On January 8, 2002, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind act, a broad new educational policy intended to enhance the quality and inclusiveness of American public education. Having made such a sweeping commitment to America’s youth, it is puzzling that, in the same breath, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act would also endorse a grossly exclusionary model of racial and ethnic diversity. According to No Child Left Behind guidelines, students enrolling in public schools must identify with one of the following racial categories: White (Not Hispanic); Black (Not Hispanic); Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and, Hispanic.2
Given the Bush Administration’s rhetorical commitment to the wellbeing of every American school child, one must ask: What about the kids who don’t fit into one of the exclusive NCLB racial categories? To begin with, the racial categories are illogical; some focus on broad geographic territories3, while others emphasize skin color and/or ethnicity. As such, ‘fitting in’ to one of the NCLB racial categories entails a tedious exercise in cultural irrationality, i.e., racial identities in America are often, but not always, defined by skin color, nationality, ethnicity, and/or geography. Furthermore, the NCLB racial typology fails to acknowledge the existence of racially mixed children. For example, children who have Black and Hispanic (or Asian, or Native American, or Samoan, or White, etc.) parents do not and cannot fit into one of the available NCLB racial categories. As currently spelled out, NCLB racial categories assert unequivocally that in order to ‘fit in’ children need to derive from one (and only one!) distinct racial category. This, by the way, is a contention that summarily invalidates the identity of millions of Americans. By default, those children who do not fit neatly into one of the available NCLB racial categories are prevented from being accepted ‘as is’ by the education system. Given this unequivocal bias, can the Bush Administration still claim convincingly that NCLB is leaving none of our children behind?
Of course, one might argue that the Bush Administration meant no harm in establishing such a narrow-minded set of NCLB racial designations. That is, racial designations are never perfect, and those specified by the No Child Left Behind act might represent nothing more than an effort to acquire basic, funding-related demographic data. However, given our nation’s long history of racial ignorance and animosity, I maintain that the NCLB’s exclusionary racial categories evidence a much broader pattern of uniquely American prejudice. Boasting a rich tradition of racial injustice, the US government has demonstrated once again the often-distant relationship between democratic ideals and America’s workaday political practices.
From its inception, democracy in the United States has been associated with struggles to uplift the downtrodden. However, our egalitarian principles—‘all men are created equal’ (Declaration of Independence)—have not always produced justice for one and all. For example, in the process of establishing a workable polity, some groups benefited handsomely from America’s democratic philosophy, while ‘others’ did not.
Article. I. Section. 2. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Constitution of the United States)
The text of the Constitution plainly asserts that, while first-class citizens might enjoy justice and equality under the law, those privileges would not extend to unworthy ‘others’.
In a polity propounding the notion that ‘all men are created equal’ such duplicity is difficult to fathom. If all human beings are created equal, then shouldn’t we all receive equal treatment under the law? However, the key to resolving this irrational duality lies in performing a small feat of terminological acrobatics. That is, one can substantially demystify the eccentricities of US-style democracy by reading the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ with an emphasis on the second term rather than the first, i.e., ‘all MEN are created equal.’ Quite simply, political reality in the United States has always been based on a qualified, rather than universal, interpretation of democratic ideals (Baraka, 2002; Berlin, 2003; Churchill, 1997, 2003; Collins, 1991; Diamond, 1997; Flexner and Fitzpatrick, 1996; Frazier, 2001; hooks, 1992, 1994).
Furthermore, in a context wherein democratic principles are interpreted to imply that all MEN are equal, one can also impute the corollary: all ‘non-men’ are presumed inferior. Throughout North American history many sinister rationales have been concocted to demonstrate the inferiority of ‘others’ (Churchill, 2003; Collins, 1991; Gould, 1996; Herrnstein and Murray, 1994). In turn, such ‘logical’ reasoning has conveniently justified a smorgasbord of racist atrocities (Baraka, 2002; Berlin, 2003; Churchill, 1997; Diamond, 1997; Dray, 2002; Du Bois, 1997; Flexner and Fitzpatrick, 1996; Frazier, 2001).
Thus, despite our democracy’s overriding commitment to human rights, the Constitution denigrated and marginalized enormous numbers of ‘others’ because, having been characterized as inferiors, they were deemed unworthy of democratic privileges. After all, democracy was for real men, not ‘others’, such as people of color, women, non-Christians, homosexuals, the propertyless, etc. Indeed, because membership in the early days of our democracy was so severely restricted, a relatively small clique accrued gigantic benefits at the expense of the vast majority—and, in spite of centuries of social change, legacies of those foundational inequalities endure to this very day (Armas, 2003; Baraka, 2002; Barrett, 1999; Chomsky, 1996; Churchill, 1997, 2003; Collins, 1991; Diamond, 1997; hooks, 1992, 1994; Marcus, 2002; McGettigan, 2003; Parenti, 2002; Weiss, 1999; Wolf, 1991; Zweigenhaft and Domhoff, 1998).
Consequently, I believe it is of the utmost importance to challenge the limited racial designations endorsed by the No Child Left Behind act. The US has a long history of embracing universals in principle, while simultaneously enacting profoundly discriminatory social practices. All too often, the worst forms of racist malevolence foment freely in a context wherein groups of ill-defined ‘others’ are forced to hover outside the bounds of officially endorsed citizenship. Therefore, if the No Child Left Behind Act is going to live up to its promise, then it must stop ‘othering’ children immediately.4
Race is an exceptionally broad and complex phenomenon in the United States; all the more so because we purport to be an open, multi-cultural melting pot. By artificially constraining the range of NCLB racial classifications, we initiate the same type of ‘othering’ process that has justified far too much racist violence in American history. A more enlightened democracy can and must do better, especially in our schools! Multi-racial children must be provided the opportunity to enroll and be accepted ‘as is’ by the educational system. Anything less would be a gross injustice—particularly coming from a policy that alleges to leave no children behind.
Please join me in demanding that policy-makers bring an end to the days of destructive racial ignorance in America. Let’s insist that, from now on, democratically ‘inclusive’ social policies must be designed to achieve equality in practice. If you are unhappy with the No Child Left Behind act, then I encourage you to contact the policy-makers who can fix it:
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Political Representative:
I am troubled by the narrow and exclusive racial designations endorsed by the No Child Left Behind act. Surely, a broadly inclusive educational policy should, by definition, endeavor to avoid every taint of discriminatory bias. Therefore, I encourage you to take immediate steps to modify the archaic and prejudiced racial categories authorized by the No Child Left Behind act. As long as multi-racial children are unable to represent their identities fully and fairly, the American public education system will continue to leave many children behind. Please endeavor to rectify this gross oversight by fighting for a ‘multi-racial’ demographic category on all school enrollment forms.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Constituent
Armas, Genaro C., 2003. ‘Census: Few Women at High Salary Levels.’ Associated Press, Monday, March 24, 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20360-2003Mar24.html
Baraka, Amiri, 2001. ‘Somebody Blew Up America.’ http://www.amiribaraka.com/blew.html
Barrett, Paul M., 1999. The Good Black: A True Story of Race in America. New York: Dutton.
Berlin, Ira, 2003. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Chomsky, Noam, 1996. World Orders Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press.
Churchill, Ward, 1997. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Churchill, Ward, 2003. Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Angloamerican Law. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Collins, Patricia Hill, 1991. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Constitution of the United States, 1789. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html
Declaration of Independence, 1776. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html
Diamond, Jared, 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Dray, Philip, 2002. At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America. New York: Random House.
Du Bois, W. E. B., 1997. The Souls of Black Folk. Las Vegas, NV: Classic Americana.
Flexner, Eleanor, and Ellen Fitzpatrick. 1996. Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States. Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Frazier, Wade, 2001. ‘Columbus: The Original American Hero.’ Globalization 1:1. http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v1.1/wadefrazier.html
Gould, Stephen Jay, 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Hooks, Bell, 1992. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, MA.: South End Press.
Hooks, Bell, 1994. Outlaw Culture. Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge.
Marcus, Eric, 2002. Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights. New York: Perennial.
McGettigan, Timothy, 2003. ‘The Big Fib: Democratic Ideals in an Unprincipled World.’ Published in Dialogue and Universalism, Volume XIII, Number 5/2003.
Parenti, Michael, 2002. Democracy for the Few. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Weiss, Ann E., 1999. The Glass Ceiling: A Look at Women in the Workforce. Brookfield, Conn.: Twenty-First Century Books.
Wolf, Naomi, 1991. The Beauty Myth. London: Vintage/Ebury.
Zweigenhaft Richard L., and G. William Domhoff, 1998. Diversity in the Power Elite: Have Women and Minorities Reached the Top? New Haven: Yale University Press.
1. Please direct all correspondence to Timothy McGettigan, Department of Sociology, Colorado State University - Pueblo, 2200 Bonforte Blvd., Pueblo, C0 81001-4901.
2. These categories have been endorsed by the No Child Left Behind act despite a mandate from the Office of Management and Budget requiring agencies throughout the federal government, as of January 1, 2003, to incorporate multi-racial options in all forms calling for racial identification. Nevertheless, following NCLB's lead, public schools across the nation still integrate archaic racial designations on their enrollment forms, such as those in the State of Colorado as of September, 2003, e.g., American Indian or Native Alaskan; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black (Not Hispanic); Hispanic (Not White); White (Not Hispanic).
3. For example, the regions associated with 'Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander' encompass anywhere between 30-50% of the entire earth's surface, and within these territories reside vast populations who derive from enormously varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. Thus, equating 'Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander' with 'Black (Not Hispanic)' is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
4.This could be accomplished quite simply through the addition of an umbrella 'multi-racial' category in conjunction with the option of selecting more than one racial affiliation. Thus, a 'multi-racial' umbrella category would obviate the nightmarish proliferation of endless racial sub-categories, while it would also elevate multi-racial kids from the status of unclassifiable 'others' to that of legitimate, full-fledged 'members.'
© Radical Pedagogy