Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color Line (review)

Historians of technology have increasingly, if somewhat belatedly, turned their attention to the intersections of race and technology. With this book, Amy Slaton advances research on this important topic by examining critically the history of racial exclusion and minority advancement in engineering higher education. Today, African Americans are significantly underrepresented in engineering careers. Thirteen percent of United States citizens, but just over 5 percent of engineers, are black. Slaton probes the reasons for this persistent inequity through six historical case studies of engineering programs that grappled with this very issue. The case studies themselves are detailed and complex, yielding no simple explanations for the underrepresentation of African Americans. Slaton skillfully draws from these cases practical, timely suggestions for the reform of engineering professions. Therefore, not only historians of engineering, but also educators, university administrators, and social justice advocates will find much value in this book.

There have been varied attempts over the past several decades to increase minority participation in engineering, but Slaton asks, “Why have these efforts not made more of a difference? Furthermore, why have there not been more extensive attempts to bring minority citizens into [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] occupations?” (p. 2). Answering the latter question is especially challenging. Perhaps because of the nature of this task—“describing absences” (p. 205) or why things did not occur—the case studies lack the kind of pivotal moments that offer focus for a historical narrative. Instead, the major contribution of this book is its sensitive attention to the institutional and cultural contexts that affected how particular engineering schools approached the issue of racial diversity.

The analysis begins with the University of Maryland land-grant system from the 1930s to the mid-1950s, when it was under the direction of Harry Clifton Byrd, a staunch defender of racial segregation. Higher education in Maryland’s “separate but equal” university system trained blacks for rural and agricultural work, reserving engineering and other professions for whites alone. Lest we assume this was just a shameful feature of southern attitudes and racist leadership, Slaton demonstrates that even among those, such as at the U.S. Office of Education, who criticized the failings of black colleges to provide adequate educational opportunities, there was an assumption that African Americans were unprepared—in education, disposition, and morals—for scientific careers.

In subsequent case studies, such as the innovative efforts of the Illinois Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois at Chicago in the 1960s and 1970s, Slaton finds similar assumptions about the capabilities of African Americans—not in the personal beliefs of those leading the minority engineering programs, but embedded in the standards and professional expectations of the field. For example, when UIC widened the admissions criteria, offered remedial education, and focused on solving urban problems, faculty faced strong institutional pressures, such as national degree certification requirements and professional status expectations, to shift to more conventional—and more exclusionary—practices.

Finally, when Slaton turns to the Texas A&M system in the 1980s and 1990s, she discovers two fairly successful minority engineering programs, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and NASA, within a university system with prominent racial tensions. With these final case studies, Slaton grapples with the thorny debate over affirmative action and so-called “color blindness” as well as the ambiguous consequences of increasing minority participation in engineering programs that support conservative social interests.

Throughout the book, Slaton interrogates what counts as eligibility for participation in engineering programs. Historically, admissions standards that emphasized qualified—as opposed to qualifiable—students have systematically excluded those who have been denied the privileges of an excellent primary and secondary education. Furthermore, Slaton finds fault with efforts to superficially increase “diversity” without treating identity as a constructive element of engineering work, transforming curricular content, or changing reward systems. Slaton joins a growing number of engineering studies scholars who advocate not simply more diversity in engineering (as...