Reviews: Inequalities
585
Amanda E Lewis and John B Diamond, Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in
Good Schools, Oxford University Press: New York, 2015; 235 pp.: IBSN 9780195342727, US$27.95
(pbk)
Reviewed by Samantha Piña Saghera, City University of New York, USA
Keywords
Inequality, race, sociology of education
It has been over 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme
Court decision that declared that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal and
unconstitutional in the United States. As such, many schools across the country have
become increasingly diverse, and yet, in many of them, racial inequality remains. Even
within schools that are resource-rich, in affluent and diverse neighborhoods, an achievement gap continues to plague black and Latina/o students. Lewis and Diamond explored
this paradox over the course of five years at Riverview High School, located in a large
Midwestern American city. Through analysis of a combination of fieldwork, participant
observation, the use of survey data, and interviews with students, teachers, staff, and
parents, Lewis and Diamond argue that the history of racism in the United States continues to permeate society and has contributed to the distinction between intended school
practices and actual school practices, which results in a racial achievement gap.
Lewis and Diamond begin with an assessment of extant literature that examines racial
inequality in schools. Schools, as the authors aptly note, are not independent institutions,
but rather an extension of society. As such, schools are imbued with the belief systems of
society, whether or not their intention is to combat social ills. Although legislation is now
in place to prevent and penalize racial discrimination, the form and presentation of present-day racism has merely changed. A more ‘subtle and implicit’ form of racism has
replaced the more overt racism of the past (p. 8). This subtle racism is no less consequential in America’s schools, and in some ways more dangerous in the sense that it is more
evasive and therefore more difficult to challenge. In the school setting, the authors point
to the ways in which ‘contemporary racial patterns are supported by structural inequalities, institutional practices, and racial ideologies that mutually reinforce each other but
appear to be largely “nonracial” ’ (p. 8). Thus, although schools are explicitly meant to
function on the basis of meritocracy, the current racial climate in society that denies racism while at the same time supporting it, precludes this possibility.
In Chapter 2, Lewis and Diamond examine how their data stand up to the oppositional
culture hypothesis. This hypothesis is about the racial achievement gap, pointing to the
social price that black students are thought to pay for academic achievement – a ‘burden of
acting white’ (p. 17). Rather than being viewed as success by their peers, academic achievement is thought to ‘entail disloyalty to blackness’ (p. 17). However, Lewis and Diamond’s
data analysis not only dismantles this hypothesis, but also reverses it. When controlling for
socioeconomic status, black students at Riverview High School not only have higher aspirations, but also experience more support from their friends than white students.
Although students and their parents view education and Riverview High School as a
tool to challenge discrimination, the everyday processes within the school serve to
Downloaded from iss.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on September 9, 2016
586
International Sociology Reviews 31(5)
maintain it. Lewis and Diamond identify three key areas in which black and Latina/o
students at Riverview experience racial discrimination: discipline, tracking, and parental
opportunity hoarding. These discriminatory patterns take place in an environment that is
not overtly racist, but rather a site where teachers and staff express a desire to remedy
existing racial achievement gaps.
With respect to discipline, school ‘rules are meant to be applied uniformly to all students.’
However, Riverview staff and teachers’ use of discretion often results in racialized disciplinary processes (p. 76). There are two stages at which race intersects with discipline: ‘differential selection’ and ‘differential processing.’ In the school’s classrooms and hallways, black
and Latina/o students are more likely to be referred for disciplinary intervention, and then
once in the disciplinary system, the outcomes of such intervention vary on the basis of race.
Parental involvement in disciplinary hearings plays a role in ‘differential processing,’ in that
school staff members act on the greater presence of white parental advocacy. Some examples
of advocacy efforts made by white parents include negotiating less severe penalties and
renaming offenses so as not to impede the college application process. But staff members also
act on the assumption of white parental advocacy. That is, school staff members preemptively
assume that white students’ parents will be more involved, and make racialized decisions
based upon these assumptions. In this sense, white parents need not even be involved for
white students to experience the benefits of white parental involvement.
Tracking at Riverview High School also evidences racially discriminatory patterns.
Although white students make up the overwhelming majority of Advance Placement (AP)
and Honors classes, black and Latina/o students make up the majority of regular classes.
There are several factors at play in this tracking process, including differential expectations of students on the part of school staff, and the perceived involvement of white parents. With respect to expectations, students and parents experienced or observed lowered
expectations for black and Latina/o students. These lowered expectations resulted both in
racialized track placement, as well as differential treatment within higher tracks on the
basis of race. Black and Latina/o students in higher tracks reported difficulty in obtaining
and maintaining AP and Honors course recommendations from teachers, as well as gaining teacher and peer support once placed in these courses. Perceived white parental
involvement again plays a role, in that the assumption of white parental advocacy provides a smoother path to desired educational outcomes. In contrast, black and Latina/o
parents experience heightened resistance to gaining student access to higher track courses.
Lastly, Lewis and Diamond examine the role that white parents play in maintaining
the racially unequal status quo at Riverview High School. As noted above, white parents
are perceived as being more likely to intervene and advocate for their children. This,
combined with a district policy that allows parents to make the final decision in course
placements, has contributed to racialized tracking at Riverview. White parents, despite
often professing to value diversity, act in ways that contradict the tenets of diversity. For
instance, white parents play an active role in maintaining the racialized tracking system
at Riverview, as their children maintain academic advantages from it – a process the
authors term ‘opportunity hoarding.’ At the same time, most white parents shy away
from talk of race in the context of differential academic outcomes, but rather blame ‘differences in income level, family cultural values, and different investments in education’
(p. 148). Although wanting the best for one’s children seems natural, the problem is that
Downloaded from iss.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on September 9, 2016
Reviews: Inequalities
587
advantages for white students inherently result in disadvantages for students of color, a
problem reflective of the more insidious form of racism in today’s society.
Lewis and Diamond conclude by offering possible policy-based methods for combating the effects of color-blind racism in schools. The first is to de-track schools, through
providing high quality and challenging courses to all students. The second is to overhaul
the disciplinary process, so as to prevent the criminalization of nonwhite students and to
promote the best educational setting for all students. The authors add that the discourse,
too, must shift to bring conversations about race to the surface, so as to ‘encourage us to
examine how the structures within which we operate developed and evolved and, in
doing so, force us to reframe how we understand them today’ (p. 174).
Lewis and Diamond effectively expose the everyday processes that allow racial inequality to flourish in diverse, well-resourced, and well-meaning schools, ultimately arguing that the history of racism in the United States continues to have consequences in the
present-day educational system. What makes the authors’ argument particularly convincing is the decision to allow student, parent, teacher, and staff voices to play a prominent
role in the text. The rich accounts provided within allow the reader to learn first-hand
how schools perpetuate the racism it is meant to combat, and illustrate just how destructive color-blind racism can be. Despite the best intentions, racial discrimination continues to pervade America’s schools. Lewis and Diamond challenge readers to acknowledge
and actively combat everyday racism and consider how to create a more equitable and
just public education system in the United States.
Author biography
Samantha Piña Saghera is a doctoral candidate in sociology at The Graduate Center, City University
of New York. Address: Department of Sociology, The Graduate Center at CUNY, 365 Fifth
Avenue, Room 6112.04, New York, NY 10016, USA. Email: [email protected]
Andrew Sayer, Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, Policy Press: Bristol, 2015; 448 pp.: ISBN
9781447320869, £9.99 (pbk)
Reviewed by Davide Arcidiacono, Catholic University of Milan, Italy
Keywords
Capitalism, finance capital, inequality, political economy
Since the crisis started in 2008, a ‘mantra’ is constantly repeated in public discourse: can
we afford the cost of our welfare? Can we afford the cost of new immigrants or unemployed people? Are they a burden that becomes an obstacle to everyone’s happiness?
Andrew Sayer tries a simple ‘twist,’ and proposes a reverse question: can we afford the
rich? Can we bear the costs of unequal wealth in which the top 1% takes an increasing
share of the national wealth? How can this situation be sustained for future generations?
The thesis of the book reinforces the debate on the failure of capitalism and the effect
of neoliberal policies in the last 40 years, in the wake of other recent best-selling books
Downloaded from iss.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on September 9, 2016