies, the Gervitz School, and other like-minded people and entities knowingly or unknowingly transmit a message that the major picture has not changed and that Whites are still beating down non-Whites. THAT attitude needs to change, AS DOES the attitude that our Founding Fathers were all a bunch of wonderful guys who had an all-inclusive view of life. If we are still teaching this fallacy, then THIS would certainly be an incentive for Chicano/Black studies.

So here is my opinion, for what it's worth: We need to A:teach history as it really happened and expose the ugly truth about many of our White "Heroes", and B: Hold those people who are members of ethnic groups in this country who have been historically oppresssed accountable to the same standards as White people. Also, I feel that ALL people should be able criticize what they perceive as deficiencies in various ethnic groups. I see, for example, cultural attitudes that I agree with, and disagree with, in both Mexican and U.S. culture. This way, we can get it all out in the open.

Another thing to add, is that in the case of one such as Jefferson, what we see may not just be hypocrisy, but the Duality of man as he was so obsessed with personal freedom, yet supported slavery. Another point is that I've read that while Lincoln saw how barbaric slavery was, he also bought into the myth that Blacks were genetically inferior to Whites.

I know it sounds cold and callous, but there IS a point where people have to say "We need to move on" and quit using the past to justify there own irresponsible behavior, or that of others.

I say, let's get the ugly past out in the open, celebrate the fact that we've made progress, keep the civil rights laws on the books that ensure that progress doesn't disappear, and take the best points of all our cultures and use them while rejecting the weak points while not being afraid to admit our weaknesses, not point it out in others. -Bill-

Clarification: A: In the third paragraph of what I just wrote, I meant to say "What needs to be taught is HOW..." Not "Who". And B: When, in the fifth paragraph, I say "accountable to the same standards as White people", I'm referring to the fact that if a White person (s) practice racism, it's rightfully criticized/dealt with, but if a Mexican or Black person airs such views, our culture tends to sweep in under the rug.

One more thing to clarify: The last line of what I wrote should have read "and take the best points of all our cultures and use them while rejecting the weak points while not being afraid to admit our weaknesses, and not being afraid to point them out in others".

I'd like to give my opinion as a student at Santa Barbara High. I'd appreciate it if you don't criticize me harshly.

When I ask my Mexican friends why they don't take higher placed classes (GATE, AP) they tell me that they simply don't feel comfortable. There are both Latino and white counselors at my school: are kids placed in classes by their abilities only? I honestly don't know, but I imagine that certain races ask for certain levels only because it is where their friends are. In addition, parental pressure pushes kids to take certain courses despite their ability.

I cannot think of an appropriate way to properly integrate the different races without making it forced: you cannot force people to become friends, you can only provide the opportunity.

I watched the movie "Freedom Writers" last night (I recommmend it), based on a true story. If you simply want the different races to interact, perhaps we should take an idea from their (albeit more extreme) situation: create a "homeroom" class where the races are integrated, and play "games" so kids are able to meet and get to know one another. Because honestly...kids don't become best friends sitting next to each other in Math class, despite their race.

Amy: While I can't comment on the last suggestion because I haven't seen the movie Freedom Writers", I think you are correct in everything you say.

My best friend, who I met in high school, (I'm now 45 and he's 46) is a first-generation American of Mexican descent and he told me that he was frozen out by some of the other Mexican kids because he got good grades. There is a fear of "Acting White" that is often not discussed.

Since you mention movies, this reminds me of the movie Stand and Deliver which is based on a true story with Edward James Olmos playing the role of Jaime Escalante which hits on the idea of a teacher taking on the administration. If you haven't seen it, it's about how the school, (I think it was Garfield High School in Whittier) ignored its Mexican students and didn't put any faith in them. The math teacher, Jaime Escalante took those kids from basic math into calculus in a very short period of time and made fools out of the administrators. These kids, who had been labled "At Risk" and all the other nice little descriptions that beauracrats come up with, blew everybody away with the high test scores such that the administrators didn't believe it was true. (They retested and still scored way above average, thus proving the validity of their earlier scores)

OK, I guess I gave the plot away but maybe if Jaime Escalante ran our education system things would be a lot better for everyone. Everyone except the pencil-pushers.

Hi all,
To begin, I am disgusted and tired of reading ignorant comments that blame people of color for their own victimization. I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Carranza's article and acknowledge that the education system alienates and marginalizes African-Americans and Latinas/Latinos, leading to a serious educational gap. Educational system failure should be taken seriously and questioned by any means necessary. Anytime people of color raise these critical concerns, it will never fail, that an Anglo-American spokesperson, like Mr. Bill Clausen will try to remind us that we have it all wrong and how he has all the answers. We will always be reminded by privileged folk that racism is a thing of the past and that it simply does not exist. We will always be told that race is a social construction and that all humans are equal, but the fact remains, the consequences of racism and the privilege that many White ancestors carved for many of you solidify and further what UC-Santa Barbara professor George Lipsitz calls “the possessive investment in whiteness.” Being part of the racial ruling class means that you don’t have to talk about educational apartheid since it benefits you. As always, we are always expected to explain why this system is unfair, why don’t you tell us about the irony of meritocracy? America loves to shove this pulling yourself up through your own bootstraps mentality, and that anyone can succeed if he or she works hard. The illusion of meritocracy breeds apathy and negates the structural barriers that exacerbate oppression. A few years ago, I was involved in a study that examined the unequal distribution of Advanced Placement courses throughout the LA Unified School System. We found that working class communities comprising of a majority of students of color offered between 3-6 AP courses where as more affluent White communities offered 25-30. This finding proves that the educational system places a stronger emphasis on distributing resources to a particular class of students. It is evident that many schools represent plantation-like structures intended to manufacture a class of underpaid workers, prisoners, and military personnel, while other schools maintain the eugenics movement benefiting the ruling class.