Race and Education: A Sociological Perspective

Introduction

Race relations in the United States have seemingly improved over the past five decades due to civil rights legislation and a public that is more attuned to the issue. However, pockets of inequality remain, and one of the most persistent problem areas is the higher education system. It is difficult to pinpoint a single reason why minorities continue to be underrepresented at colleges and universities — and especially as graduates — but the gap exists and will continue to exist until equitable solutions are determined. This paper examines race and education from a sociological perspective, paying close attention to the theories of symbolic interactionism, social conflict, and structural functionalism in order to identify the root causes of this persistent inequity.

Historical Background: Desegregation and Higher Education

Desegregation of American education began with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case in 1954 (Lark). Oliver Brown challenged the Topeka Board of Education because separate schools had been established for Black and White students. The Court found that while schools could easily be segregated, they could not be — and had not been — kept equal. This ruling caused significant controversy, especially in the traditional South, generating a multitude of protests and conflicts in the years that followed. It also helped advance the civil rights efforts of those working to end race-based inequities across the United States.

Though Brown v. Board of Education made it possible for minorities to receive an equal education in primary and secondary schools, a similar decision had already been made with regard to higher education. Gregory Swanson, who had completed his undergraduate studies at Brown University with an exemplary record, sought to pursue a graduate law degree to further his ambitions (Lark). In 1950, however, the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson had not yet been overturned. Swanson was denied admission to the University of Virginia Law School based on Virginia statute and existing Supreme Court precedent. His case reached the Supreme Court docket, and he ultimately won admission following a favorable ruling (Lark).

The Swanson case and others like it set the tone for the desegregation of higher education, but they did little more than allow a small number of exceptionally qualified minority applicants to access prestigious institutions. Part of the message of the civil rights marches and other nonviolent protests was that White and Black Americans should not live entirely separate lives (Ledford). All people deserved equal treatment under the law, and it was necessary for America to begin living by the words of the Declaration of Independence. The laws that emerged from the civil rights movement have been called many things by supporters and detractors, but the common term is affirmative action (Lark).

Affirmative Action: Policies, Court Rulings, and Limitations

The courts have determined on several occasions that colleges and universities may use race as a factor in admissions decisions. However, such considerations must be fair and equitable, and race can generally only apply when applicants are otherwise equal across all other criteria (Lark). This caused considerable controversy when these policies were first implemented, as White students believed they were being discriminated against on the basis of race (Lark). State and federal courts generally sided with institutions, agreeing that it was desirable for student bodies to reflect the broader population, and these programs were upheld. Nevertheless, court challenges continued, and in 2002 a White student challenged the admissions criteria at Michigan Law School and prevailed (Lark). The court determined that diversity policies still had to be fair: race-based criteria could not serve as the primary basis for acceptance or rejection.

Affirmative action statutes have helped narrow the disparity to some extent, but they have not had the impact many had hoped for. Proponents argue that after centuries of oppression, forty years of remedial policy is insufficient to correct longstanding disadvantage. This view is shared by the courts and many liberal institutions (Storrs & Clott), though it is also understandable why students who earned strong grades and excelled in extracurricular activities feel disadvantaged when competing against applicants held to different academic standards under race-conscious policies.

The argument from White students may appear valid in isolation, but when the structural disadvantages facing minority students are considered — inadequate primary and secondary schools, lower-quality facilities, and less experienced teachers — it becomes evident that many minority applicants are not gaining an unfair advantage (Storrs & Clott). From the moment a student enters school, White students frequently benefit from better-resourced institutions, higher-quality instruction, and superior facilities. Beyond school quality, minority students are substantially more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and single-parent households. This last factor is significant because it affects the amount of time a parent can spend supporting a child's schoolwork, as well as the family's ability to attend school events and fund extracurricular activities (Pichette et al.). These dynamics affect underserved children regardless of race or ethnicity. American Indian children, for instance, also face absentee parents, financially stressed households, and underfunded schools. Hispanic students likewise have lower rates of college completion and are less likely to gain admission to top-tier institutions despite quota policies (Pichette et al.). Researchers continue to ask why these disparities persist and how they can be effectively addressed. Studies show that schools are more diverse than they were twenty years ago, but progress has been slow, and it remains more difficult for students of color to gain entrance to elite institutions (Lark).

Conclusion

Education and race have not yet become partners in eliminating the second-class status that many minorities continue to experience. It is necessary to demonstrate to people of color and other minorities that genuine possibilities exist for them before the deep-rooted inequities can truly be dismantled. Education remains a proven means of elevating individuals and communities from where they have been to where they can be. Through affirmative action programs — and models like the French educational priority zone experiment — some inequities have been reduced, but a great deal of work remains to be done. Only by addressing the structural, cultural, and individual dimensions of the problem simultaneously can meaningful and lasting progress be achieved.

Works Cited

Lark, Taj'Ullah Sky. "The Desegregation of Higher Education, Race Conscious Admissions Policies and the Federal Constitution: Before Brown vs. Board and Beyond." The Journal of Pan African Studies (Online) 5.5 (2012). Web.

Ledford, Danielle. "Is Race Neutrality a Fallacy? A Comparison of the U.S. and French Models of Affirmative Action in Higher Education." Texas International Law Journal 46.2 (2011): 355–388.

Lo, Celia C. "An Application of Social Conflict Theory to Arrestees' Use of Cocaine and Opiates." Journal of Drug Issues 33.1 (2003): 237–250. Print.

Pichette, Eugene F., Michael T. Garrett, John F. Kosciulek, and David A. Rosenthal. "Cultural Identification of American Indians and Its Impact on Rehabilitation Services." The Journal of Rehabilitation 65.3 (1999): 3–21. Print.

Storrs, Debbie, and Lynsie Clott. "A Qualitative Study of Honor Students' Learning Orientations: The Rare Liberal Scholar." College Student Journal 42.1 (2008): 57–63. Print.