Racial diversity in United States schools

Last updated

Racial diversity in United States schools is the representation of different racial or ethnic groups in American schools. The institutional practice of slavery, and later segregation, in the United States prevented certain racial groups from entering the school system until midway through the 20th century, when Brown v. Board of Education forbade racially segregated education. Globalization and migrations of peoples to the United States have increasingly led to a multicultural American population, which has in turn increased classroom diversity. Nevertheless, racial separation in schools still exists today, presenting challenges for racial diversification of public education in the United States.

Contents

Background

Americanization schools

The United States has a history of enforcing Americanization or cultural assimilation in its public schools. These efforts were targeted at immigrants, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities.[ citation needed ] At the time, public schools were conceived of as a place to learn how to be an American. Supporters of Americanization felt that, without an American education, citizens would become ethnocentric and society would disintegrate. [1] One major component of Americanization education is the compulsory acquisition of the English language.

Native American schools

As early as 1879, Native American day schools and boarding schools were using education to assimilate American Indians into Christian, European culture. [2] Missionaries established some of these schools, which taught a combination of religious and academic content, on the reservations. These were called day schools and included the Tulalip Indian School, Cushman, and Chemawa. American Asian students also attended boarding schools like the Carlisle Indian Industrial School and the Hampton Institute. Some of these schools received federal funding from the United States. [2]

In Native American schools, students were forbidden from speaking their native languages and punished if they did. [2] Past students of the boarding schools praise them for providing electricity, running water, clean clothes, food, and friendship, but criticize the lack of freedom students had in the schools. [2]

In the early 20th century, opinions on Native American schools began to change and in the ‘20s the Department of Interior conducted a survey, the results of which were published in The Meriam Report in 1928. [3] The report noted that overcrowding of schools and lack of financial resources was causing the spread of infectious disease and producing physically weak students who were underfed and overworked. The report also revealed abnormally high death rates for Native American students. [3] In response to this report, the number of American Indian children enrolled in U.S. public schools in their neighborhoods grew, but it was a slow process. [2] By the 1980s, United States curriculum reflected a diversity of American Indian traditions and beliefs, thanks in part to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.

The Americanization School

The first so-called Americanization School was built by Irving J. Gill in Oceanside, California in 1931. [4] Its goal was to teach Spanish-speakers the English language and American customs. [5] Frequent immigration to the United States made the nation a racially and culturally diverse one, and many supporters of The Americanization School believed that the public school system was responsible for teaching all children American history and culture. [5]

Court cases

Plessy v. Ferguson

The 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson, was a landmark case which established the legal precedent for “separate but equal” facilities for people of different ethnicities. [6] The decision, which was handed down with a 7 to 1 majority vote, remained lawfully upheld until its abolishment in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter in the decision, stated “What can more certainly arouse race hate…than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded…?” [6]

Among these facilities were public schools, often located just miles apart, which separated white and colored students. [7] In almost all instances, schools which educated colored students were underfunded, extensively degraded, and/or lacked the necessary materials to rigorously challenge the students. It was also estimated that the amount of per capita expenditures devoted towards colored students was 40-50% lower than for white students, further deepening the educational inequality between the two ethnic groups. [7]

One stipulation in the Court’s decision stated that the decision only applied to immediate parties before the court at that time (and possibly others who were similarly situated). [7] [8] Because of this detail, while that particular county could be reprimanded for discriminating against colored individuals, the decision did not necessarily extend to adjacent counties and/or cities. [7] [8]

Brown v. Board of Education

The Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case of 1954 made it illegal to segregate schools based on race. [9] The court ruled that school segregation stunted the development of minority children. At the time of the decision, some school districts were already desegregated, but schools in Topeka were still separated by race. [9] This decision was met with initial resistance in the Southern United States. Senator Harry F. Byrd wrote the "Southern Manifesto," which called for resistance to racial integration of schools. [10] Most counties in the Southern United States did not fully integrate their schools until the 1970s. [11] Some scholars believe that the Brown v. Board case slowed gradual integration that was already underway. Backlash against the Brown v. Board decision continues to play a part in the amount of “racial separation” in schools today. [9] At the time when this case was taking place it looked to be a positive step in the right direction. Although a lot of minorities lost out on the chance to learn more about themselves from other teachers of color.

Tracking and race

The practice of tracking, or grouping students based on their abilities and perceived educational and occupational potential, began in the U.S. in the late 19th century and, in some schools, continues today. [12] Students of lower socioeconomic classes, many of whom are Black or Hispanic, are disproportionately represented in the lower tracks. [13] Some believe this creates a lack of diversity in the classroom and limits racial minorities’ access to quality educational resources. [13]

Theories

Drawbacks

Some experts believe that race-conscious or ethnocentric approaches to diversity in the classroom are harmful and that alternative methods, such as magnet schools and open enrollment, are more productive. [14] They perceive little correlation between racial diversity in the classroom and the performance of minority students in schools in existing data. [14] These theorists believe that focusing on race in diversity policies creates a heightened awareness of racial difference and perpetuates discrimination. In an article by Hughes, he explains that many people may be unaware of their own racial biases and prejudices that pervades society. Due to this, they may unconsciously hold lower expectations for racial minority students than for young people who come from more well-off homes. [15]

Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop Professor of History at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says mandatory racial diversity can cause harm, including immoral use of race-based student assignments and white flight in public schools. [14]

Benefits

Other researchers believe that racial and ethnic diversity in schools fosters understanding of new cultures and belief systems and dispels stereotypes, which instills empathy in students. [14] Since the mid-20th century, researchers have found that benefits of racial diversity in schools for racial minority students include higher reading levels, increased likelihood of graduating high school, positive impact on work aspirations and higher educational attainment, greater interaction with other racial groups and creation of interracial friendships in adult life, and higher desire to live and work in racially diverse environments. [16] They believe that diversity policies should specifically address race because the category of race remains relevant in American society today. [14] The U.S. News & World Report gives eight main reasons why diversity is viable on the college campus. Among these reasons were “diversity expands worldliness,” “Diversity enhances social development,” “Diversity prepares students for future career success,” and diversity “increases our knowledge base.”

Policy

Affirmative action

Affirmative Action policies began in the 1960s with Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, aiming to prevent discrimination and create diversity in school and work spaces. [17] [18]

In 1978, Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruled that saving spaces in the school for Black students solely based on their race was unconstitutional. [19] The school had set aside 16 out of 100 seats for minority students to maintain diversity in the classroom and counter societal discrimination. [20] While some judges maintained that the use of racial group as an admissions criterion was constitutional, others felt that it violated the 14th amendment. [19]

In 2003, a case regarding the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies confirmed the right of colleges and universities to use race as an admissions factor because it would create "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." [18] The specific point system University of Michigan used to rate students was ruled in need of moderation, however. [18]

In 2012, the case Fisher v. University of Texas will decide whether University of Texas at Austin’s “race-conscious admissions policies” are constitutional. This case will bring up the issue of whether race-neutral policies have been proven non-functioning or harmful and whether the race-neutral policies must be harmful in order for policies that acknowledge race to be legal. [21]

Praise and criticism

While supporters of affirmative action believe that it makes up for disadvantages that minorities face due to institutional discrimination, [22] others see affirmative action as “preferential treatment” that gives places in colleges and universities to unqualified students. [18] Some people assert that affirmative action policies do not look at wealth or socioeconomic class, meaning they may not be helping the most disadvantaged minority students. [23] This group believes that more middle and upper class minority students are admitted to universities than poor minority students.

Pell Grants are one such measure of economic disadvantage, and at elite universities, the percentage of students on Pell Grants has decreased over the years. A significant academic study found that Duke University gave major advantages in admissions to wealthy families, and only 12% of students there are on Pell Grants, compared to a much higher national average. [24]

Desegregation busing

After desegregation of U.S. schools began in the late 20th century, racial minority and white families still primarily lived in separate neighborhoods, making it hard to foster racial diversity in schools. [25] This led to the practice of desegregation busing. [25] Busing caused many white students to withdraw and enroll in private schools to avoid attending “inferior schools.” For this reason, busing programs were extended to the suburbs to bring white children into inner-city schools. [26] In Minneapolis, a program called “Choice is Yours” buses low-income, Black students to schools in affluent, mostly white suburbs. The program is praised by some scholars as successful outreach to minority communities. [16]

Praise and criticism

Some liberals see busing as a strategy for equalizing educational opportunity and integrating public schools in the United States. [27] Many conservatives and working-class whites oppose busing, however, because of the required intrusion of the government and racial minorities into their communities and schools. [27] Some scholars believe busing increases racial conflict. [27] After busing was enforced in Boston, polls showed that, while the majority of Blacks supported busing, many were against it because it evoked racist hostility towards them. [28] Most consider the Boston busing policy a failure, [28] while students in Los Angeles fight for their right to busing, which they say removes limits on their educational resources. [29]

Diversity in education in other nations

Limited diversity in schools was the norm in many countries until the middle of the twentieth century. Apartheid in South Africa created a racially segregated society with limited diversity in education that endured until the 1990s. [30] Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, were also required to attend segregated schools. In many other parts of the world, patterns of settlement in cultures with a dominant ethnic majority (e.g., China, France), or class or caste systems (the U.K., India), militated against diversity in schools.

See also

General:

Notes

  1. ↑ Kahlenberg, Richard D. (2007-08-19). "Opinion | Americanization 101". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Modern American Poetry". www.modernamericanpoetry.org. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  3. 1 2 "The Challenges and Limitations of Assimilation,” The Brown Quarterly 4(3), (2001). Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://brownvboard.org/sites/default/files/BQ_Vol4No3.pdf
  4. ↑ "Oceanside Historical Society." Oceanside History Timeline. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://oceansidehistoricalsociety.org
  5. 1 2 Sutro, Dirk. "Oceanside's Treasure-Trove of Gill Buildings : Landmarks: Restoration to Start on One of Several Structures Designed by the Famed San Diego Architect." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 22 Oct. 1992. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-22/news/vw-662_1_san-diego-architect
  6. 1 2 "The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) | PBS". www.thirteen.org. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Groves, Harry E. "Separate but Equal--The Doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson." Phylon 12.1 (1955): 66-72
  8. 1 2 Bernstein, Barton J. "Plessy v. Ferguson: Conservative Sociological Jurisprudence." The Journal of Negro History 48.3 (1963): 196-205.
  9. 1 2 3 Minow, Martha. In Brown's Wake: Legacies of America's Educational Landmark. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
  10. ↑ "Civil Rights Movement History & Timeline, 1954". www.crmvet.org. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  11. ↑ Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin. "The Academic Consequences of Desegregation and Segregation: Evidence from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools." Conference on the Resegregation of Southern Schools. Civil Rights Projects. University of California, Los Angeles, 15 Aug. 2002. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/the-academic-consequences-of-desegregation-and-segregation-evidence-from-the-charlotte-mecklenburg-schools/mickelson-academic-consequences-desegregation.pdf
  12. ↑ Hallinan, Maureen (1994). "Tracking: From Theory to Practice". Sociology of Education, Vol. 67, No. 2: 79–84.
  13. 1 2 "Tracking in Schools... A Thing of the Past?". mste.illinois.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report: The Benefits of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Schools http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/112806diversity.pdf
  15. ↑ Hughes, C., Newkirk, R., & Stenhjem, P. H. (2010). Addressing the Challenge of Disenfranchisement of Youth: Poverty and Racism in the Schools. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 19(1), 22-26.
  16. 1 2 Blake, Matthew. "Can Busing Desegregate Schools Legally?" Miller-McCune. 22 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. "Can Busing Desegregate Schools Legally? - Miller-McCune". Archived from the original on 2012-01-28. Retrieved 2012-04-16.
  17. ↑ "Executive Order 10925". www.thecre.com. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  18. 1 2 3 4 "Affirmative Action History & Timeline (Civil Rights Act, Supreme Court Cases, etc)". www.infoplease.com. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  19. 1 2 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 April 2012. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811
  20. ↑ "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  21. ↑ Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org - Affirmative Action (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)". www.balancedpolitics.org. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  22. ↑ Leonhardt, David (2007-09-30). "The New Affirmative Action". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  23. ↑ Leonhardt, David (2023-09-07). "Why Does Duke Have So Few Low-Income Students?". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-11-16.
  24. 1 2 "The Legacy of School Busing". NPR.org. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  25. ↑ "School Busing - The Civil Rights Movement in Virginia - Virginia Historical Society." Virginia Historical Society, 2004. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://www.vahistorical.org/civilrights/busing.htm
  26. 1 2 3 Pierce, Michael C. "Getting Around Brown Review." H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, Nov. 1998. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2474
  27. 1 2 "Busing's Boston Massacre." Hoover Institution. 1 Nov. 1998. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7768
  28. ↑ Hoag, Christina (2011-12-15). "Calif. school districts decry end to busing funds". Boston.com. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  29. ↑ "The History of Apartheid in South Africa". xenon.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-22.

Related Research Articles

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to benefit marginalized groups. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity and redressing alleged wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.

Desegregation is the process of ending the separation of two groups, usually referring to races. Desegregation is typically measured by the index of dissimilarity, allowing researchers to determine whether desegregation efforts are having impact on the settlement patterns of various groups. This is most commonly used in reference to the United States. Desegregation was long a focus of the American civil rights movement, both before and after the US Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, particularly desegregation of the school systems and the military. Racial integration of society was a closely related goal.

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

Racial color blindness refers to the belief that a person's race or ethnicity should not influence their legal or social treatment in society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Desegregation busing</span> Failed attempt to racially diversify American public schools

Desegregation busing was a failed attempt to diversify the racial make-up of schools in the United States by sending students to school districts other than their own. While the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, many American schools continued to remain largely racially homogeneous. In an effort to address the ongoing de facto segregation in schools, the 1971 Supreme Court decision, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, ruled that the federal courts could use busing as a further integration tool to achieve racial balance.

Racial equality is when people of all races and ethnicities are treated in an egalitarian/equal manner. Racial equality occurs when institutions give individuals legal, moral, and political rights. In present-day Western society, equality among races continues to become normative. Prior to the early 1960s, attaining equality was difficult for African, Asian, and Indigenous people. However, in more recent years, legislation is being passed ensuring that all individuals receive equal opportunities in treatment, education, employment, and other areas of life. Racial equality can refer to equal opportunities or formal equality based on race or refer to equal representation or equality of outcomes for races, also called substantive equality.

Critical race theory (CRT) is an interdisciplinary academic field focused on the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws, and media. CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, and not based only on individuals' prejudices. The word critical in the name is an academic reference to critical theory rather than criticizing or blaming individuals.

Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) is a San Francisco–based advocacy organization. Founded in 1969, its initial goals were equality of access to employment and the creation of job opportunities for Chinese Americans. The group broadened its mission in the subsequent decades. As of 2007, its stated mission is "to defend and promote the civil and political rights of Chinese and Asian Americans within the context of, and in the interest of, advancing multiracial democracy in the United States".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), also known as the PICS case, is a United States Supreme Court case which found it unconstitutional for a school district to use race as a factor in assigning students to schools in order to bring its racial composition in line with the composition of the district as a whole, unless it was remedying a prior history of de jure segregation. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his plurality opinion that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Oppositional culture, also known as the "blocked opportunities framework" or the "caste theory of education", is a term most commonly used in studying the sociology of education to explain racial disparities in educational achievement, particularly between white and black Americans. However, the term refers to any subculture's rejection of conformity to prevailing norms and values, not just nonconformity within the educational system. Thus many criminal gangs and religious cults could also be considered oppositional cultures.

Initiative 200 was a Washington state initiative filed by Scott Smith and Tim Eyman. It sought to prohibit racial and gender preferences by state and local government. It was on the Washington ballot in November 1998 and passed with 58.22% of the vote. It added to Washington's law the following language:

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Prior to this, the Supreme Court considered skin color as a determining factor in many landmark cases. Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color-conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy racial discrimination. The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School segregation in the United States</span> Racial separation in schools

School segregation in the United States was the segregation of students based on their ethnicity. While not prohibited from having schools, various minorities were barred from most schools, schools for whites. Segregation was enforced by formal legal systems in U.S. states primarily in the Southern United States, although elsewhere segregation could be informal or customary. Segregation laws were dismantled in 1954 by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the successes being attained during the Civil Rights Movement. Segregation continued longstanding exclusionary policies in much of the Southern United States after the Civil War. Jim Crow laws codified segregation. These laws were influenced by the history of slavery and discrimination in the US. Secondary schools for African Americans in the South were called training schools instead of high schools in order to appease racist whites and focused on vocational education. School integration in the United States took place at different times in different areas and often met resistance. After the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregated school laws, school segregation took de facto form. School segregation declined rapidly during the late 1960s and early 1970s as the government became strict on schools' plans to combat segregation more effectively as a result of Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. Voluntary segregation by income appears to have increased since 1990. Racial segregation has either increased or stayed constant since 1990, depending on which definition of segregation is used. In general, definitions based on the amount of interaction between black and white students show increased racial segregation, while definitions based on the proportion of black and white students in different schools show racial segregation remaining approximately constant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School integration in the United States</span> Racial desegregation process

In the United States, school integration is the process of ending race-based segregation within American public and private schools. Racial segregation in schools existed throughout most of American history and remains an issue in contemporary education. During the Civil Rights Movement school integration became a priority, but since then de facto segregation has again become prevalent.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Affirmative action refers to activities or policies that seek to help groups that are often affected by discrimination obtain equal access to opportunities, particularly in areas such as employment and education. In the United States, in the early 2000s, the use of race, gender, and other factors in college and university admissions decisions came under attack.

References

Disenfranchisement of Youth: Poverty and Racism in the Schools. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 19(1), 22-26.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.