Educated in Whiteness: Good Intentions and Diversity in Schools

4 “It Isn’t Even Questioned”: Equality as Foundational to Schooling and Whiteness

C H A P T E R F O U R “It Isn’t Even Questioned” Equality as Foundational to Schooling and Whiteness In the conversation on race, there is the danger that we merely reproduce a liberal ideology of racial containment . . . What we don’t need is the crass and deceitful politics of toleration that masks the sources of real power, that conceals the roots of real inequality, that ignores the voices of the most hurt, and that is indifferent to the faces of the most fractured. —MICHAEL E. DYSON IN CHENNAULT, “GIVING WHITENESS A BLACK EYE” As has been alluded to in previous chapters, most teachers, principals, and other educational leaders share a steadfast belief in meritocracy—that is, that the worth and success of an individual is based solely on the merits of his or her work. Meritocracy assumes that a level playing field exists in society and its institutions and that everyone has access to the same opportunities to get ahead in this world. Meritocracy’s foundation is rooted in notions of the individual, competition, and neutrality. Indeed, our entire system of schooling is based on the notion of meritocracy. Grading, gradelevel advancement, standardized forms of assessment, and admission to selective schools all rest on the assumption of meritocracy, and meritocracy cannot be divorced from the concept of equality. Equality must exist for meritocracy to function; otherwise, we cannot be sure that rewards are really being earned as a result of effort and achievement. Equality and meritocracy are foundational ideologies for diversityrelated policies and practices. They are also central to the “politics of toleration” that engages niceness and sustains inequity. This chapter explores how equality, as a mechanism of whiteness, operates in the 108 “ I T I S N’T E V EN Q U EST I O N ED” diversity-related efforts at both Birch and Spruce Secondary Schools. Although educators at the two schools subscribe to different understandings of equality, both ultimately result in the reification of whiteness. So What Is Equality? Equality is a long-standing and largely unquestioned American value, but equality is not the simple or obvious concept that it is often assumed to be by those who casually accept it. Critical race theorists draw our attention to the difference between restrictive formal equality and expansive substantive equality. Whereas restrictive formal equality is based on the sameness of a rule or policy, expansive substantive equality looks to the results or outcomes of rules and policies. Another way to think about this is to consider the difference between inputs and outputs in a given situation . In her analysis of antidiscrimination law, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1988) explains the distinction between a restrictive and expansive view of equality : “The expansive view stresses equality as a result and looks to real consequences for African Americans. . . . The restrictive view, which exists side by side with this expansive view, treats equality as a process, drowning the significance of actual outcomes. The primary objective of antidiscrimination law, according to this view, is to prevent future wrongdoing rather than to redress present manifestations of past injustice. ‘Wrongdoing,’ moreover, is seen primarily as isolated actions against individuals rather than as societal policy against an entire group” (Delgado and Stefancic 2001, 38). Restrictive formal equality focuses on sameness in treatment between and among individuals and groups who share similar characteristics . As Crenshaw highlights, restrictive formal equality assumes that equality previously existed, so the move is back to the starting point (i.e., an assumed equality), rather than to correct a previously existing inequality . Ideally, restrictive formal equality would produce overall equality, but this is impossible because it rests on the faulty assumption of an equal starting point. Expansive substantive equality recognizes that cases are very rarely alike because of the historical and persistent differences in social conditions between and among various groups. Thus expansive substantive equality stresses results and outcomes that are fair or just— qualities that are not always easy to determine or agree on. Restrictive formal equality is the equality typically meant in popular discourse and policy, but critical race theorists have critiqued the standard of restrictive formal equality on a number of grounds. These critiques include that its focus on sameness is limited because of the persistent and pervasive social construction of race, class, and gender; that although it “ I T I S N’T E V EN Q U EST I O N ED...