Civil rights leaders of the 1950s and ’60s envisioned all types of families—regardless of race, religion, or income—living out the American Dream and having equal opportunity to participate in American society. I realized how far we still had to go in realizing that vision last year when I witnessed the public backlash against a Cheerios TV commercial. The commercial, which featured an adorable mixed-raced daughter asking her white mother about the benefits of Cheerios for her black father’s heart condition, sparked outrage across the country from those objecting to interracial marriage.
Coming from an interracial family myself, I appreciated the commercial for its portrayal of diversity. It warmed my heart to see a family similar to mine on TV. This makes it all the more frustrating that racial integration still sparks so much anger.
In trying to extend the struggle over racial integration to my work in education policy and politics, the question I keep coming back to is whether—as some would assert—a racially diverse classroom is a necessary prerequisite for equalizing educational opportunity. As much as I see integration an essential goal of American society, I am not sure it is essential to education reform.
Desegregation was the top priority in education policy for civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s. Many public and private services, including public schools, were segregated by race. Blacks were offered inferior services in general, and especially in education, compared to their white peers. The solution proposed by civil rights leaders and the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education was to integrate schools.
It’s important to note that, through desegregation, the Brown v. Board decision sought to remedy both the “separate” and “unequal” nature of American schooling. The problem was not just that black students were receiving an inferior education; it was also the concern that children’s self-worth was diminished due to their second-class status in a racially segregated world.
The Supreme Court cited research by Kenneth and Mamie Clark in its decision. The Clarks, who were both psychologists, presented young children with a white doll and a black doll. Both white children and black children, even at early ages, said the white dolls were more intelligent and attractive. We continue to see similar traits of inferiority in the media today; dark skinned models are Photoshopped to be lighter and speaking proper English is still considered “white.” And, six decades after Brown v. Board, it would not be surprising to see similar results in a contemporary study as those presented by the Clarks.
However, the way we address the problem of racial inequality must reflect demographic changes in the U.S. over that time period. In a recent speech in Washington, D.C., longtime civil rights researcher Gary Orfield asserted, “our students are more segregated now then they were when Martin Luther King died.” He noted that, unfortunately, the remedies implemented pursuant to Brown v. Board, and many other civil rights cases, were never fully enforced and that school districts remain racially divided.
Orfield suggested that public charter schools and magnet schools are two possible means for overcoming inequities, but only if they are racially or socioeconomically heterogeneous. In this way of thinking, every school reform is made secondary to the goal of integration.
This is problematic for three reasons:
First, it is a recipe for policy paralysis. There are no longer laws separating people by the color of their skin. Today, there are economic factors rather than deliberately race-based laws keeping the racial divide wide. Desegregation in the 1960s and 1970s centered around busing children out of their own neighborhood schools so classrooms were less racially homogenous. These policies proved, in most places, to be both logistically and politically problematic. Addressing the underlying economic problems that drive geographic segregation is an even trickier, long-term proposition that may do little to ensure today’s kindergartners graduate high school and go on to college twelve years from now.
Second, Orfield’s conditions for school reform that would limit parents from choosing higher-quality public charter and magnet schools for their kids is based simply on a school’s racial makeup and could reinforce the same perceptions that the Clarks sought to change. Might they suggest that black kids cannot learn unless they attend school alongside whites? During the rollback of Seattle’s school desegregation policies in the 1990s, its black school superintendent John Stanford said, “I don’t have to sit next to someone of another color to learn.” Even at the height of the civil rights movement, there were key black leaders who shared this view.
Third, many current public charter and magnet schools in the U.S.—some of which may not educate a largely diverse student body due to the income level of those they serve—do provide the educational mobility necessary for parents to avail themselves of better educational opportunities for their children. Stanford’s CREDO study (2013), which showed mixed results for public charters in general, found that black students received significantly more days of learning each year in public charters than their virtual twins did in traditional public schools. Barring those public charters that are demographically homogeneous on that basis alone would actually exacerbate, rather than remediate, educational inequality. Further, those educational improvements could improve economic conditions for minorities in a way that addresses the modern-day underpinnings of segregated schools.
International comparisons tell a similar story. The recently released 2012 results for the Program for International Assessment (PISA) showed the U.S. ranking 26th in math, 21st in science, and 17th in reading compared to their international peers. Students in Shanghai-China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Korea scored the highest in all three subjects. All of these countries have mono-ethnic societies and do not need the presence or cultural knowledge from other ethnicities to test well.
Martin Luther King’s dream of children playing in harmony regardless of race is not dead. Even with the racist backlash from the multi-ethnic Cheerios commercial, many people loved the ad and it started honest and updated conversations about race. Polls, however, still show that a majority of young people see racism as a major problem in many areas of society, including education. But it seems unlikely that the approaches of yesterday’s civil rights movement can, in and of themselves, fix the racial inequities in education that we grapple with today. We need new leaders and innovative ideas based on evidence, rather than dogma, if we are to advance the mission.
Mina White joined DFER in 2013 after working with urban youth in St. Paul Minnesota at TRiO/Upward Bound; a federally funded college access program for limited-income and first-generation high school students. Recognizing a need for equity in education she plans to have a bigger impact for all students through education reform.