Why tackling racial issues on an individual basis isn't particularly effective

[sarahmichigan]

In some of my BARW posts and other race discussions in the last week or two, I've seen people talk about how you can't change society as a whole or how companies are just made up of individuals, so focusing on indivuals is all you can do (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, it's true that companies and societies are made up of individuals, but I *don't* think it's true that all one can do is influence individuals to be aware of racial inequalities and making sure hiring and other policies are fair.

If you have an established Old White Guy Network at a company, even if every individual is committed to social justice and remedying racial inequalities, it's going to take active work on the company level to get to a place where racial minorities make up more than a tiny percentage of the workforce there. There are a myriad of confounding factors, including the fact that many racial minorities come from poorly funded schools and so, as a group, may not have the same educational background that a similar-sized group of white potential hires could have.

But, there is another issue: people tend to hire people like them. This is just simple human pscyhology, and it extends past race. Studies have shown that people who have the hiring power often hire people very much like them in temperment (laid back vs. go-getter, quick decision makers vs. ponderers, and so on). Even if you're committed to racial equality, if you're not hyper-aware of this tendency, you're not going to make that effort to seek out a diverse workforce.

I think that social movements like school busing and Affirmative Action are trying, in their ham-handed ways, to try to break the cycle and make an entry point for racial minorities (and women). I'm not saying I think they've been effective, just that I think the intentions were good and that the problem that was identified was a real one.

Really, I think at least part of the solution to racial inequality in the work force, government, housing, and so on, goes back to changing the way we fund public schools at the elementary and high school levels. As it stands, rich (predominantly white) neighborhoods have better schools and more up-to-date books and poorer (predominantly minority) schools have crowded classrooms and 20-year-old books. Until we find away to spread that around a little more equally, I think Affirmative Action and similar programs are never going to be able to make a significant dent in this problem.

Comments

[sylo-tode.livejournal.com]

It's nice to know I'm not the only one that edits entries.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I read an response in my email and notice only at that point that I've been really unclear or have made a typo or spelling error. Sometimes I re-edit four or five times before I'm satisfied.

[riffalike.livejournal.com]

"Until we find away to spread that around a little more equally"

Fewer people will vote up local millages that do not fund local schools. There's a larger and more complex problem in funding education here.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I was an education reporter for several years, so I'm clear on what the problems are, I just didn't want to go into a great deal of detail here.

It's not just funding millages; Prop A was supposed to make things more even in terms of funding for public schools, but it didn't really do so. There are problems with allocation of state and federal funds for education, head count procedures, and so, so much more.

[riffalike.livejournal.com]

So there are (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/propa_3172_7.pdf) at least when you measure it in dollars.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

I agree with your last point. I talked about this just recently with someone, and the idea we came up with was to base federal and/or state funding for schools on something like property values. It's not ideal, but I can't think of anything else that will give a fair idea of the regional average wages. I don't think that's in census data. In any case, however that regional value is computed/gathered, an algorithm would then take into account cost-of-living index for the area, and compute what the average taxpayer IN THAT AREA could afford in terms of millages. "That area" probably being defined as school district. Then, across the state or national level a baseline level is computed and funds preferentially go toward raising those below that baseline to the baseline. That way, districts get the assistance they need, not some flat amount or something based on test scores. And, they only get what they need to raise funding to that baseline; if the taxpayers aren't paying what the computed value says they can be, that's their choice and local millages can take care of that. Federal funding (and state) would thus be based on need, NOT what's actually being paid or the like.

It's a start. I think that public education is one of the most important things in the country since it sets a standard for colleges, and thus for technological innovation. We're falling behind, and atrocities like "No Child Left Behind" aren't helping.

One thing that'll make passing measures like this easier is if the relevant government body would STOP PUTTING RIDERS ON EVERYTHING. I'd be much more prone to vote for something like the above if it did NOT also have some extraneous clauses about school slush funds, testing requirements, and uniforms. Leave things like that for separate votes. This tendency to clump things together makes it a lot harder to pass anything, since one big showstopper clause ruins the good parts of a bill.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

base federal and/or state funding for schools on something like property values
That's actually closer to how schools were funde pre-Proposition A and funding discrepancies were even WORSE back then. Now, post Prop A, all schools get a guaranteed minimum per head and then local taxes and such are added on top of that, so there are still discrepancies between poor and rich school districts. However, I think the head-count and other pieces of the formula are still flawed (not that I have any concrete ideas for fixing this).

[laughlovelive.livejournal.com]

As a teacher, especially as a teacher of minority children, I just wanted to comment on your last paragraph.

First, part of me wholeheartedly agrees with you. Money is a big part of the problem, and NCLB only makes it worse, by further rewarding schools that are "working" and punishing schools that are "not working". The schools that are given a pass are generally filled with white kids who have educated and privileged parents who can give their kids a solid educational background before they even start school, and have the resources to give their children tutors or enrichment classes or other things to help them succeed. Ones that are failing, such as the ones I've always worked at, in general are filled with minority children, whose parents are often under educated, work twice as many hours as the other kid's parents, and do not have the resources to give their children extra help should they need it. If the money was spread out more evenly, and the poorer students given the same textbooks, a newer school that they are proud to go to, where they have room to breathe and aren't crammed in at twice capacity, library books they actually want to read and not ones their grandparents found boring, and a million other things, I think we'd see some improvement.

However, and I may be blasted for saying this but I've spent the last 10 years teaching poor and mostly minority children, and this is what I believe: Any progress we may see by having more evenly spread aroun financial support for education would be limited until the African-American and Latino communities as a whole begin to value education, and especially higher education. In the Bronx I taught mostly Black children, with about 30% Latino kids mixed in. Here in New Brunswick, it's the opposite ratio. The attitude, not as much from the children as their parents, is that what we do in school is useless, and that going to college is impossible and pointless anyway. And that is more of an issue from where us teachers stand. Books and new schools only go so far. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can give a kid a new book, but you can't make him read it. But that is a deeper and harder to solve issue. I know I have no clue what to do about it, but it is something that is not talked about because no one wants to sound racist by suggesting Black and Latino parents don't care about their kids education. Which isn't really what I'm saying, but I'm sure that's how it comes across. Instead, we focus on the easier to solve (but still no one is doing it) financial solution. Throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it. It will help, sure, and should be done, but it's not the core of the problem, and Robin Hooding won't end the cycle of poverty.

This may not be as eloquent or as well organized as I'd hope for, but it's late and I'm tired. I hope it makes sense. (You may or may not agree with the point but I hope you at least get what my point is.)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to blast you. :)

I think what you're talking about is one of those "confounding factors" I mentioned. I definitely don't feel that money is the sole or even main solution to anything, but more equitable funding is certainly a piece of the puzzle, I think.