Critical Race Structuralism and Charles Mills’ Racial Contract : Pedagogical Practices for Twenty-first-century Educators

Abstract

At the nexus of legislation and education lies a vigorous debate regarding teaching about racial and ethnic relations in U.S. schools. Applying critical race structuralism (CRS), a new contribution to the field, this research explores Charles Mills’ Racial Contract as a pedagogical tool to help meet the needs of twenty-first-century learners. The article examines the following question: How can teaching Charles Mills’ Racial Contract from a CRS perspective expand pedagogical practices for educators? The findings suggest that applying CRS can help prepare educators to engage learners in diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and beyond. This work has implications for teachers, students, policy makers, and global citizens interested in mediating the effects of racism in schools and society.

Keywords

critical race structuralism Charles Mills pedagogy critical race theory education

The debate about how to teach racial and ethnic relations in U.S. schools has ignited a media frenzy regarding banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) and resistance to The 1619 Project (D. A. Bell 1995; Hannah-Jones 2021). At the center is an erroneous assumption that teaching about CRT and white privilege undermines patriotism and upends social harmony (Pitkin 2021; Vaughan 2021). Amidst recent social unrest in the United States, students have witnessed public displays of racism such as the cases of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jonathan Farrell, Micheal Brown, Trayvon Martin, and countless others in the #BlackLives MatterMovement (Henderson, Lynch, and Parks 2020; Hill et al. 2020; Oppel and Barker 2020). Yet, many are questioning whether race should even be mentioned in schools, as well as the use of culturally responsive practices in the classroom (Gay 2018). Given the debates surrounding CRT, critical race structuralism (CRS), a new contribution and sister framework, attempts to expand analyses and mediating processes regarding the impact of racism. Thus, CRS is “a theoretical framework that explains racial and ethnic relations in social and institutional systems in terms of patterns and relationships between race, culture, gender, and social structures” (Wiggan, Pass, and Gadd 2020:10). CRS is based on five major tenets (discussed later in the paper) that delineate the impact of racial and ethnic relations in U.S. society. The paper addresses the following question: How can teaching Charles Mills’ Racial Contract from a CRS perspective expand pedagogical practices for educators? After highlighting the contributions of Charles Mills and The Racial Contract (Mills 1997), we address the impact of race in schools and society. Finally, we discuss the major tenets of CRS and how these can potentially transform pedagogical practices.

Part I: Charles W. Mills

Although there is no scientific basis for the construct of race as it is a social construction because all humans share 99.9% of the same DNA (Ash and Wiggan 2021; National Human Genome Research Institute 2011; Shared DNA 2005), it was first conceptualized in Europe in the 1400s (Clarke 1995; Wiggan 2011b; Wiggan et al. 2014). Race operates to advance power, privilege, wealth, and group domination (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Ladson-Billings 2003; Lynn and Dixon 2013; Memmi 2000; Patton et al. 2016; Wiggan 2011b). To understand how CRS can be used to teach about race, it is important to examine The Racial Contract (Mills 1997) which provided a framework for exploring racism as a power structure. Charles W. Mills, a gifted philosopher, social thinker, activist, and distinguished professor, dedicated his career to addressing critical social and political issues surrounding race, class, and gender in society (City University of New York [CUNY] 2022; Claremont McKenna College 2020; Mills 1997; The Canadian Philosophical Association 2021; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education [JBHE] 2021; Yale University 2013). C. W. Mills’ (1997) parents, Gladstone and Winnifred Mills raised him to respect people from all backgrounds—a worldview that greatly influenced his work. Born in England and raised in Jamaica, Mills earned a Bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of the West Indies and a Master’s and Doctorate in philosophy from the University of Toronto (JBHE 2021). Mills was on faculty at the University of Oklahoma from 1987 to 1990, University of Illinois Chicago from 1990 to 2007, Northwestern University from 2007 to 2016, and CUNY from 2016 to 2021 (CUNY 2022; Ferrer 2021; The Canadian Philosophical Association 2021; JBHE 2021).

A prolific scholar, Mills has authored approximately 100 articles, six major books, and numerous book chapters (American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2022; Yale University 2013). Mills’ work has created promising pathways for addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI: American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2022). His scholarship traverses multiple disciplines and has been adopted in many colleges and universities (Yale University 2013).

A recipient of the American Political Science Association’s biennial Benjamin E. Lippincott Award, Mills has received numerous national accolades (JBHE 2021). Mills’ international impact has inspired others to study and apply his work to social issues and projects aimed at promoting DEI (CUNY 2022). Perhaps one of his most cited works, The Racial Contract, was published in 1997 as part of his efforts to create a framework to address race in U.S. society.

Part II: Charles Mills’ the Racial Contract

Mills’ (1997) philosophy on the racial contract originated from his understanding and interpretation of the dominant social contract theory that portrayed the “ideal world among whites at the detriment of people of color, specifically Blacks” (Leonardo 2013, 2015:87). The racial contract is broadly described as a dehumanizing epistemological agreement that “advances the differential privileging of the whites as a group with respect to the non-whites as a group, the exploitation of their bodies, land, resources, and the denial of equal socioeconomic opportunities to them” (Mills 1997:9, 11, 20; Smith 2015). This agreement is essentially an “exploitation contract that creates global European economic domination and national white racial privilege” that distinctly results in cultural inferiority claims (Mills 1997:31; Smith 2015). Under its terms, the contract permits the self-serving behaviors of whites and their allies, such as exacting sociopolitical resources and educational opportunities at the expense of non-whites (Smith 2015).

Three contextual areas of influence are associated with the racial contract: (1) economic, (2) political, and (3) moral. Economically, the racial contract determines “who gets what” in terms of resources and opportunities and is the “most salient since it is calculated and aimed at economic exploitation” (Mills 1997:9, 32). Politically, the racial contract establishes societal “rights and powers” since “the racial structure is political in character, and the struggle against it has not for the most part been deemed appropriate mainstream subject matter” (Mills 1997:9, 31). Morally, the racial contract sets the parameters for white morality and is used to determine the norms by which “citizens are supposed to regulate their behavior” (Mills 1997:9, 10, 17). In the context of this quote, “citizen” is used as a universal term to denote a common humanity, as opposed to a legal status. Mills’ trichotomy of The Racial Contract (economic, political, and moral) explains the reproduction of racial order where the “subordination” of non-white citizens is maintained and the “privileges and advantages” of white citizens and their allies are secured (Mills 1997:14). According to Leonardo, whites have an opportunity to use their privilege in society to “misinterpret the world as it is” while perpetuating racial disparities (Leonardo 2015:92). Notwithstanding, the point here is that those with privilege can choose to use it in a positive way to create greater equity and inclusion.

Traditionally, contracts are signed by mutual parties (Morawetz 1925). However, as the racial contract is not an actual contract homogeneously signed and agreed upon by all parties, it operates generally to benefit whites at the expense of minorities as a consensual, unspoken binding agreement (Leonardo 2013). This binding agreement furthers the ejection of “the Black body from white spaces” and “rejects everything Black, such as ways of knowing and feeling, unless they serve the commodification of blackness within white capitalism” (Klees 2020; Leonardo 2013:607; Nguyen 2020). Arguing against the dominant social contract, Mills emphasizes the need to unveil the “full extent of race, gender and class subordination and exploitation” (Liou and Rojas 2020:716–17; Mills 1997:56–57). Thereafter, the racial contract has been used in education to explain differences in access and treatment of students (Liou and Rojas 2020).

In schools, whether intended or not, the racial contract dehumanizes minority students. Mills (1997) argues that “the only beneficiaries (and agreeable signatories) of the racial contract are the whites, as non-whites are devalued to a lower societal status” (Mills 1997:11,16). As it concerns the racial contract signatories, Mills (1997:18) premises that the contract:

prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producing the ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves made.

The result of this epistemology of ignorance is that “white signatories will live in an invented delusional world and racial fantasyland” (Mills 1997:18), creating a delusional interpretation concerning “discovery” and “exploration,” subsequently believing that “if no white person has been there before, then cognition cannot really have taken place” (Mills 1997:45). Leonardo (2013:606), places emphasis on the meaning of Mills’ epistemology of ignorance by referencing the concept of European humanism, meaning precisely that “only Europeans were humans.” The adoption of European humanism as an educational framework implies that essential resources would be withheld from black students and prioritized for whites (Leonardo 2015). Over time, this has evidenced itself in decades of separate but unequal schools for black and white students in the United States. In spite of the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education which legally outlawed segregation, most public schools are even more segregated today based on school tracking.

Educationally, “minority children lie outside of learning paradigms because all the dehumanizing machinations of schools have failed to bring them into line” (Leonardo 2013:608). “In the learning paradigm, faculty create the learning environments and experiences that assist students to move toward discovering and constructing knowledge for and of themselves” (Candela 2013:213). Thus, there can be harmful school processes such as curriculum violence, which refers to “the deliberate manipulation of academic programming in a manner that ignores or compromises the intellectual and psychological well-being of learners” (Ighodaro and Wiggan 2011:2). Appallingly, these behaviors are endorsed under the moral guise of the racial contract as the agreement permits some whites to cultivate ignorance by justifying the use of power and privilege in ways that may marginalize minority students and teachers (Mills 1997). Leonardo (2015:93) explains:

white ignorance is a form of morally false knowledge, which is different from your garden-variety ignorance. The upshot is that whites have created a political system that is near impossible to comprehend rationally and requires whites’ incoherence as part of their personal and collective development.

According to Leonardo (2013:600), “reality does not make immediate sense to people; it has to be filtered through interpretive frameworks.” Considering the multiple realities, dynamics, and intersectionalities of the racial contract (Smith 2015), Mills (1997) provides space to discuss difficult topics and histories. As such, the racial contract is comprised of four tenets: (1) how society was created or crucially transformed, (2) how the individuals in that society were reconstituted, (3) how the state was established, and (4) how a particular moral code and certain moral psychology were brought into existence (Mills 1997:10). This perspective seeks to “account for the way things are now and how they came to be that way-the descriptive- as well as the way they should be-the normative” (Mills 1997:10–11). Although Mills’ perspective provides meaning and insight into societal and moral functions, the racial contract is “not a theory of the US society, but an apprehension of an arrangement that amounts to a lived society” (Leonardo 2013:606). Mills (1997:40) emphasizes that:

Both globally and within particular nations, then, white people, Europeans and their descendants, continue to benefit from the racial contract, which creates a world in their cultural image, political states differentially favoring their interests, an economy structured around the racial exploitation of others, and a moral psychology skewed consciously or unconsciously toward privileging them . . .

To mitigate the outcomes noted above, educational spaces can be reimagined to promote the development of an equitable and inclusive agreement with respect to the strengths and cultural assets of all students as global citizens, meaning members of the human family tree that started in Africa and today spans across seven continents. Altogether, “both whites and people of color have a stake in the rewriting of the contract, where in the end they are imagined as neither Black nor white but free” (Leonardo 2015:87).

In sum, The Racial Contract is a seminal work on race as an endemic part of the U.S. social order (Mills 1997). Through this work, Mills sought to increase awareness regarding how race impacts society, which is a critical element of understanding what strategies, methods, and tools educators can use to improve student experiences and outcomes. As such, a cursory analysis of race is beneficial for our understanding of CRS as a guiding lens for inclusive pedagogical practices.

Part III: Theorizing Race

Although race is a human convention, it has real life and often negative implications in schools and society. Thus, the study of race as a social construction follows a long history of theorists who have explored its effects (Delgado and Stefancic 2017; Mills 1997; Smedley and Smedley 2018; Tatum 2007; Wilder 2013). Emerging from the Frankfurt School, critical theorists sought to examine the sources of oppression in society (social, cultural, economic, linguistic, etc.) and proposed a praxis for social change. Founders of critical theory, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, expanded Karl Marx and Georg Hegel’s assertions of economic oppression to include cultural and linguistic domination (Adorno and Horkheimer 1997; deMarrais and LeCompte 1999; Horkheimer 1982; Lemert [2004] 2016; Morrison 1995). Postulating that social reality is constructed and operates at multiple levels of meaning, critical theorists sought to uncover dominant ideology that is translated into school practices and policies. From its inception, critical theorists have argued that people in schools can play a role in transforming society through critique, dialogue, and the attainment of consciousness and human agency (deMarrais and LeCompte 1999; Lemert [2004] 2016; Morrison 1995). As with Mills’ Racial Contract, critical theory deconstructs hidden assumptions that govern society and explores how the dominant group exploits and oppresses subordinate groups. However, while racial and ethnic relations are key aspects of the U.S. social and educational landscape, this area of critical theory required greater explanatory power.

Thus, CRT emerged as an expansion of critical theory which centered race in its analysis (D. Bell 1992; Crenshaw 2002; Martinez 2014). Constitutional law scholar Derrick Bell is credited as one of the pioneers of CRT. However, it originates in the works of early nineteenth-century thinkers of the Black Intellectual Tradition (BIT) such as Martin R. Delany, Edward Wilmot Blyden, Anna Julia Cooper, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and W. E. B. Du Bois (D. Bell 1992; Du Bois 1903; Lemert [2004] 2016; Woodson 1933). While acknowledging Marx’s class struggle, D. Bell (1992) contended that racial conflicts are central to American society. Similarly, Mills follows in the tradition of the BIT. The four tenets of Mills’ (1997) Racial Contract contribute particularly as it relates to how (1) society was created or crucially transformed, (2) the individuals in that society were reconstituted, (3) the state was established, and (4) a particular moral code and certain moral psychology were brought into existence (Mills 1997). Similarly, through CRT, Latinx Critical Theory (LatCrit) is an important related framework that addresses Latinx experiences and issues as they pertain to racial, class, and gender domination (Valdes and Bender 2021).

As racism is an endemic part of American life and institutional and structural racism affect student performance, G. Ladson-Billings and W. Tate (1995) argued in support of the use of CRT in schools. Although not originally theorized to specifically examine education, CRT has evolved to become a transformative tool with a social justice lens through which social and racial disparities in schools are framed. Thus, CRT agitates against racial and ethnic oppression and advocates for equity (Crenshaw et al. 1995; G. Bell and Hopson 2017; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995). Similarly, Mills (1997) contends that the reimagining of educational spaces promotes the development of an equitable inclusive agreement relative to the strengths of all students.

Thus, CRT is useful as a framework for discussing educational issues including effective teaching practices (Epstein 2009; Banks 1994; Ladson-Billings 1998; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Wiggan 2011b). While critical theory focuses on human emancipation, the goal of CRT is the enfranchisement of humanity who have been oppressed based on racialization, social stratification, and cultural domination by the ruling class (Crenshaw 2002). As Mills (1997) notes, it is important to analyze race to understand its interconnectedness in society while contributing to the development of practical solutions for improving educational outcomes for students. Thus, CRS aims to expand CRT and offers insights for effective educational practices.

Part IV: Crs and Innovative Pedagogical Practices for Twenty-First-Century Educators

Recent trends in the resegregation of schools illuminate the construction of racial boundaries, meaning lines surrounding stratification, gatekeeping, and power and privilege based on human phenotype (Caldwell 1996, 2002; Delpit 2006; Delpit 2019; Meyer 2000; Tatum 2007; Taylor, Gillborn, and Ladson-Billings 2009; Wiggan 2011b). In the United States, a teacher workforce that is 79% white and majority female, intersects with a student body that is 54% minority (National Center for Education Statistics 2020). Mills (1997) attests that the racial contract creates a world in whites’ cultural image and the economic and political systems are structured around the exploitation of non-whites. In this way, CRS provides an innovative perspective on learning that is a pathway for improving conditions and DEI processes in U.S. schools, while also addressing the concerns of teachers, students, policy-makers, and global citizens. Thus, CRS analyzes racial and ethnic relations in social structures and institutional systems to explore patterns and relationships between race, culture, gender, and social structures (Alexander 2012; G. Bell and Hopson 2017; Caldwell 1996; Crenshaw 2002; Meyer 2000; Taylor et al. 2009). Similar to Mills (1997), CRS is a theoretical framework that aims to liberate against racism and other forms of oppression; it is based on five tenets that delineate C.A.U.S.E., which is the goal of CRS (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The five key tenets of critical race structuralism.

As a combined approach evolving from critical theory, CRT, and structuralism, CRS contends that education should provide a safe space for critical discussions about race, class, and gender to create action in shared work, play, education, and living spaces (G. Bell and Hopson 2017; Gay 2018; Ighodaro and Wiggan 2011; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Wiggan 2011a). In the purview of Mills’ The Racial Contract, this provides a compelling context for innovative pedagogical practices that allow for critical conversations about race and contemporary social justice issues (Mills 1997). Using pedagogy to help advance DEI and beyond requires schools to have a dual commitment to students’ growth and development (Freire 1970). From a CRS perspective, school systems should make deliberate efforts to ensure that DEI guides the hiring process, as well as teacher pedagogy, student assessment, and provision of services. While diversity acknowledges differences such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and so on, relatedly, equity refers to promoting fair and just processes which go beyond equality. And inclusion refers to representation of diverse populations. In this sense, in order for schools and society to create greater equity, both the privileged and the oppressed have to work together to effect change (Wiggan 2011b).

CRS, therefore, is an innovative pedagogical tool for transforming teacher education programs to improve student outcomes. Given Mills’ The Racial Contract, the opportunity for enhancing educational experiences to better understand how race reveals endless possibilities (Mills 1997). Using the tenets of CRS as a guide, teachers can engage students in meaningful discussions regarding current social justice issues and racial injustices that are becoming commonplace in the United States. Discussions that critically analyze their evolving world can anchor lesson planning to address oppression in education and beyond, as well as to advocate for equitable representation, access, and resources. As such, the cases surrounding George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and others, are crucial for educators to understand and apply DEI practices in their classrooms. In this sense, per Mills’ Racial Contract, CRS can help promote DEI in schools and society. By helping to foster institutional change that deconstructs racism and implicit bias, CRS can be used to engage today’s learners in social justice work.

Given the parlance of U.S. racial and ethnic relations, Charles Mills’ (1997) The Racial Contract is still relevant and an appropriate tool for use to help meet the changing needs of students, teachers, and policy-makers. The tenets of CRS—C.A.U.S.E.—can help transform pedagogical practices for educators. As Mills (1997) envisioned the disruption of dominant perspectives, CRS can potentially challenge harmful racial practices and curriculum violence in schools and beyond (Ighodaro and Wiggan 2011; Wiggan et al. 2020). The use of CRS to teach Charles Mills’ The Racial Contract can potentially challenge race-neutral approaches to teaching by incorporating critical pedagogical strategies that address racial and ethnic oppression and promote healing (Healing Power of Education -2021) in schools and society (Watson-Vandiver and Wiggan 2021).

Footnotes

Author Biographies

Greg Wiggan is professor of urban education, Aadjunct professor of sociology, and affiliate faculty member of Africana studies. His research addresses school effects that promote high achievement in urban and other minoritized students. He has completed more than 100 publications, inclusive of over 30 education books, and his work appears in more than 70 countries and over 6,500 college and university libraries (World Cat 2022).

Annette Teasdell is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction and coordinator of special education programs at Clark Atlanta University. Her research is centered on the fundamental belief that culturally responsive pedagogy combined with a curriculum that is accurate, relevant, and appropriate, and whose educational processes are humane can yield improved student outcomes.

Tierra Parsons is a doctoral student in the urban education strand of the curriculum and instruction program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on the mental health and retention of African-American female teachers in urban schools.

References

Adorno

T. W.

Horkheimer

1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Vol. 3. London: Verso.

Alexander

2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 2022. “Professor Charles W. Mills.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.amacad.org/person/charles-w-mills).

Ash

Wiggan

2021. “Melanin and the Malignity of Social Constructions of Race.” Black History Bulletin 84(2):5–8.

Banks

1994. An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Bell

1992. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books.

Bell

D. A.

1995. “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” University of Illinois Law Review 4:893–910.

Bell

Hopson

2017. Talking Black and White: An Intercultural Exploration of Twenty-first-century Racism, Prejudice, and Perception. New York: Lexington Books.

Caldwell

1996. “Review of Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement” (Book Review).” Columbia Law Review 96(5):1363–74. doi:10.2307/1123408.

10.

Candela

2013. “From Teaching to Learning: Theoretical Foundations.” Pp. 202–43 in Teaching in Nursing E-book: A Guide for Faculty, edited by Billings

D. M.

Halstead

J. A.

St. Louis: Saunders.

11.

City University of New York. 2022. “The Life and Work of Charles Mills.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.gc.cuny.edu/events/life-and-work-charles-mills).

12.

Claremont McKenna College. 2020. “A Conversation with Charles W. Mills.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.cmc.edu/athenaeum/conversation-with-charles-w-mills).

13.

Clarke

J. H.

1995. Christopher Columbus & the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery & the Rise of European Capitalism. New York: A & B Distributors.

14.

Crenshaw

2002. “The First Decade: Critical Reflections, or ‘A Foot in the Closing Door.’” UCLA Law Review 49(5):1343–72.

15.

Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

, eds. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press.

16.

Delgado

Stefancic

2017. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.

17.

Delpit

2006. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflicts in the Classroom. New York: New York Press.

18.

Delpit

, ed. 2019. Teaching When the World Is on Fire. New York: The New Press.

19.

deMarrais

K. B.

LeCompte

1999. The Way Schools Work: A Sociological Analysis of Education. New York: Longman

20.

Du Bois

W. E. B

. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

21.

Epstein

2009. Interpreting National History: Race, Identity, and Pedagogy in Classrooms and Communities. New York: Routledge.

22.

Ferrer

2021. “In Memoriam: Charles W. Mills.” American Philosophical Association. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.apaonline.org/news/580725/In-Memoriam-Charles-W.-Mills.htm).

23.

Freire

1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

24.

Gay

2018. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

Hannah-Jones

. 2021. The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story. New York: One World.

26.

Henderson

Lynch

Parks

2020. “An Officer Told George Floyd It Took ‘a Lot of Oxygen to Talk,’ Body Camera Transcripts Show.” CNN, July 9. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/7/9/George-Floyd-police-body-camera-transcripts.html?fbclid=IwAR3esAdh6xm4NoLBTLBpxMCFcXhQPtKSVsmAQxEOt_dFax7MS5fab7FXz78).

27.

Hill

Tiefenthäler

Triebert

Jordan

Willis

Stein

2020. “How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody.” The New York Times, May 31. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html).

28.

Horkheimer

1982. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Continuum.

29.

Ighodaro

Wiggan

2011. Curriculum Violence: America’s New Civil Rights Issue. New York: Nova Science.

30.

Klees

S. J.

2020. “Beyond Neoliberalism: Reflections on Capitalism and Education.” Policy Futures in Education 18(1):9–29. doi:10.1177/1478210317715814.

31.

Ladson-Billings

1998. “Just What Is Critical Race Theory and What’s It Doing in a Nice Field like Education?” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 11(1):7–24. doi:10.1080/095183998236863.

32.

Ladson-Billings

, ed. 2003. Critical Race Theory: Perspectives on Social Studies. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

33.

Ladson-Billings

Tate

1995. “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.” The Teachers College Record 97(1):47–68. doi:10.1177/016146819509700104.

34.

Lemert

[2004] 2016. Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

35.

Leonardo

2013. “The Story of Schooling: Critical Race Theory and the Educational Racial Contract.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(4):599–610. doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.822624.

36.

Leonardo

2015. “Contracting Race: Writing, Racism, and Education.” Critical Studies in Education 56(1):86–98. doi:10.1080/17508487.2015.981197.

37.

Liou

D. D.

Rojas

2020. “The Significance of the Racial Contract in Teachers’ College Expectancies for Students of Color.” Race, Ethnicity and Education 23(5):712–31. doi:10.1080/13613324.2018.1511529.

38.

Lynn

Dixon

eds. 2013. Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York: Routledge.

39.

Martinez

A. Y.

2014. “Critical Race Theory: Its Origins, History, and Importance to the Discourses and Rhetorics of Race.” Frame: Journal of Literary Studies 27(2):9–27.

40.

Memmi

2000. Racism. Translated by Martinot

Steve

. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

41.

Meyer

S. G.

2000. As Long as They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

42.

Mills

C. W.

1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

43.

Morawetz

1925. “The Elements of a Contract.” American Bar Association Journal 11(2):87–90. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25709185).

44.

Morrison

1995. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London, England: Sage.

45.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2020. “Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020142.pdf).

46.

National Human Genome Research Institute. 2011. “Whole Genome Association Studies.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (http://www.genome.gov/17516714).

47.

Nguyen

2020. “The Relationship between White Supremacy and Capitalism: A Socioeconomic Study on Embeddedness in the Market and Society.” Seattle University Undergraduate Research Journal 4(1):7–16. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://scholarworks.seattleu.edu/suurj/vol4/iss1/6).

48.

Oppel

R. A.

Jr. Barker

2020. “New Transcripts Detail Last Moments for George Floyd.” The New York Times, July 8. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/george-floyd-body-camera-transcripts.html).

49.

Patton

L. D.

Donor

Dixon

Anderson

2016. “Disrupting Postsecondary Prose: Toward a Critical Race Theory of Higher Education.” Urban Education 51(3):315–42. doi:10.1177/0042085915602542.

50.

Pitkin

2021. “5 Things to Know: HB 324 Passes NC Senate, Would Restrict Lessons on Race in School.” Queen City Nerve, August 28. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://qcnerve.com/weekly-news-roundup-hb-324/).

51.

Shared DNA. 2005. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/cuphbe/shared_dna/0).

52.

Smedley

2018. Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview. New York: Routledge.

53.

Smith

A. M.

2015. “The Racial Contract, Educational Equity, and Emancipatory Ideological Critique.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3:504–23. doi:10.1080/21565503.2015.1058827.

54.

Tatum

B. D.

2007. Can We Talk about Race? and Other Conversations in an Era of School Resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

55.

Taylor

Gillborn

Ladson-Billings

eds. 2009. Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York: Routledge.

56.

The Canadian Philosophical Association. 2021. “In Memoriam: Charles W. Mills.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.acpcpa.ca/articles/in-memoriam-charles-w-mills).

57.

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education . 2021. “In Memoriam: Charles Wade Mills, 1951-2021.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.jbhe.com/2021/09/in-memiram-chalres-wade-mills-1951-2021/).

58.

Valdes

Bender

S. W.

2021. Latcrit: From Critical Legal Theory to Academic Activism. New York: New York University Press.

59.

Vaughan

D. B.

2021. “NC Gov. Cooper Vetoes Anti-critical Race Theory Bill He Calls ‘Conspiracy-laden Politics.’” The News & Observer, September 10. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article253948433.html).

60.

Watson-Vandiver

M. J.

Wiggan

2021. The Healing Power of Education: Afrocentric Pedagogy as a Tool for Restoration and Liberation. New York: Teachers College Press.

61.

Wiggan

G. A.

, ed. 2011a. Education for the New Frontier: Race, Education, and Triumph in Jim Crow America (1867-1945). African Political, Economic and Security Issues. New York: Nova Science.

62.

Wiggan

G. A.

, ed. 2011b. Power, Privilege, and Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Student Outcomes. New York: Nova Science.

63.

Wiggan

G. A.

Pass

M. B.

Gadd

S. R.

2020. “Critical Race Structuralism: The Role of Science Education in Teaching Social Justice Issues in Urban Education and Pre-service Teacher Education Programs.” Urban Education. Published electronically July. doi:10.1177/0042085920937756.

64.

Wiggan

G. A.

Scott

Watson

Reynolds

2014. Unshackled. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

65.

Wilder

C. S.

2013. Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities. New York: Bloomsbury.

66.

Woodson

1933. Mis-education of the Negro. New York: AMS Press.

67.

Yale University. 2013. “Charles Mills: Race and Global Justice.” Retrieved August 4, 2022 (https://afamstudies.yale.edu/event/charles-mills-race-and-global-justice).