Into and Through the School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Impact of Colorism on the Criminalization of Black Girls

The school-to-prison pipeline has been defined as “the policies, practices, and conditions that facilitate both the criminalization of educational environments and processes by which this criminalization results in the incarceration of youth and young adults” (Morris, 2012, p. 2). According to the Advancement Project (2010), school-based arrest is the most direct path from school to prison, although suspensions, expulsions, and transfers to alternative schools also play major roles in pushing students out of schools and into juvenile or criminal legal systems.

Black and Latinx students are particularly vulnerable to the school-to-prison pipeline (Losen & Skiba, 2010). Racial minority students are more likely to be disciplined for subjective offenses such as being “disrespectful,” engaging in “excessive noise,” and being perceived as “threatening” (Morris, 2012). In recent years, Black girls have experienced a significant rise in rates of suspensions (Morris, 2016). Although only accounting for 15.6% of female public school students in the United States (out of 24,093,359 students total), Black girls account for 39.03% (out of 19,483) of girls arrested in schools and for 33.29% (out of 73,689) of girls referred to law enforcement nationwide (Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–2016; United States Department of Education, 2019).

According to Inniss-Thompson and the National Black Women’s Institute (2018), compared to White girls, Black girls are seven times more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions, four times more likely to receive in-school suspensions and to be arrested in schools, and three times more likely to receive corporal punishment, to be referred to law enforcement, and to be restrained in schools. Black girls are also two times more likely to be suspended than Latina girls (Blake et al., 2011). Though, scholars have conceptualized that the gendered phenomenon of colorism contributes to a unique vulnerability to criminalization for dark-skinned Black girls (Cunningham, 1997; Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Hunter, 2013; Russell-Cole et al., 2013). Therefore, the criminalization of Black girls cannot be fully understood without first recognizing the possibility that all Black girls are not criminalized in the same way and to the same degree, but rather their experiences are shaped not just by racism itself but also by discrimination around proximity to Whiteness.

Colorism and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Closely related to yet distinct from racism, colorism has been broadly defined as discrimination based on skin tone and Afrocentric facial stereotypicality, whereby lighter-skinned people with more proximity to Whiteness (i.e., Eurocentric facial features, light skin tone) are socially, culturally, and economically privileged in comparison to their darker-skinned counterparts (e.g., Hunter, 2007). Although the definition of colorism varies and, in some instances, only refers to discrimination/privilege based on skin tone, colorism has more recently been conceptualized as encompassing other aspects of appearance such that those in closer proximity to Eurocentric facial features and hair texture (thin nose and lips, straight or loosely curled hair) are afforded privileges over those with stereotypically Afrocentric physical features (Rosario et al., 2021). Colorist discrimination is based on physical appearance (mainly skin tone), whereas racism relates to discrimination based on markers of membership in socially constructed racial categories not solely linked to phenotype.

In the United States, colorism operates based on the unique two-tiered racial classification system that emerged during slavery (Russel-Cole et al., 2013). The “one-drop-rule” forced every person with any African ancestry to legally identify as Black, resulting in significant variability in skin tone and phenotypicality within the Black racial category compared to the White racial category (Russell-Cole et al., 2013). Thus, light skin tone became a significant marker of status and class among people in the Black racial category. Although any Black person can be impacted by racism based on membership in the Black racial category, colorism is experienced by people high in Afrocentric physical stereotypicality (e.g., dark skin tone).

Among Black Americans, colorism has been established as a determinant of social, economic, and psychological well-being (for review, see Landor & Smith, 2019). Furthermore, empirical research has established a link between colorism and criminalization as it relates to perceptions of guilt, sentencing, and school discipline (Blake et al., 2017; Hannon et al., 2013; Levinson & Young, 2009; King & Johnson, 2016; Viglione et al., 2011). Most research on colorism in the context of criminalization has focused on Black men (e.g., King & Johnson, 2016) and, to a lesser extent, on Black adult women in relation to economic disparities and psychological well-being (Hall, 2017; Hunter, 2007). However, colorism is a pervasive and gendered phenomenon that most significantly impacts Black girls. Black women have reported that colorism had the greatest impact on them during adolescence (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). As a result, our conceptualizations of the impact of colorism must account for its role in the criminalization experiences of Black girls.

Scholars such as Monique Morris (2016) have highlighted how Black girls are consistently criminalized within and pushed out of school settings and are disproportionately targeted by the school-to-prison pipeline, but the criminalization of Black girls in educational contexts remains woefully understudied (Morris, 2016). Adding colorism to the mix, the literature becomes even more scarce, but the limited studies available paint a clear picture: Colorism is associated with school discipline (Blake et al., 2017; Hannon et al., 2013). Together with research illustrating associations between school discipline and criminalization (Advancement Project, 2010) and between colorism and the criminalization of adults (e.g., King & Johnson, 2016), extant research shows a need for a thorough analysis of ways in which colorism may impact the criminalization of Black girls in schools. Hunter (2016) has provided a conceptual framework for understanding how colorism operates within classrooms and Crutchfield et al. (2022) have reviewed students’ colorism-related academic, social, and emotional experiences in schools, but a comprehensive understanding of how colorism shapes Black girls’ entry into and experience within the criminal legal system is still missing. Therefore, we aim to highlight how colorism contributes to the continued subjugation and criminalization of Black girls’ physical appearance and pushes dark-skinned Black girls into the margins of society.

Conceptualizing the Impact of Colorism on Girls’ Trajectories toward Criminalization

To our knowledge, this is the first paper to focus on the role of colorism in pulling Black girls, specifically, away from schools and into the juvenile and criminal legal systems. As such, we aim to present as full a picture as possible of the structures and social realities likely moving darker-skinned Black girls towards criminalization. We therefore view the school-to-prison pipeline as not merely the school disciplinary practices that push youth toward legal involvement, but instead as all aspects of girls’ psychological and physical experiences—including individual discrimination and social exclusion, community structures and conditions, and the educational environment—that make it more difficult for darker-skinned Black girls to attend, connect to, achieve in, and remain in school. With this broad conceptualization, we recognize that Black girls’ connectedness to and success within school are dependent on school policies and procedures, but also on unique experiences of trauma, mental health, self-esteem, peer relationships, teacher biases and behavior, and insidious and pervasive experiences of gendered-racial policing, adultification, and poverty (Morris, 2016). We believe these factors combine and interact to put Black girls at greatest—and most overlooked—risk of the disciplinary practices and criminalization that lead to legal involvement (White, 2018). In presenting this analysis, we note that the research literature remains underdeveloped, and we extrapolate from the literature that is available to lay a foundation for future work in this area.

We focus not just on the pipeline pushing girls away from school and towards the legal system, but also on what happens once Black girls have been funneled through the pipeline. Indeed, we see the pipeline as not just a pipeline, but also a cycle: Black girls’ experiences in schools push them away from schools and towards criminalization (White, 2018), and girls’ experiences within the legal system hold them hostage away from mainstream educational settings and further reinforce their disconnection from school, increasing the likelihood of even deeper system penetration (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2020). Once girls are within the school-to-prison pipeline, we posit that colorism shapes nearly every aspect of their experience: whether and why they are arrested, whether they are formally processed or diverted, what charges they face, whether they are tried as adults, and how they are punished. Each of these intercept points, in turn, play a critical role in determining whether a girl will quickly return to her community and school or will face lifelong consequences from criminalization. Extrapolating from related areas of research, we view this experience of colorism within the system as making it extremely difficult—or even impossible—for many Black girls to return to the trajectories they were on prior to entering the pipeline. In our description of the “prison” end of the pipeline, below, we emphasize the off-ramps that help some youth exit the pipeline and reintegrate into their communities and note the ways in which these off-ramps are differentially available to youth based on race and—we propose—skin tone and Black (or Afrocentric) stereotypicality.

In providing a framework for thinking about how colorism shapes Black girls’ paths into and experiences within the school-to-prison pipeline, given the limited directly relevant research, we draw both on the broader research literature on colorism as well as research on anti-Black racism. In addition, our analysis is steeped in Black feminist theories of intersectionality and gendered racism, which capture Black women’s and girls’ unique experiences of oppression based on their gender, race (Cole, 2020; Essed, 1991), and—we argue—skin tone. In the sections below, we provide an initial conceptualization for the ways in which colorism likely shapes girls’ school-to-prison pipeline trajectories, and we hope that future research will further elucidate and clarify the mechanisms we theorize may be at work.

Colorism and Entry to the Pipeline

Impact of Colorism on Black Girls

Colorism, or skin tone stratification, is a social construct privileging lighter-skinned people of color with more proximity to European features over their darker-skinned counterparts (Hunter, 2007, 2013). In the United States, skin tone stratification among Black people dates back to systems of slavery, when enslaved people with lighter skin (and presumed White ancestry) were allocated privileges above and beyond those with darker skin tone (Hunter, 2007). Despite assumptions of homogenous treatment and opportunities among racial group members, as we described above, inequalities between light- and dark-skinned Black people remain.

Although colorism impacts Black Americans across the gender spectrum, it is a gendered phenomenon with more serious implications for women and girls (Hunter, 2007). This is particularly true because for women, physical appearance constitutes an important component of socioeconomic success (Anderson, 2010). For example, skin tone disparities in the context of school discipline vary based on gender; darker skin tone is associated with a larger increase in suspension rates for dark-skinned Black girls than for dark-skinned boys (Hannon et al., 2013). The gendered effect of colorism also plays out in health-related outcomes: In a study of 1680 Black adults, dark skin tone was associated with poorer global health among Black women, but not Black men (Hargrove, 2019).

Black women and girls are impacted by colorism on individual and structural levels. Colorism appears to provide social capital for lighter-skinned Black women: lighter skin is associated with higher salaries, higher educational attainment, and being rated as more attractive and marrying men from a higher social class (Hunter, 2007, 2013; Maddox & Gray, 2002; Blair et al., 2002). Darker-skinned women and girls, on the other hand, are more likely to be perceived as unattractive, unintelligent, and militant (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). They are more likely to receive school suspensions and longer prison sentences (Viglione et al., 2011; Hannon et al., 2013). Anecdotes about colorist incidents among Black Americans are prevalent and often include experiences of devaluation, exclusion, or idealization (Landor & Smith, 2019).

Colorism operates across a skin tone continuum and there are disadvantages associated with being on either end of the spectrum (Hunter, 2013). Whereas darker skin tone is associated with lower attractivity ratings, bullying, criminalization, social exclusion, and discrimination (e.g., Boylorn, 2012; Wilder & Cain, 2011; Eberhardt et al., 2006), very light skin tone is associated with discomfort and anger related to having one’s Black authenticity questioned and being bullied for appearing “bougie” (short for bourgeoisie) or stuck-up (e.g., Cunningham, 1997). However, it has been suggested that the structural, economic, and interpersonal disadvantages experienced by darker-skinned Black people far outweigh those experienced by their lighter-skinned counterparts (Hunter, 2013; Landor & Smith, 2019).

Colorism, Poverty, and Trauma

Morris (2016) identified that Black girls experience many stressors, including trauma and poverty that prevent them from being able to fully engage in classrooms and schools. Dark-skinned Black girls might be particularly vulnerable to poverty, given that research shows that socioeconomic inequalities between light- and dark-skinned Black people remain high (Hughes & Hertel, 1990; Landor & Smith, 2019; Moore et al., 2021; Sweet et al., 2007). In their study of 2107 Black Americans from the National Survey of Black Americans, Hughes and Hertel (1990) showed that Black Americans with lighter skin tone had more education, greater family and personal income, and occupations of higher prestige. Furthermore, the advantages in socioeconomic status remained relatively stable between 1950 and 1980, despite significant advances in civil rights for Black Americans during this period. In their scoping review examining the impact of colorism on academic outcomes, Crutchfield et al. (2022) also showed that darker skin tone is associated with fewer years of formal schooling. Other recent studies support this trend in young Black women specifically: in a study of 1693, Black women between the ages of 23 and 35, darker skin tone was associated with lower individual and maternal education and income (Moore et al., 2021). Black girls may be aware of this difference; in one study of 30 Black adolescent girls (Abrams et al., 2020), Black girls reported that light-skinned adolescents grow up in “nice” and wealthy neighborhoods where “kids play with each other and don’t play with guns or things like that” (p. 183). Dark-skinned youth, on the other hand, are perceived as growing up in poor neighborhoods. And dark-skinned girls, in particular, are perceived as only being able to afford goods from discount stores such as “Beauty World and the Dollar Store” (p. 183). Living in poverty, then, potentially shapes girls’ experiences across every aspect of their lives, including disrupting their access to safe environments.

Living in poverty and unsafe neighborhoods might render dark-skinned girls more vulnerable to childhood neglect and abuse and involvement in the underground economy. In fact, most Black girls involved in the juvenile legal system have extensive childhood trauma histories and substance use issues—and most girls are detained for offenses such as prostitution, simple assault, and status offenses (Morris, 2016). Darker-skinned Black girls, then, enter school likely already having faced the impact of colorism on their lives and circumstances. Once in school, we propose, darker-skinned Black girls then face an onslaught of forces pushing them towards criminalization. Like racism, we suggest that colorism manifests both institutionally and structurally—and may affect Black girls’ lived experiences across social, economic, cultural, and interpersonal domains.

Pushing Girls Out of School

In addition to the contextual factors making darker-skinned girls more vulnerable to criminalization, we posit that colorism plays a unique role in pushing girls out of school and towards prison through school discipline, school engagement, and colorism in the classroom.

School Discipline

Among Black girls, the interaction between colorism and criminalization may primarily manifest through disproportionate discipline practices against dark-skinned girls (Blake et al., 2017). Because school engagement is a protective factor that reduces the likelihood of youth arrest, when youth are punitively disciplined in school through suspensions, their chances of referral to the juvenile legal system increase—especially for Black American youth (Cuellar & Markowitz, 2015). ¹ In a qualitative study of 31 Black youth and their primary caregivers, both parents and children identified teacher racial bias as driving harsh disciplinary practices for Black youth (Gibson et al., 2014). Dark-skinned Black girls may be likely to enter the school-to-prison pipeline by way of suspensions—one of the most robust pathways into the juvenile and criminal legal systems (Blake et al., 2017; Hannon et al., 2013; Hunter, 2016). Black girls with the darkest skin tones were two times more likely to be suspended than White girls, whereas Black girls with the lightest skin tones were no more likely to be suspended than White girls (Blake et al., 2017). This is consistent with findings across two national samples (N = 3796), showing that Black girls with the darkest skin tone were 3.6 and 2.2 times more likely to be suspended than Black girls with the lightest skin tone (Hannon et al., 2013). Furthermore, Hannon et al. (2013) provided evidence for the gendered effect of colorism: Black boys with the darkest skin tone were 2.5 times (compared to 3.6 for girls) or not at all (compared to 2.2 for girls) more likely to be suspended than light-skinned Black boys. In addition, suspension risk was 107% higher for the darkest compared to lightest Black girls, compared to 45% higher among the darkest compared to lightest Black boys. Hannon and colleagues (2013) described dark skin tone as “part of a matrix of domination” (p. 291); darker-skinned Black girls were seen as more aggressive and assertive than lighter-skinned girls, traits that contrast with dominant societal views of femininity, and are therefore punished most severely. Although data on the impact of skin tone on Black children’s outcomes are scarce, these studies provided strong evidence that colorism plays a role in the criminalization of Black youth in school environments. Darker-skinned Black youth face disproportionately severe school discipline practices, which, in turn, reduce youth engagement in school, disrupt school achievement, increase the likelihood of future suspension, and, ultimately, push youth towards school dropout—all of which move youth into the pipeline to the juvenile or criminal legal system (Skiba et al., 2014).

School Engagement

Colorism has been found to affect Black children’s overall school experience beyond disciplinary practices and school-based criminalization. In a large phenomenological study, Morris (2016) identified additional factors that influenced Black girls’ criminalization and school removal. Black girls in schools are exposed to a variety of stereotypical messages that influence their sense of self and motivation to remain engaged. These messages might be particularly salient for dark-skinned Black girls. In one study, Abrams et al. (2020) showed that Black girls endorse hearing messages about dark-skinned girls as “ghetto” and “all from the hood” (p.182). Black youth in this study endorsed beliefs that dark skin is associated with lower economic class and that dark-skinned people are collectively seen as “ignorant” (Abrams et al., p. 182) and as less educated and intelligent than light-skinned people. In addition, Black girls reported that dark-skinned Black girls are “loud, defiant, and ill-behaved” (Abrams et al., p. 184). When Black girls were asked to describe personality traits based on skin tone, they described dark-skinned adolescents as “full of violence and rage” and “bad and racial” (Abrams et al., p. 184). As such, we expect that dark-skinned girls are at highest risk for internalizing negative messages—potentially leading to decreased sense of belonging in school.

Colorism also appears to affect student-to-student interactions and involvement in co-curricular activities, which may dampen Black girls’ motivation for school engagement and make them more vulnerable to criminal activity (Hunter, 2016; Morris, 2016). Dark-skinned girls, in particular, are exposed to racialized beauty norms that place value on light skin tone, loose curls or straight hair, and Eurocentric facial features (Hunter, 2007, 2016). Dark-skinned girls across studies reported experiencing teasing and name-calling due to their skin tone (e.g., Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Landor & Smith, 2019; Wilder & Cain, 2011). Name-calling and colloquial phrases based on skin tone have been well documented in the media as well as some sociological and historical research (Hunter, 2013; Landor & Smith, 2019). Names such as “tar baby” are commonly used to describe dark-skinned individuals (Landor & Smith, 2019) and popular phrases such as “if you’re White, you’re all right; if you’re brown, stick around; if you’re black, stay back” highlight the pervasive nature of colorism in Black communities. Black girls have reported that dark-skinned girls are generally considered “ugly and unattractive” whereas light-skinned girls are considered “attractive, flawless, and/or perfectly beautiful” (Abrams et al., 2020; p. 180). This type of social marginalization may play a major role in pushing dark-skinned Black girls out of schooling environments, and research on this issue is critically needed.

Negative evaluation of dark skin tone may also make dark-skinned girls less likely to succeed in co-curricular activities such as homecoming and student government (Hunter, 2016). High schoolers have attributed peer social success to lighter skin tone and social exclusion to darker skin tone (Hunter, 2016). In their scoping review, Crutchfield et al. (2022) found a three-tiered, hierarchical, peer-relations system in interracial schools, in which White students maintained the highest status at the top, followed by light-skinned students of color, with dark-skinned students of color positioned at the bottom. This pattern is consistent with Hall and Crutchfield’s (2018) findings that Black women were impacted by social exclusion as a result of being darker-skinned or, at the opposite end, by increased social capital through light-skin privilege. For example, medium- and dark-skinned women reported that lighter-skinned women were more likely to be included in civic and social organizations, and deemed of higher worth compared to darker-skinned Black women (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). It is also consistent with historical documentation of the paper-bag or blue vein tests, which excluded darker-skinned people who did not meet skin tone requirements (i.e., having lighter skin tone than a brown paper bag and skin tone light enough to see blue veins) from participation in historically Black civic organizations (e.g., Blue Vein Society; Landor & Smith, 2019). Declines in school engagement and connectedness have predicted increases in self-reported delinquent behavior and substance use as well as school drop-out (Wang & Fredricks, 2014). As a result, darker-skinned Black girls’ experiences of discrimination, bullying, or exclusion within school environments may well contribute to pathways into the school-to-prison pipeline.

Colorism in the Classroom

Hunter (2016) argued that colorism affects multiple school interactions—between teachers and students, families and schools, and among students—and contributes to excessive school discipline against dark-skinned students. Classroom interactions are considered to be influenced by the color-based halo effect: Students with lighter skin were more positively evaluated due to proximity to Whiteness (Hunter, 2016), which then shaped the appraisal of other aspects of the person, including higher ratings of intelligence, kindness, and likability for lighter-skinned students.

In addition, Hunter (2013) conceptualed the beauty cue—a symbolic hierarchy of women by skin tone whereby women and girls of color with the lightest skin tones receive the most privileges, whereas women with the darkest skin tones are granted the least privileges—considered to also extend into classroom interactions (Hunter, 2016). Teachers may perceive lighter-skinned students as more attractive and extend this perception to students’ intelligence, competence, and even integrity. In fact, studies have shown that ratings of attractiveness are related to intelligence and competence ratings (Ritts et al., 1992). As such, lighter-skinned students may benefit from an overall better schooling experience, and teachers may exert higher expectations upon lighter-skinned students, leading to a higher level of performance, decreased perception of behavioral problems, and closer student-teacher relationships (Hunter, 2016).

The effect of colorism on perceptions of intelligence, employment, and social mobility has been well documented (Hunter, 2007, 2016; Landor & Smith, 2019). Skin tone among Black women is associated with salary, education level, and marital prospects (Blair et al., 2002; Hunter, 2007, 2013; Maddox & Gray, 2002). Darker skin tone among women is associated with being considered unattractive, unintelligent, and militant, and being required to work harder and be smarter to achieve academic and professional success (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). Black women across skin tones agreed that dark-skinned women usually earn less than lighter-skinned Black women and that a pecking-order for salaries always places darker-skinned women at the bottom of that order, whereas lighter-skinned women reported their physical appearance allowed them greater access to employment opportunities (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Hunter, 2007).

In the educational context, although research is needed directly on this point, dark-skinned girls might be less likely to achieve school success due to both colorist perceptions of lower intelligence and higher levels of behavioral problems. These expectations may also place dark-skinned Black girls at greater risk for stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995)—a process by which (academic) performance is influenced by knowledge of stereotypes about one’s identity group. Black adolescents are aware of and endorse colorist stereotypes associating dark skin tone with unattractiveness, lower class, and poor behavior (Abrams et al., 2020). As such, knowledge of these colorist stereotypes may influence dark-skinned girls’ academic performance.

The social capital—or lack thereof—bestowed on children in schools based on proximity to Whiteness may also extend to their parents (Hunter, 2016). Light-skinned or White parents of Black children have more racial capital to advocate for their children and may also benefit from the color-based halo effect in parent-teacher interactions. Advocacy of dark-skinned parents, on the other hand, may instead be perceived as angry, unjustified, and militant. Parent involvement plays a major role in academic success among children (Hara & Burke, 1998). As such, we expect that children with dark-skinned parents—who are likely to be dark-skinned themselves—are not only disadvantaged due to their own skin tone, but also due to that of their parents.

Mental Health and Psychological Well-Being

Teasing and exclusion based on skin tone may not only impact Black girls’ overall willingness to engage in school, but also likely significantly affect their mental health, impeding their ability to engage. Poor mental health is a significant factor in the criminalization of Black girls in school (Morris, 2016). Despite overwhelming anecdotal and cultural evidence highlighting the salience of colorism on Black girls’ lives, few studies have examined the effect of colorism on mental health outcomes (Breland-Noble, 2013). Colorism has been associated with psychological distress, substance use, and even suicidality (Hall, 2017; Perry et al., 2013; Wallace et al., 2011). Considering that between 2003 and 2019, documented suicide rates among Black female youth between the ages of 15 to 24 increased by 59% nationally (Ramchand et al., 2021), research is needed to assess the impact of colorism on suicidality in this population.

Regardless of the direct impact of colorism on mental health symptoms, darker-skinned girls commonly experience a pervasive impact of colorist discrimination on other aspects of psychological well-being, including self-esteem. For adolescents, physical appearance is a central part of self-esteem (e.g., Williams & Currie, 2000), and colorism is associated with skin tone dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem (Robinson & Ward, 1995; Young-Hyman et al., 2003). Low self-esteem is associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including increased risk for psychological distress and behavioral problems (e.g., Trzesniewski et al., 2006). Adolescent girls are at especially increased risk for lower self-esteem, body dissatisfaction, and mental health problems (Ge et al., 1996; Stice &Whitenton, 2002).

Greater skin tone satisfaction is associated with greater overall appearance satisfaction, whereas lower skin tone satisfaction is associated with greater internalization of traditional beauty standards (Falconer & Neville, 2000; Harper & Choma, 2018). In the lives of Black girls, idealization of lighter skin tone impacts body image (Maxwell et al., 2015). Given the pervasiveness of colorism, it is no surprise that a significant number of Black women and girls endorsed colorism-informed standards of beauty, such that lighter skin tone was thought of as more attractive and desirable (e.g., Hunter, 2013; Maxwell et al., 2016; Townsend et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2011). Societal standards of beauty are applied more strictly to women/girls than they are to men/boys, and therefore girls’ self-worth is more dependent on attractiveness (Keith, 2009). When dark-skinned girls internalize messages about being least attractive, they may be at risk for poorer social, academic, and mental health outcomes.

Furthermore, to our knowledge, there are no available data exploring the relationship between colorism and the availability of mental health treatment resources and treatment outcomes. Do dark-skinned girls (or their families) have the same access to mental health care as lighter-skinned girls, particularly if colorism is associated with poverty? Do dark-skinned girls face colorist discrimination within therapy relationships that impedes successful treatment outcomes? If so, how might this shape dark-skinned girls’ abilities to effectively navigate the challenges they face to stay engaged in school?

Pushing Girls Towards Prison

As the policies, educational structures, and societal conditions described above push girls away from school, separate mechanisms often ensure that the move away from school is accompanied by a move into the juvenile or criminal legal system. This process happens through a number of policies and systemic forces, including the introduction of law enforcement surveillance to school buildings, gender policing, and adultification of Black youth—all of which, we propose, play a role in converting school disconnection into legal involvement.

Police in Schools

After the adoption of “zero tolerance” policies in the early 1990s, the increase in police officers in schools resulted in law enforcement taking over disciplinary duties previously held by teachers and administrators (Brown, 2006). We believe that, were research to explore colorism in school policing, findings would indicate that the presence of police officers in schools places dark-skinned Black girls at greater risk for being pushed into the legal system. Juvenile legal stakeholders have acknowledged that allowing discretion by system actors is a key contributor to the differential treatment of Black children (Abrams et al., 2021). Troublingly, school police officers self-reported that they exercised a great deal of discretionary power when making arrest decisions in schools and named student disrespect (i.e., attitude when approached by the officer) and past misbehavior as factors that they considered when making arrest decisions (Wolf, 2014). Perception of these subjective factors—and subsequent arrest—is likely to be highly influenced by colorism.

Although Black students are not more likely to misbehave than White students, research over decades has consistently shown that they are more likely to receive suspensions and expulsions (Skiba et al., 2006). For example, a recent examination of over 3,000 school districts in 13 Southern states reported that Black youth accounted for a much greater percentage of suspensions and expulsions than the 24% of the student population they constituted, and Black girls were most disproportionately impacted, making up 56% of girls suspended and 45% of girls expelled (Smith & Harper, 2015). Furthermore, a study of 928,940 secondary school student discipline and disability records showed that Black children were punished twice as severely as White children at the first infraction point (Blake et al., 2020).

Black girls are more likely than White girls to be disciplined for “subjective” behaviors such as disruptive/detrimental behaviors (“to the welfare or safety of other students or of school personnel”), disobedience or defiance, and third-degree assault (“knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury”) compared to “objective” offenses such as drug or alcohol possession (Annamma et al., 2019). Paired with data indicating that darker-skinned girls are more likely to be disciplined in schools (Blake et al., 2017; Hannon et al., 2013) and are collectively viewed as more disruptive (Abrams et al., 2020), police in schools may target dark-skinned girls at higher rates than lighter-skinned Black girls. To our knowledge, there are no data that would suggest that disproportionately high discipline for darker-skinned Black girls is justified (i.e., due to greater rates of misbehavior).

Policing in the Community

Although there is no evidence to suggest that there are racial differences in youth antisocial behavior, due to over-policing in communities of color and racial profiling, Black youth—including Black girls—are more likely to have interactions with police officers (e.g., be stopped and surveilled) and to be stereotyped based on race (e.g., Brunson, 2007; Fagan et al., 2016; Henning, 2021). For example, in a study on field interrogation, observation, frisk and/or search reports that involved 72,619 unique suspects, when controlling for local crime rates and social conditions of a Boston neighborhood, Black youth and adults were 12.4% more likely to be frisked or searched compared to White youth and adults (Fagan et al., 2016). In a study of 40 Black youth, 83% reported being harassed or mistreated by police and 93% reporting knowing of someone else who had been harassed or mistreated by police, experiences, which the youth connected to racial discrimination (Brunson, 2007). In addition to police officer bias, stereotype threat may put Black youth at further risk of being arrested. When in police presence, Black people are more likely than White individuals to engage in self-regulatory behaviors (e.g., looking nervous, avoiding eye contact) which police officers may interpret as indices of guilt, resulting in disparities in stops, searches, and arrests (Najdowski et al., 2015). Given the relationship between dark skin tone and perceptions of guilt, these effects are likely more pronounced for darker-skinned Black youth.

Gender Policing/Sexualization

In addition to facing more criminalization within schools, dark-skinned Black girls may also be particularly vulnerable to gender policing and sexualization. As previously indicated in the section on school discipline, disciplinary and exclusionary practices against Black girls can be at least partially attributed to teachers’ subjective and biased assessments (Morris, 2012). Morris (2016) argues that disciplinary actions affecting Black girls are informed by stereotypes of Black girls as either “good” or “ghetto.” Ghetto Black girls—those deemed loud, defiant, or precocious—fail to conform to norms of White, middle class femininity and are therefore subject to criminalization in school settings. Through ethnography, Morris (2016) outlined examples of Black girls being suspended for asking teachers not to yell at them—or, in the case of six-year-old Desre’e Watson, being perceived as a public threat and requiring police intervention for throwing a tantrum. Among Black girls, dark-skinned girls are most likely to be deemed “ghetto,” highlighting a potential disproportionality of gender policing based on colorism.

Subjective and criminalizing assessments have debilitating consequences and extend to use of language, dress codes, and hair styles—and label Black girls in school environments as deviant by default. Black girls are disciplined for wearing Afrocentric and natural hairstyles such as Afros and locks or for failing to completely adhere to formally established dress codes (Morris, 2016). Girls not only reported that they have often been prevented from attending school for unintentionally missing parts of the dress code (e.g., wrong-colored shoes, missing a belt), but they also noticed unequal enforcement of dress code that specifically punishes Black girl bodies. For example, Black girls reported that they were routinely excluded from the classroom for wearing shorts that were deemed “too short” and not school appropriate due to their body types, whereas girls of other races were allowed to wear similar clothing (Morris, 2016). Taken together, Black girls—and likely especially dark-skinned girls, and girls with most proximity to traditionally deemed Afrocentric body features, experienced a disproportionate effect of gender-specific factors that rendered them more vulnerable to criminalization within school environments (Morris, 2016).

Adultification

Black girls’ disproportionate representation in the school-to-prison pipeline may also be partially explained by the process of adultification, whereby adultlike characteristics are ascribed to children (Epstein et al., 2017). Black children are perceived as less innocent, more culpable, and older than White and Latino children (Goff et al., 2014), making them more likely to be punished for child-typical behavior. For Black girls, being perceived as “precocious” is a significant predictor of school discipline and exclusionary practices (Morris, 2016). The perception of Black girls’ bodies as overly mature and adultlike places them at greater risk for criminalization in school settings via punishment and exclusion. Black girls as young as five years old have been viewed as significantly older than their true ages and were perceived as more likely to take on adult roles and responsibilities than were White girls (Epstein et al., 2017), raising a myriad of questions about behavioral expectations teachers may place on Black girls. Notably, Black children made up just 6% of 5-11-year-olds in California but accounted for 30% of juvenile justice petitions filed against youth those ages, with disparities increasing as youth progressed further into the system (Abrams et al., 2021). Compared to White girls of the same age, Black girls ages five to 19 have been collectively viewed as more adultlike—they were deemed to look and behave older, to be less in need of protection and nurturing, to be more knowledgeable about sex, and to take on more adultlike responsibilities (Epstein et al., 2017), suggesting that the care, protection, understanding, and grace extended to White girls did not translate into the same treatment of Black girls. Adultification seems to be related to colorism: Dark-skinned girls reported being seen as more sexually active by their family members, for example (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). In addition, endorsement of colorism among Black girls (e.g., endorsing Eurocentric beauty ideals) has been associated with risky sexual behaviors and substance use (Townsend et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2011).

Black children are viewed as less childlike, which is associated with age-overestimation, culpability ratings, and use of force against Black children (Goff et al., 2014). In their multi-study research, Goff et al. (2014) examined whether Black youth were afforded the same childhood protections as White youth (e.g., perception of innocence and need for protection). When presented with scenarios of Black and White youth suspected of crime, both university students and police officers estimated that the Black youth were older than age-matched White youth and rated Black youth as more culpable than White youth (Goff et al., 2014). Police officer performance on a dehumanization implicit association test (i.e., measuring associations between apes and Black people) was associated with disproportionate use of force against Black youth as documented in personnel files, such that the more strongly officers associated Black people with apes, the more often they disproportionately used force against Black youth compared to youth of other races (Goff et al., 2014).

According to Henning, 2013, the legal system repeatedly has ignored the role that developmental immaturity plays in influencing the actions of Youth of Color, indicated by racial disparities in juvenile legal processing (Henning, 2013). The adolescent brain undergoes physical changes that directly impact youth behavior (e.g., Arain et al., 2013). Research has demonstrated that adolescents exhibit impulsive and risky behaviors tied to developmental immaturity significantly more than adults, but that there are no significant differences between racial groups (Cauffman et al., 2010; Steinberg et al., 2008, 2009). Mistakes and boundary-testing are to be expected during this developmental period for all youth (Crone & Dahl, 2012). However, White youth are much more likely than Black youth to be afforded the space to make mistakes without punishment as they transition from adolescence to adulthood. Although not yet clearly documented in the literature, we anticipate that colorism, like racism more broadly, also shapes society’s willingness to view youth behaviors in a developmental context, such that darker-skinned children and adolescents are adultified and dehumanized to a greater degree and with greater frequency than lighter-skinned youth.

Colorism on the Far Side of the Pipeline

Once youth enter the school-to-prison pipeline and have faced initial criminalization, colorism is also associated with being pushed further into and through the pipeline—and a significant number of quantitative research examining the impact of skin tone and Afrocentric stereotypicality on criminal legal involvement supports this argument (e.g., Eberhardt et al., 2006; Gyimah-Brempong & Price, 2006; King & Johnson, 2016). Although much more research is needed to examine the role of colorism in youth legal trajectories, below we outline how colorism may shape Black girls’ outcomes at every stage of legal processing.

Diversion and Charging

After police officers make an arrest, prosecutors decide whether to charge youth, what charges to give, and whether to offer the opportunity for diversion (Gupta-Kagan, 2018). Diversion allows youth to avoid formal prosecution if they comply with court-ordered services, such as mental health treatment (Gupta-Kagan, 2018). Black youth are over two times more likely to be formally referred to juvenile court compared to White youth, regardless of other legal factors (e.g., crime severity, number of charges; Peck & Jennings, 2016). Furthermore, darker-skinned youth, regardless of the severity of the crime charged, are less likely to be diverted (Chen et al., 2021). Because prosecutors hold so much discretion in charging and diversion, prosecutorial biases—including colorism—likely shape which youth are charged and with what crimes.

Detention

The disproportionate impact of skin tone and race on youth legal processing likely extends to detention. The court can detain youth (i.e., hold them in a secure facility) before the adjudicatory hearing (the juvenile equivalent of a trial). Pre-trial detention has lasting implications; detained youth have an increased risk of pleading guilty, being adjudicated delinquent, and facing incarceration (Rodriguez, 2010; Stevenson, 2018). Black youth are 1.49 times more likely than White youth to be detained, even while controlling for factors such as the seriousness of the offense (Rodriguez, 2010). As colorism is associated with perceptions of guilt and harsher sentencing (King & Johnson, 2016; Viglione et al., 2011), dark-skinned Black girls likely are more often perceived as posing a risk if not detained, triggering pre-trial detention and its lasting consequences.

Transfer to the Adult System

Colorism—and associated adultification—may also influence Black girls’ likelihood of being charged and tried as adults. Although procedures vary by jurisdiction, prosecutors and judges exercise discretion in deciding whether to transfer an adolescent to the adult criminal legal system (Manning, 2020). Across jurisdictions, judicial determinations about juvenile transfer or certification to criminal court (i.e., whether the child will be tried as an adult) are generally based on similar factors, including subjective assessments about risk, “the sophistication and maturity of the offender” and “likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation” (Kent v. United States, 1966), putting darker-skinned youth at greater risk of transfer. Research has demonstrated that Black children have been disproportionately tried as adults (Bryson & Peck, 2020).

Given the prominent role of adultlike physical appearance in justifying laws on juvenile transfer, colorism likely plays a key role and further disadvantages dark-skinned youth. A 2016 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center illuminated that for 14-year-olds in New Orleans, judges determined appropriateness of transfer based on “the child’s maturity and sophistication - both physical and mental” (p. 6). Because Black children, in general, are seen as older, more mature, and ascribed more adult-like characteristics (e.g., Epstein et al., 2017; Goff et al., 2014), simply having a Black body likely increases the risk of a youth being transferred to adult court. The legislation creating broad mechanisms for transfer of Louisiana youth to the adult system makes clear the legislators’ intent to criminalize Black youth bodies perceived as too adult to be treated as children (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). For example, one legislator spoke in favor of harsher legislation, saying, “We think of kids 11 and 12 years old as being little babies but…I saw a little kid on the football field playing against my son who was 11 years old, weighed 206. If they’re going out there at age 12 and they’re committing aggravated burglaries or they’re killing people, I don’t care if they’re 12 years old or not, they’re criminals. They’re not juveniles, they’re criminals.” (Hearing before the Lousiana State Senate Judiciary Committee, 1994). Darker skin tone among Black girls has been associated with sexual precociousness (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018) and obesity (Hargrove, 2019); as such, the intersection of skin tone and physical maturity may put Black girls at particular risk for transfer to the adult system.

Adjudication and Dispositions/Sentences

After a youth is found to have committed an offense by a judge (i.e., adjudicated delinquent), the next stage in legal processing is the disposition hearing (the equivalent of a sentencing hearing in the adult system). During this hearing, the court issues a disposition (i.e., sanction), which can include fines, fees, probation, or residential confinement. People with darker skin tone and Afrocentric stereotypicality have received harsher punishment in legal settings regardless of race (King & Johnson, 2016). Among women incarcerated in North Carolina between 1995 and 2009, those with lighter skin tones received 12% shorter prison sentences and spent 11% less time incarcerated compared to those with darker skin tones—regardless of crime type and infractions during incarceration (Viglione et al., 2011). Data are not yet available on the impact of colorism on court sanctions imposed on Black girls, but we posit that the same mechanisms likely lead to girls presenting with higher Black stereotypicality being disadvantaged during disposition hearings. This situation may be especially true because dispositions in the juvenile system are generally intended to serve some rehabilitative purpose, and colorism likely creates perceptions that darker-skinned Black girls will require more extreme intervention to achieve rehabilitation. Additionally, prosecutors may advocate for—and judges may impose—more punitive (vs. rehabilitative) sanctions for darker-skinned Black girls compared to lighter-skinned girls.

Post-Disposition

In the juvenile system, dispositions typically do not have a termination date, which means that youth can remain on probation or be held in a residential facility until a judge has decided that they have been rehabilitated or until they “age out” of the system (Levick & Desai, 2007). Colorism may play a significant role in disposition lengths for Black girls, as darker-skinned girls are perceived to have more behavioral problems than lighter-skinned girls (Abrams et al., 2020), which may extend to judges’ determinations of whether they have been “rehabilitated.” In addition, the collateral consequences associated with being found guilty, such as having a record, can make it difficult for youth to return to school, seek job opportunities, and secure housing (Shah & Stout, 2016). Furthermore, youth with legal system involvement may face stigma by the community, even if not found guilty (Diaz Ortiz et al., 2021). We anticipate that this stigmatization is compounded by the discrimination Black girls already face due to colorism, explained in detail above, which may impede their ability to thrive in school, making it more difficult for them to escape the system. Although research to date has not explored the role of colorism in reentry, darker-skinned Black girls may face disproportionate challenges when re-entering the community, contributing to the cycle from school to system involvement and back again.

Black Girls’ Resistance

Despite extraordinary odds stacked against them, Black girls continue to thrive in many areas and lead the fight against colorism, continued invisibility, and punishment. Black girls lead engagement in Black girl organizations—such as Justice for Black Girls, EveryBlackGirl, Girls for Gender Equity, and Black Swan Academy—to impact equity-focused policy across the nation and globe. At an individual level, although Black girls are aware of colorist notions (e.g., Abrams et al., 2020), they also resist colorist ideology (Rosario et al., 2021). This resistance is evidenced by relatively low levels of skin tone dissatisfaction among Black women and girls (Bond & Cash, 1992; Walker Gautier, 2021). Based on a qualitative study of 59 Black girls’ experiences with colorism, Rosario et al. (2021) indicated 91% of girls discussed ways in which they resisted colorist ideology (e.g., looking in the mirror and telling themselves that their dark skin tone is pretty). Although colorism impacts girls on a structural level and cannot be solved through individual resistance to White-centered ideals of beauty and femininity, endorsement of colorism puts Black girls at greater risk for negative psychological outcomes (Rosario et al., 2021; Wallace et al., 2011). Skin tone dissatisfaction and endorsement of colorist ideals have been linked to higher levels of internalized racism, and lower self-esteem, and increased body-related shame, skin surveillance and bleaching behaviors (Choma & Psusaczyk, 2018; Falconer & Neville, 2000; Maxwell et al., 2015; Young-Hyman et al., 2003). In contrast, being satisfied with one's skin tone has been found to buffer the relationship between gendered racial microaggressions and traumatic stress symptoms (Sissoko et al., 2022). As such, Black girls’ high levels of resistance to colorist ideology are not only a testament to their resilience and tenacity, but also a critical mitigating factor with the potential to buffer the impact of colorism on mental well-being.

Recommendations for Policy and Research

Colorism in the United States, closely related to racism, can be conceptualized as a manifestation of White supremacy (Russell-Cole et al., 2013). As such, policies and practices suggested to address gendered racism against Black girls in schools can also address colorism if dark-skinned Black girls are centered in these efforts. Morris (2016) demonstrated that unless Black girls’ experiences and needs are centered when developing policies and practices to support the healthy development of Black youth in schools, Black girls will be ignored, and any benefits of these policies will primarily be experienced by Black boys—as boys tend to be centered in policy shifts by default. We argue that a parallel will occur if gender- and race-conscious reformatory policies and procedures fail to acknowledge the impact of colorism on the criminalization of Black girls in schools: These efforts will primarily benefit light-skinned Black girls whereas dark-skinned girls will remain on the margins.

Given the unique vulnerability dark-skinned Black girls face in the school environment, any policies designed to protect Black girls should explicitly acknowledge the role of colorism in Black girls’ lived experiences to prevent the recreation of unequal policies that will further marginalize the most vulnerable. Reminiscent of Fannie Lou Hamer’s famous speech “Nobody is Free Until Everybody’s Free” (1971), researchers, policy makers, justice advocates, and school administrators should always center the most vulnerable. Morris (2016) invited readers to consider three central questions prior to designing (traditionally male-centered) policies and procedures to combat the school-to-prison pipeline for Black girls. We offer a modified version of these questions, with our additions in italics: (a) what assumptions are being made about the conditions of dark-skinned Black girls, (b) how might dark-skinned Black girls be uniquely impacted by school and other disciplinary policies, and (c) how are organizations, systems, and policies creating an environment that is conducive or not conducive to the healthy development of dark-skinned Black girls? When dark-skinned Black girls are centered in analysis, proposed policies and procedures to address criminalization will benefit all Black girls.

Recommendations for Research and Data Collection

As highlighted throughout the paper, Black girls’ disproportionate vulnerability to criminalization and the school-to-prison pipeline are influenced by a complex set of interrelated factors, including increased school discipline, social marginalization, and structural and interpersonal factors. However, data on the impact of colorism on these factors are lacking and associations between colorism and the criminalization of Black girls drawn in this paper are convincing yet still speculative. Data on colorism are needed across national, state, and local levels. To fully understand the impact of colorism and vulnerability to the school-to-prison pipeline, schools should engage in colorism audits (similar to current racial equity audits), which include a comprehensive investigation of colorism-based inequality across school units (e.g., differences in Advanced Placement, school discipline, student government; Hunter, 2016). These data will help organizers, advocates, and administrators identify and uncover problem areas and facilitate the design of policies and procedures to address colorism across schools.

Furthermore, similar to Bernard et al.’s (2021) framework for Culturally-Informed Adverse Childhood Experiences (C-ACE), which positions racism as an ACE exposure risk factor, a distinct ACE category, and mental health determinant among Black youth, it may also be helpful to conceptualize experiences of colorism as an adverse childhood experience. Researchers who study ACEs could add colorism to current data collection efforts to provide more robust research in this area—and further elucidate the impact of colorism on youths’ trajectories.

Notably, to produce meaningful data capable of driving reform, researchers producing work on the role of race in legal system processing must take colorism into account and critically examine assumptions, measures, and interpretations that reproduce bias. As research on system involvement and mental health outcomes expands to include colorism, we echo the call of Hines-Datiri and Carter Andrews (2020) for “the use of humanizing, liberatory, and non-hegemonic methodological approaches to the study of Black girls and school discipline” (pp. 1433-1434). These approaches must also include intersectional and participatory action research designs focused on understanding the experiences unique to dark-skinned girls. Importantly, to deepen our understanding of the ways in which gender socialization norms interact with colorist and racist practices in schools and the legal system, research on colorism should explore how the processes proposed in this article play out for girls, boys, and gender non-conforming youth (who are themselves especially vulnerable to legal involvement).

In addition to the development of new research agendas, substantial policy reform will be required to reduce the insidious impact of colorism on Black girls’ criminalization. First, to identify areas for needed reform, jurisdictions and relevant agencies (including schools, courts, prosecutor offices, and probation offices) need to collect data about how youth proceed through the system (school disciplinary practices, arrest decisions, diversion, sentencing, etc.) not just based on race, but also on skin tone and Afrocentric stereotypicality. Once these data are collected, relevant agencies should make the data public and begin to identify points at which bias may be resulting in disparate outcomes for darker-skinned versus lighter-skinned Black youth.

Recommendations for Practice and Policy

As this work is underway, efforts should be made now to keep all Black youth, and particularly dark-skinned girls, engaged in school—thereby disrupting the school disconnectedness that is often a first step of the school-to-prison pipeline. Morris (2016) asked Black girls to envision a quality school environment that would decrease their unique vulnerability to criminalization in schools. The participants identified this environment as one that (a) provides protection from violence and victimization, (b) holds proactive discussions about healthy intimate relationships, (c) encourages strong teacher-student relationships, (d) provides school-based holistic services, (e) focuses on student learning and reduces emphasis on discipline and surveillance, and (f) provides consistent school credit recovery processes. To facilitate improved connection to school, Morris (2019) recommends that each Black girl has a “safe person,” such as a counselor or other adult, who she can go to in times of crisis. The “safe person,” while emphasizing a girl’s full identity, would work with other educators to identify inclusion opportunities (Morris, 2019). Psychologists are well suited to contribute to this vision through targeted research, education, and clinical services.

Schools, police departments, and prosecutors can all play a role in disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline for dark-skinned Black girls. Educators must do the work of identifying their own biases and the way that colorism permeates their ideas about the girls they teach and impacts their decisions around school discipline (see Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2020). Schools must critically examine policies and procedures related to student discipline and eliminate any policies that allow exclusion for anything short of life-threatening behavior. As long as school officials have discretion to suspend or expel students, the ubiquity of colorism may mean that they will use this discretion to the harm of dark-skinned youth. Therefore, discretion in school discipline should be eliminated—not in the direction of zero-tolerance, but in the opposite direction: maximum tolerance of youthful immaturity and exclusively non-disciplinary responses to youth difficulty with school engagement, emotional regulation, and other challenges of adolescence. Finally—as activism is underway to fundamentally transform and even abolish the unjust criminal legal system—we currently support the call to expand youth diversion and completely halt referral to the legal system for in-school offenses (National Juvenile Defender Center, 2021) which, if done correctly, should reduce criminalization of dark-skinned Black girls.

Psychologists can contribute to the de-criminalization of skin tone and Black stereotypicality among Black girls in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, examining and challenging colorist ideals through research and clinical practice, disrupting the role of colorism in educational and forensic mental health assessment, and expanding research on colorism as it relates to development and interpersonal relationships (e.g., birth outcomes, parenting and family relations, peer and romantic relations), stress/trauma exposure and mental health outcomes, and important internal psychological processes (e.g., internalized colorism, self-esteem, and efficacy). Although all psychologists can play a role in developing public-facing scholarship to highlight the role of colorism in the lives of Black girls, school, forensic, and counseling/clinical psychologists in particular have the responsibility to facilitate immediate change by considering colorism in their immediate practice.

Conclusion

Despite its significant role in the lives of Black women and girls, colorism is still an overlooked and understudied phenomenon (Breland-Noble, 2013). Throughout this paper, we argued that colorism influences Black girls’ vulnerability to criminalization through the school-to-prison pipeline and beyond. Colorism has been associated with criminalization and harsher disciplinary actions in school and criminal legal settings; but it also has been linked to increased social exclusion, reduced student engagement, negative expectations by parents and teachers, and poorer mental health and intergenerational socio-economic outcomes. Taken together, the evidence presented in this review underscores the importance of considering colorism as a social determinant of mental health and criminal legal involvement among Black girls.

Author’s Note

Some contents of this article were previously disseminated at the annual meeting for the American Psychological Association Meeting in Washington, D.C. in 2019 as well as the annual virtual Ford Foundation Conference in October 2020.