Abstract
It has been over 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court decision that declared that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal and unconstitutional in the United States. As such, many schools across the country have become increasingly diverse, and yet, in many of them, racial inequality remains. Even within schools that are resource-rich, in affluent and diverse neighborhoods, an achievement gap continues to plague black and Latina/o students. Lewis and Diamond explored this paradox over the course of five years at Riverview High School, located in a large Midwestern American city. Through analysis of a combination of fieldwork, participant observation, the use of survey data, and interviews with students, teachers, staff, and parents, Lewis and Diamond argue that the history of racism in the United States continues to permeate society and has contributed to the distinction between intended school practices and actual school practices, which results in a racial achievement gap.
Lewis and Diamond begin with an assessment of extant literature that examines racial inequality in schools. Schools, as the authors aptly note, are not independent institutions, but rather an extension of society. As such, schools are imbued with the belief systems of society, whether or not their intention is to combat social ills. Although legislation is now in place to prevent and penalize racial discrimination, the form and presentation of present-day racism has merely changed. A more ‘subtle and implicit’ form of racism has replaced the more overt racism of the past (p. 8). This subtle racism is no less consequential in America’s schools, and in some ways more dangerous in the sense that it is more evasive and therefore more difficult to challenge. In the school setting, the authors point to the ways in which ‘contemporary racial patterns are supported by structural inequalities, institutional practices, and racial ideologies that mutually reinforce each other but appear to be largely “nonracial” ’ (p. 8). Thus, although schools are explicitly meant to function on the basis of meritocracy, the current racial climate in society that denies racism while at the same time supporting it, precludes this possibility.
In Chapter 2, Lewis and Diamond examine how their data stand up to the oppositional culture hypothesis. This hypothesis is about the racial achievement gap, pointing to the social price that black students are thought to pay for academic achievement – a ‘burden of acting white’ (p. 17). Rather than being viewed as success by their peers, academic achievement is thought to ‘entail disloyalty to blackness’ (p. 17). However, Lewis and Diamond’s data analysis not only dismantles this hypothesis, but also reverses it. When controlling for socioeconomic status, black students at Riverview High School not only have higher aspirations, but also experience more support from their friends than white students.
Although students and their parents view education and Riverview High School as a tool to challenge discrimination, the everyday processes within the school serve to maintain it. Lewis and Diamond identify three key areas in which black and Latina/o students at Riverview experience racial discrimination: discipline, tracking, and parental opportunity hoarding. These discriminatory patterns take place in an environment that is not overtly racist, but rather a site where teachers and staff express a desire to remedy existing racial achievement gaps.
With respect to discipline, school ‘rules are meant to be applied uniformly to all students.’ However, Riverview staff and teachers’ use of discretion often results in racialized disciplinary processes (p. 76). There are two stages at which race intersects with discipline: ‘differential selection’ and ‘differential processing.’ In the school’s classrooms and hallways, black and Latina/o students are more likely to be referred for disciplinary intervention, and then once in the disciplinary system, the outcomes of such intervention vary on the basis of race. Parental involvement in disciplinary hearings plays a role in ‘differential processing,’ in that school staff members act on the greater presence of white parental advocacy. Some examples of advocacy efforts made by white parents include negotiating less severe penalties and renaming offenses so as not to impede the college application process. But staff members also act on the assumption of white parental advocacy. That is, school staff members preemptively assume that white students’ parents will be more involved, and make racialized decisions based upon these assumptions. In this sense, white parents need not even be involved for white students to experience the benefits of white parental involvement.
Tracking at Riverview High School also evidences racially discriminatory patterns. Although white students make up the overwhelming majority of Advance Placement (AP) and Honors classes, black and Latina/o students make up the majority of regular classes. There are several factors at play in this tracking process, including differential expectations of students on the part of school staff, and the perceived involvement of white parents. With respect to expectations, students and parents experienced or observed lowered expectations for black and Latina/o students. These lowered expectations resulted both in racialized track placement, as well as differential treatment within higher tracks on the basis of race. Black and Latina/o students in higher tracks reported difficulty in obtaining and maintaining AP and Honors course recommendations from teachers, as well as gaining teacher and peer support once placed in these courses. Perceived white parental involvement again plays a role, in that the assumption of white parental advocacy provides a smoother path to desired educational outcomes. In contrast, black and Latina/o parents experience heightened resistance to gaining student access to higher track courses.
Lastly, Lewis and Diamond examine the role that white parents play in maintaining the racially unequal status quo at Riverview High School. As noted above, white parents are perceived as being more likely to intervene and advocate for their children. This, combined with a district policy that allows parents to make the final decision in course placements, has contributed to racialized tracking at Riverview. White parents, despite often professing to value diversity, act in ways that contradict the tenets of diversity. For instance, white parents play an active role in maintaining the racialized tracking system at Riverview, as their children maintain academic advantages from it – a process the authors term ‘opportunity hoarding.’ At the same time, most white parents shy away from talk of race in the context of differential academic outcomes, but rather blame ‘differences in income level, family cultural values, and different investments in education’ (p. 148). Although wanting the best for one’s children seems natural, the problem is that advantages for white students inherently result in disadvantages for students of color, a problem reflective of the more insidious form of racism in today’s society.
Lewis and Diamond conclude by offering possible policy-based methods for combating the effects of color-blind racism in schools. The first is to de-track schools, through providing high quality and challenging courses to all students. The second is to overhaul the disciplinary process, so as to prevent the criminalization of nonwhite students and to promote the best educational setting for all students. The authors add that the discourse, too, must shift to bring conversations about race to the surface, so as to ‘encourage us to examine how the structures within which we operate developed and evolved and, in doing so, force us to reframe how we understand them today’ (p. 174).
Lewis and Diamond effectively expose the everyday processes that allow racial inequality to flourish in diverse, well-resourced, and well-meaning schools, ultimately arguing that the history of racism in the United States continues to have consequences in the present-day educational system. What makes the authors’ argument particularly convincing is the decision to allow student, parent, teacher, and staff voices to play a prominent role in the text. The rich accounts provided within allow the reader to learn first-hand how schools perpetuate the racism it is meant to combat, and illustrate just how destructive color-blind racism can be. Despite the best intentions, racial discrimination continues to pervade America’s schools. Lewis and Diamond challenge readers to acknowledge and actively combat everyday racism and consider how to create a more equitable and just public education system in the United States.