Over the last several years, critical race theory (CRT) in education has developed as a challenge to mainstream educational policies and practices. To move forward from theory to educational praxis, CRT adherents in education have applied the tools of CRT in new and creative ways within the field of education. The tools of CRT are called concepts. Concepts are components used to build theory. Recall the metaphor of a picture and frame we used to explain the assumptions of CRT. Assumptions frame a picture that CRT practitioners all agree include relevant details. A concept provides practitioners with a sharper focus. A practitioner examining racial inequality might focus on a particular set of details to better define the picture. CRT concepts capture the bundle of details that highlight a particular aspect of the picture we call racial inequality.
To better understand racial inequality, CRT has a tradition of interrogating or questioning the ideologies, narratives, institutions, and structures of society through a critical conceptual lens. CRT educators have borrowed from this tradition to focus their lens on racial inequality in education.
The Myth of Meritocracy: Critiquing Underlying Concepts
CRT educators have relied on CRT concepts to critique the notion of a meritocratic society as it pertains to schooling. Meritocracy assumes a level playing field where all individuals in society have an equal opportunity to succeed. Meritocracy also assumes that oneâs work ethic, values, drive, and individual attributes such as aptitude and intelligence, determine success or failure. In a society where education is considered the great equalizer, the myth of meritocracy has more than just ideological connotations. If natural ability and hard work (i.e., merit) are the keys for success, then those who fail to achieve, it is believed, have only themselves, their families, or at best, a random fateful turn of luck to blame. Thus, despite the existing inequalities in society, it is believed that universal education in a free society provides every child with the equal opportunity to achieve his or her potential.
This celebration of an existing contradiction (the belief in the possibility of equality within a vastly unequal society) permeates the American psyche. In fact, the notion of meritocracy is a master narrative that guides our understanding about society in general. As Delgado points out, master narratives represent
Failure to critically challenge the lens with which we see the world makes the myth of meritocracy predominant in our understanding of the workings of social institutions.
CRT practitioners interrogate and contest the concept of meritocracy and reveal it as a myth that not only fails to provide equal opportunity but also contributes to racial inequality. By focusing on an individualâs efforts and talents, attention is diverted away from analyzing the thousands of decisions schools make that help some students succeed and push others toward failure. Critical race theorists in education scrutinize the narrative of meritocracy that provides justification and legitimacy to the ways schools are currently structured (i.e., the existing institutional arrangements) where students of color consistently fall to the bottom of the educational hierarchy.
The meritocracy narrative can be considered a foundational societal myth. Like the notion of an American Dream where anyone with the wherewithal to chase his/her desires in the land of opportunity can make it, meritocracy conjures up a society where individuals rise and fall solely on their merit. Created in opposition to British colonial rule, the American notion of opportunity, equality, and merit promised a society where anyone could rise above his/her station in life. However, this notion central to an identity of an emerging nation only applied to white, property-owning men. From the very beginning, then, equality has been celebrated within a broader context of concrete inequality.
Consider the Jim Crow (1880sâ1950s) era when laws were explicitly being made to assure racial oppression. The Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1898), established a âseparate but equalâ standard that embraced the principle of equality. In this landmark ruling, racial segregation was deemed constitutional and consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment as long as separate facilities were equal. In the Plessy case, the facilities in question were passenger cars, but the ruling resulted in almost 60 more years of school segregation. Under these arrangements, those with merit were to rise beyond their station in life even though that process was to take place in a separate but equal world.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the separate but equal doctrine half a century after Plessy, noting that segregation was intended to maintain the dominance of whites. The opinion in that case used equality as the guiding principle to rule that separate was not equal. While American society embraced the myth of meritocracy even in the pre-civil rights era when discrimination was encoded in our laws, the myth took on a new vigor after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when discrimination in all public places was supposed to be officially banned.
In light of the victory of equality over discriminatory practices, the myth of meritocracy was rescued from the turbulence of a Civil Rights Movement determined to expose its contradictions. But did we really save this founding principle? The dominant voices in society answer in the affirmative. They point to the vast opportunities available to all regardless of class, creed, or color especially in a post-civil rights America. In their view, merit is indeed the primary vehicle to succeed in an egalitarian society. Most recently, the election of Barack Obama to the presidency has become the myth of meritocracyâs most concrete manifestation.
In the 21st century where state-sanctioned discrimination is relegated to the history books and dealt with during black, Latino, or Native American history months, the myth of meritocracy shines all the brighter. Indeed, society has come a long way from the days when white Americans turned pressure hoses on black protestors, or forced Indian children into boarding schools, or made it policy to limit the education of Latino children to primary school; just enough education to âkeep the Mexican on his knees in an onion patchâ (Takaki 1998, p. 156).
Today, most Americans abhor the blatant acts of racism that permeate so much of our history. The ordinary citizen grimaces at the conditions in schools in East St. Louis or San Antonio or New York as exposed by Jonathon Kozolâs (1991) Savage Inequalities. Some citizens even demand that more be done. In fact, more has been done and some gains have been made. But more than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, African American, Native American, and Latino students continue to lag educationally behind their white counterparts on just about every measure of school achievement: from higher suspension rates, grade retention rates, and special education placements to lower scores on standardized tests, gift ed program placements, and graduation rates. Rather than questioning the validity of the principle of meritocracy in a structurally unequal society, traditional educational approaches focus on the individual student (and his or her race and its value system) to explain these failures.
The chapters in Part I of this volume challenge the notion of meritocracy as it takes on new life in the post-civil rights era. In doing so, CRT turns our attention back to the role of racialized structures of inequality to better understand not only the weaknesses and contradictions of abstract notions of equality, but their concrete impact on students of color. CRT both critiques existing concepts and provides alternative lenses for understanding racial inequality. Thus, the following chapters in Part I introduce the major CRT conceptual critiques and advance CRT specific concepts to deconstruct the notion of schools as meritocratic institutions. The first two chapters critique the concepts of âliberalismâ and âcolor-blindness.â The third chapter develops the CRT concepts of âwhiteness as property,â âinterest convergence,â and, âintersectionality.â
Collectively, these chapters provide the intellectual framework for a CRT analysis on the various ways in which schools reproduce and legitimate inequality. This new framework in education also guides the movement in education directed at restructuring schools to more effectively address the needs of students of color.