From Overt to Covert: Racism Still Rampant Within Our Nation

Just as parents of other races do, African American parents have tremendous faith in social institutions of spirituality, medicine and, education and they depend on these forces of socialization to influence and mold their children. Indeed, all parents hope beyond measure that knowledge obtained during the socialization process will assist children at improving the world with respect for human difference. At the same time, by grasping basic socialization principles, each child will be afforded the same fair and equal opportunities necessary in the development of viably capable citizens able to sustain competitive advantage in host of diverse and important forums of society.


Unfortunately, for a disproportionate amount of African American children enrolled within the nation’s public school system, a dangerous and diabolical ploy has become evident and caused such astronomical damage that it can no longer be used as the subtle tool of discrimination that is was originally intended. These children will be labeled mentally retarded (MR), mildly, mentally retarded (MMR), emotionally, mentally retarded (EMR), and emotionally disturbed (ED) or, the blanket diagnosis will be rendered: learning disabled (LD). As a result, the aforementioned group duly labeled, has become overrepresented in special education classes. Not only can this categorization system (labeling and separating) damage the group’s chances at enjoying the equal education opportunities that they deserve, it also demeans and humiliates the labeled child and further exacerbates existing conditions that may have been treated with little cost to the state or the family.
Such large numbers of African American youth labeled and separated supports former racists’ ideologies that the African American is intellectually inferior to other groups:

According to Chung, In 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson legitimated the doctrine of separate but equal, even though segregated education in the Jim crow period was by no means equal (Jackson & Weidman, 2006). In the late 19th century and early 20th century, attacks on Black communities during race riots included the burning of black schools (Harmer, 2001). Embedded within the policies and legislation produced by American leaders, lies the ever so subtle instruments’ of discrimination that are simply a continuation of historically overt practices which, having lost effectiveness, have obviously been meliorated, redesigned and are actively covert.

CHILDREN LABELED DISABELED BY DESIGN
These facts more than support the thesis that, African American children are being labeled and separated by design in an effort to further disenfranchise their race by a host of diabolical and well-thought-out methods. This is no unsupported allegation indicting American policies clearly using pedagogical institutions as well as other covert designs of oppression. For example, scholars Nancy A. Denton, and Douglass S. Massey (1993), In American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, provide compelling and indisputable proof of the creation the ghetto, suburbia further exacerbating an already-poverty-stricken 1930-1950’s African American population.

Such research reveals historically covert designs to socioeconomically cripple the African American race which is alarming when considering the disproportionate numbers of non-African Americans who negate the existence of active, institutionalized racism viewing as an archaic embarrassment of the past. Covert methods are now our leaders’ new artillery. Yet there is no greater threat or effective route than that of attacking African American offspring as a sort of “cut-off-at-the-root approach”: Early 20th century mental testing was grounded in the premise of American eugenics that races other than those of northern European stock were intellectually inferior, and that the purity of the superior races should be preserved by vigorously segregating the “feeble-minded” (Terman,1916) From Reconstruction until the 1950s, the dominate view of African American education was that it was intended not to educate for equal citizenship, but rather for the lower ranked positions that it was assumed African Americans would occupy (Rury, 2002) p. 265. Articles (1998) claim, minority students having historically been seen as different, although the reference points used to make the comparisons have rarely been articulated explicitly (Minow, 1990).

Conceptually, racism is based in fear. So great are these fears that even after Emancipation, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights eras the relentless attack of the African American continues and sadly, even the classroom is a battlefield. Heath (1995) stated that White culture represents the norm against which comparison are made in our society and that minority people have been traditionally defined for what they are not (i.e., non –White) rather than for what they are. More importantly, we must bear in mind that the long-held views of the dominant group in a society are seen as natural or universal (i.e., as the conventional conception of the world (Gramsci, 1971 p. 33). These facts are so alarming because they indicate that everything this country bases its’ premise upon is bogus and unauthentic.

Research by Jane Mercer (1973) galvanized attention to the overrepresentation of minority students in special education classes; however, “Jeremy (1982) was the first researcher to examine national disproportionate representation trends by using the data from the Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report from the Office for Civil Rights” (U.S. Dept of Ed., OCR, 1994, p.67).

As far back as 1965, Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigated African American students’ enrollment in special education classes and discovered that, “Over-representation in special education occurs when a group’s membership in the program is larger than the percentage of that group in the education system or within a given disability category (e.g., learning disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance . . . . Such population variance is rarely justifiable and is always cause for concern” (dcsign.org).

According to Hosp and Reschly (2003), in 1968, Lloyd Dunn published an article noting the overrepresentation of minority students and students from low-SES backgrounds in special day classes for mild mental retardation (MMR). In the article, Dunn stated that 60% - 80% of students in special day classes for MMR were from “low-status backgrounds” such as ethnic groups, nonstandard-English-speaking group and non-middle class environments (67).

With this social construct embedded in the educational school system throughout history minority children cannot and have not been afforded equal and appropriate education opportunities. The month of February is Black History Month during which many celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King one of our many Civil Rights leaders who battled segregation. Even though there have been some improvements within public schools: most notably, Brown vs. the Board of Education which overtly abolished the segregation of black children, it secretly continues through the special education categorization process. Although American children are taught about Dr. King’s struggles and accomplishments the very system that provides such a lesson is a contradiction of the very ideals examined through the lesson Dr. King’s fight for the equality of all people. Therefore, our children being victimized and Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall and a host of others who fought for educational equality are disregarded by the continuation of segregation in special education classes of African American children themselves: Patton (1998) points out, “those who create manufacture, and produce the knowledge base in Special Education historically have not included African Americans especially those directly affected by overrepresentation.” He argues further that, “there exists in special education a mismatch of chasm proportion between the social, political, and cultural backgrounds and experiences of its knowledge producers and those African American learners studied, placed and overrepresented in special education classes (p. 27).

Quite accurately, Harry and Klinger (2007) assert that, “the roots of this problem lie deep in U.S. history. Looking at how the mandate for school integration intertwined with special education. As is historically the case with the cultural American power structure, economics are always a motivator for criminal acts victimizing citizens while protected by the flag: Ferri and Connor (2006) analyzed public documents and newspaper articles dating from Brown v. Board of Education in 1952 to the inception of the education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. The authors show how African American students entering public schools through forced integration were subject to low expectations and intense efforts to keep them separate from the white mainstream. As the provision of services for students with disabilities became a legal mandate, clear patterns of overrepresentation of Mexican American and African students in special education programs emerged.”

The causes of overrepresentation the school system fails to admit, as discrimination of race is its promotion of overrepresentation of African American children into special education classes through embedded racism misusing general education testing and labeling. Thompson (2003) stated that, “some researchers have even argued that the institutional racism that is embedded in American public school system is set up to perpetuate class difference as that predispose certain racial/ethnic groups to remain at a lower socioeconomic status” (p. 10) Racism has no place in the educational school system. “In a nationally televised address on June 6, 1963, President John F. Kennedy urged the nation to take action toward guaranteeing equal treatment of every American regardless of race. Soon after, Kennedy proposed that Congress consider civil rights legislation that would address voting rights, public accommodations, school desegregation, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs and more”. This statement needs to be re-televised and broadcasted on loudspeaker in educational establishments to school administrators across the nation: Through the 1980 and 1990s’ federal policy treated the existence of disproportionately as evidence of potential discrimination. Through the U.S. office for Civil Rights (OCR), the ethnic representation of students in special education at the state and local educational level has been monitored every two years. Where overrepresentation exists, OCR has required many systems to implement corrective plans to reduce that disproportionatality (p. 4)

It is uncommon knowledge that minority children continue to deal with covert race issues. On paper it is documented that “racial and ethnic minorities are protected from discrimination. Coutinho, and Oswald (2000) reports, “The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1974, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 bar discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities”( p. 140) Furthermore the American Disability Act (ADA) is protection against discrimination for these minority children:

According to Blanchett, Brantlinger and Shealey (2005) “rarely has U.S society, or even those in the field of special education acknowledged that the intersection of race, class, gender, and disability is an issue that needs to be addressed. Shealey, et al. illustrates that access to a quality education continues to be a problem for African Americans. History shows that racism and gender discrimination have prevailed (p. 67)
Also, mainstream education can be viewed as one of the producing factors in the overrepresentation of the minority student in special education. Once the child misbehaves the mainstream education has the power of referral. Teachers are allowed to use special education as a weaning tool removing those perceived as the “trouble” children from the mainstream education classes. A gifted and bright child may experience difficulty sitting for long periods is a primary candidate for special education; a white child with the exact discomfiture as the black child’s would be given far more consideration and most certainly viewed as a free-spirited future leader. According to Connor and Ferri (2005) the “Office of Civil Rights, Parrish (2002) concludes that White students are generally “only placed in more restrictive self-contained classes when they need intensive services. Students of color, however may be more likely to be placed in the restrictive settings whether they require intensive services or not” (p 26 & 459)

Minority children when tested are being labeled as learning disabled, emotionally disturbed and mentally retarded. A diagnosis that can damage their chances at having the kind of education they deserve in a number of ways. Patton (1998) notes that there appears to be enough theoretical and statistical evidence suggesting that intelligence tests are biased and harmful to African American learners (Gould, 1981: Hilliard, 1991; Jones 1988; Patton 1992. Furthermore, the deleterious effect of standardized intelligence testing is exacerbated by the fact that most of these tests are used for classification purposes rather than diagnostic or prescriptive reason.

Harry & Klinger stated that, individuals classified in these categories seldom display characteristics that can be verified as pathological through any system of objective analysis. There are seldom any clear biological characteristics that can be specified and measured. Although we view these features as pathological, the interpretation is essentially based on societal norms for development and learning, not on measurable facts (p 3).

Also,
Connor and Ferri (2005) stated that, “recent studies show how the label of disability triggers disparate outcomes for white students and students of color. For White students, special education eligibility is more likely to guarantee access to extra support services, maintenance in general education classrooms, and accommodation for high-status examinations (Parrish, 2002). For students of color, however, being labeled as disabled can result in decreased access to general education and poorer transition outcomes (Oswald, Coutinho, & Best, 2002; Parrish, 200; Fierros, & Conroy, 2002; Osher, Woodruff, & Sims, 2002; Artiles et al. 2002, p 458).

Abraham, Lang and Moore (1980) stated that, “IQ means scored applicable to the interpretation of intelligence obtained from the formal IQ =mental age over chronological age x 100. The IQ test is the evaluative instrument designed to measure human capacity for learning and adaption” (p. 63): Can learning be measured? Learning after all, is a progressive happening and it can be influx different area. Examiners need not focus solely upon academics. People can learn and develop different kinds of skills supporting the old cliché that,” practice makes perfect.” Teach children a skill that they can practice and they will eventually become accomplished in it.

Historically the first effective test of intellectual ability was devised in the early 1900s by French psychologist Alfred Binet. Scheeenberger (1983) reiterated the statement in Les l dee’s Modernes Sur Les Enfants, published in 1909 wherein he spoke out strongly against the “brutal pessimism” of persons who believed that intelligence was a fixed quantity that could not be increased” (p .143) It should also be noted that Binet developer of the instrument of intelligence did not give a definition. However, he observed that:

Now if one considers that intelligence is not a single, indivisible function with a particular essence of its own but that it is formed by the combination of all the minor functions of discrimination, observation, and retention, all of which have been proved to be plastic and subject to increase, it will seem incontestable that the same law governs the ensemble and its elements, and that consequently the intelligence of anyone is susceptible of development. With practice, enthusiasm, and especially with method one can succeed in increasing one’s attention, memory, and judgment, and in becoming literally more intelligent than before; and this progress will go on until one reaches one’s limit. And …. What is important in order to act intelligently is not so much the force of the faculties as the manner of using them; that is to say, as the art of intelligence, which is necessarily capable of being refined by practice (p.143)

However, according to Gallagher (2008) “that view of course, changed decisively when the IQ test fell into the hands of the legatees of Galtonian eugenictists in England and the United States (Lewontin et al., 1984). This could have been anticipated, since it was Galton and his protégés who actually invented the normal curve and statistical methods still used in standardized testing (p. 68) Children in these judgmental categories can easily pigeon holed by teachers, psychologists and, examiners because since they hold no visible disabilities. The two primary devises then, are the teachers’ referrals and bias assessments. There are two categories of special education: judgmental and nonjudgmental. As Fernandez and O’Connor noted:

Nonjudgmental categories define disabilities whose diagnoses require limited inference on the part of professionals. These categories capture children who are deaf and blind and who suffer from orthopedic impairments, severe mental retardation, or other pronounced cognitive or physiological statuses that have garnered the attention of medical professionals, who have usually linked the disability to an identifiable organic cause (NRC, 2002). Judgmental categories capture subtle disabilities for which there is usually no known organic cause and for which diagnosis rests on the “art” of professional judgment. These categories include children who are mildly mentally retarded (MMR), emotionally disturbed (ED), or learning disabled (LD). Although children in the nonjudgmental categories usually start school with a disability determination, children “who are referred to the judgmental categories….rarely come to school with a disability determination (p. 6)

Examiners, psychologists, school administrators just happen to see a classification that can work for them in implemented racism and stigma in a covert way to place African American children in special education classes. To reiterate an aforementioned but vital factor to the thesis that overrepresentation and misplacement of African American children in special education classes is a historical covert ploy to continue and exacerbate the disenfranchisement of Blacks and supports the racial premise that Blacks are intellectually inferior to their white counterparts. Therefore to support this detraction of the intelligence of Blacks, African American children are given culturally biased assessments of IQ testing and classifications.

Harry & Klinger (2006) points out labeling theorists (Becker, 1969, Bogdan & Knoll, 1988; Goffman, 1963) have long pointed out that when an official designation becomes “reified,” it is interpreted as a definition of the person, and it overshadows, even excludes, the numerous other traits, abilities, and nuances of the individual. The classification or labels become, as Goffman (1963)) said, the “master status” by which the individual is defined” (p13).

Parents and children are ignorant concerning the history of these labels so liberally used against them. Changing the terminology of these labels does not change the social stigma that in history had breed Eugenics. Gallenger (2008) notes that, “to the modern ear, the term ”eugenics” has a rather eerie, somewhat antiquated ring; yet, the taken-for-granted belief that genetics accounts for differences in intellectual ability, personal dispositions, and so on, remains culturally ubiquitous” (p.70) Coutinho and Oswald (2000) declare:

The case of Larry P. v. Riles (1972/1979/1984/1986) in California is probably the best known case involving disproportionate representation. In the Larry P. decision, the existence of over representation, and an over reliance on ability tests that were not sufficiently validated for use among minority students, were important issues. The outcomes of this lengthy, complex trial were to declare the disproportionate representation of African American students in programs for students with mild mental retardation discriminatory, to ban the use of IQ tests with African American students, and to order the elimination of over representation of African American students in EBR programs (MacMillan & Balow, 1991: Reschly, 1988b; Reschly, Kicklighter, & Mckee 1988b. p. 141)

According to Connor and Ferri (2005) “it is clear that special education, despite being designed to meet the needs of diverse groups of learners, has nonetheless been used to both create and perpetuate the marginalization of individuals base on the interconnected discourses of race and ability” (p. 461).

By keeping minorities in special education, children are likely to have their labels changed from learning disabled to Emotional disturbed. Intelligence tests are not the reason for placing minorities in special education and as it has been historically, minority males are often targeted. It is the evaluation process. Evaluating African American children is one way for teachers, psychologists, social workers to gather information, resulting in a tremendous impact on evaluation. However, the focus is no longer about the children, shifting to the children’s family circumstances and culture. The socioeconomic statuses of families often play a major role in some teachers’ attitudes towards minority children.

Coutinho and Oswald (2004) stated that, “through the 1990s, federal policy treated the existence of disproportionality as evidence of potential discrimination. Through the U. S. Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the ethnic representation of students in special education at the state and local educational level has been monitored every two years. Where overrepresentation exists, OCR has required many systems to implement corrective plans to reduce disproportionality (p .4).

There are a number of researchers for traditional special education to be re conceptualized, and redesigned (Andrews et al., 2000):

Re-conceptualists believe that, given fundamental problems with the general education system special education is often ineffective, wasteful, and for some students, damaging. The conceptualist position incorporates a focus on racism, on systems, on researchers as change agents and on the need to redefine moral and ethical behavior. Furthermore if special education is to fulfill its promise of enhancing individual lives, it first must address the racism and cultural stigmas that devalue differences (pp 259-260).

Minority children are no different from children of other groups. It should be noted that school is a place where children spend a large portion of their lives undergoing socialization and education that will be a vehicle in the defining of an individual child’s place within society. Therefore, school should be an environment that fosters safety and affords opportunities. School should encourage experimentation and interaction with as many elements available and capable to stimulate the inquisitiveness of an apparatus forever influx that is the mind. School should not be an institution of racial discrimination and as such, an environment where children of color are, in relatively large numbers, transmogrified into with no hope of a good future and who may commit crimes to go to prison because they will be leaving high school with very low self-esteem. Cultural differences should be incorporated, explored and celebrated within the educational process of a child and not used against her to pigeonhole her and set her up for failure, which is one of the reasons why increased monitoring of special education should be a priority in this country. The special education system should not be allowed to segregate a child, to hinder her psychologically. Such a child may attempt to identify with or fit into the profile created by the label and corresponding placement into “special ed.” For children, special ed indicates that something is different from the others (mainstream); something is wrong and, thus the need for separation or, as the child may perceive it, punishment. Consequently, labeling a child who does not understand the label or the reason for it creates additional and unnecessary crisis’s within the educational system and further exacerbates whatever preexisting issues of the child’s prior to the illegitimate profile created for her by a corrupt system originally designed to nurture and cultivate. 

These victimized children are members of the future generation and to pollute their educational process is to populate society with manufactured defective, socially and psychologically inept, unproductive members hurting society’s chances at survival. Minorities must be educated fairly and are entitled to appropriate and equal education. It is, therefore, inappropriate to inaccurately label and, thereby, misplace any individual of any group into categories that are inherently detrimental to the well-being of that individual.

Society must hold teachers accountable for authentic, professional, realistic and honest pedagogical methods that meet the educational needs of our youth. When recommendations for special education are rendered, it should require an extensive observation record involving as many parents, teachers of varying grade-levels and principals tracking the psychology, behavior and, academic progress of the recommended child. More importantly, there should exist documented and detailed proof that all services and resources available to the student have been applied for and obtained. Every attempt should be made with the child’s future in mind and thus, all avenues relevant to pedagogical success exhausted.

Finally, special education courses as they exist today must also be modified from the holding pen-type forums headed by over paid babysitters disguised as Special Education Teaching professionals. The wasting state funding, taxpayers’ monies and children’s futures are criminal and should be treated as such. This right away is telling society and parents the mindset of special education. No longer should state officials’ exempt special education from the scrutiny it has earned itself. Sadly, this institution has indeed forged its place along side other blasphemous and despicable civil-facades such as the FBI’s infamous COINTELPRO, The Urban Renewal Project and many designs geared toward the annihilation of a race great enough to initiate dangers of this magnitude.