Learn the cost of college remediation.

Less than a quarter of community college students who take remedial courses go on to complete college-level courses. At four-year colleges, just over a third of students assigned to remediation continue to take college-level courses. The majority of students assigned to remediation at two-year colleges or universities will not graduate within three years or six years, respectively (Complete College America). Students who take remedial courses pay just as much for these courses as students who begin with college-level courses and are often left with student loan debt for coursework that did not lead to a degree.

Good morning and happy Tuesday! Today we're diving into the racial disparities in higher-level education, particularly, the barriers that college remediation courses can create for underestimated students. Nia joins us today to dive deeper.

ps – Thank you for your support! This daily, free, independent newsletter is made possible by your support. If you can, consider making a donation to support our team. You can start a monthly subscription on Patreon or our website, or give one-time using our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Donate to the Center for American Progress to support research on fixing inequality in education.
Support equitable funding for all public schools.
Advocate for fixes to remediation and public school inequality in your community.

GET EDUCATED

By Nia Norris (she/her)

College enrollment rates have nearly doubled since the 1960s, and people of color now attend college at a significantly higher rate (Education Data). Upon entering college, students often take an exam to assess their readiness. If they perform poorly, their school will recommend they take remedial classes to help them catch up before beginning college-level courses (Brookings).

Suppose high schools are not preparing students for a college education. In that case, it could be helpful for colleges to offer students an opportunity to begin their college career with a refresher course. But it is estimated that these courses cost students $1.3 billion every year, even though they do not count towards their degrees (American Progress).

Almost 68% of Black students who attend community college are assigned to remediation, as are 40% of Black students at universities (Complete College America). Black students are also overrepresented among those who fail remediation in college and ultimately do not complete their education (NCBI). There is also evidence suggesting that many students are assigned to remedial coursework they do not need (Brookings). Since education is strongly tied to lifetime earnings (SSA), it is essential to ensure that students who are seeking higher education are able to complete the ultimate goal of gaining a degree.

There are two potential solutions. The first is to improve primary and secondary education. In a previous newsletter, we discussed the effects of racialized tracking, the phenomenon of sorting minority students out of gifted and talented programs (ARD). Providing supplemental instruction to high school students who would need remediation upon entering college is another solution that has been implemented in Washington State. This eliminates the need for remediation altogether (Inside Higher Ed). Classes should be built into curriculums and allow students to gain credits while they complete them (Complete College America). And multiple modes of assessment should be used to assign students to remediation, ensuring students aren’t placed there unnecessarily (Brookings).

Part of the reason remediation is necessary for so many students of color is because of wildly different levels of resources given to different public schools. Because schools are funded by local property taxes, wealthier areas get well-resourced, better-performing schools. If education dollars were distributed fairly across school districts, schools in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods could offer more equitable education to their students (The Atlantic). Remediation courses are a bandage that educational institutions apply to a deeply inequitable system.

While we work to make primary and secondary schools more equitable educational institutions, we must enact strategies that eliminate the necessity of remediation or find a way to make it count so that it is not an additional burden to students who are pursuing an education. Applying strategies to integrate remediation into the curriculum and to ensure that we are not placing students in remedial courses who do not need them is the first step to providing an equitable college education which provides a pathway to graduation.

Key Takeaways

A large number of students being placed in remedial courses to make up for what they did not learn in high school.
These courses cost students over a billion dollars annually and do not count towards college credit.
Black students are placed in remedial courses at a disproportionately high rate compared to white students.
Schools should receive equal amounts of resources. Remediation should be eliminated and replaced with a more equitable practice.

3/30/2021 | Support the mental health of students of color.

12/14/2020 | Understand racialized tracking.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Nicole Cardoza 11/8/20 Nicole Cardoza 11/8/20

Rethink what a professor looks like.

When we talk about issues of diversity in higher education, we usually are referring to the student population. While it is important to work on increasing MFGLI (minority, first-generation, and low-income) student representation on college campuses, I’d like to focus on a problem commonly overlooked outside of the academy: the lack of diversity in those who research and teach at the university level.

Happy Sunday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. As we've discussed, much of what defines dominant culture is taught to us. This sounds meta, but we're also taught who's supposed to teach us by the racial and ethnic composition of teachers. Today, Ida joins us to express the importance of diverse faculty at the university level.

This is the Anti-Racism Daily, where we send one email each day to dismantle white supremacy. You can support our work by giving one time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also give monthly or annually on Patreon. If this email was forwarded to you, you could subscribe at antiracismdaily.com.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Read articles and studies written by or featuring faculty of color, not just on issues of race but across topics and disciplines.
Support and/or donate to organizations like the Ford Fellows Fund and the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship, whose mission is to diversify academia through mentorship and professional development programs.
Read Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History in order to understand how the act of “making history” can reinforce structural inequality.

GET EDUCATED

By Ida Yalzadeh (she/her)

Although the U.S. Census shows that people of color account for over a third of the United States’ population, a 2017 survey reports that only 18.9% of full-time faculty in higher education identify as people of color (National Center for Education Statistics). Even worse, the number of faculty of color in the United States has not grown over the past decade (Inside Higher Ed). And this is a problem.

A lack of racial diversity in the professoriate means that the popular image of what a professor looks like remains predominantly white (and usually male). The consequences of this assumption are wide and varied. For students of color, this lack of representation in the academy means that they may not see themselves reflected in who teaches them. As a result, students of color may not feel like they belong in academic environments, leading to retention issues and perpetuating uneven enrollment (Forbes).

For faculty of color themselves, though, this underlying assumption of what a professor looks like speaks to how these individuals must face daily microaggressions and even direct, institutional harassment. Twitter hashtags like #blackintheIvory and academic threads

have exposed these issues. Faculty of color—particularly women of color faculty members—have been mistaken for cleaning staff, a spouse of a student, or a student. (As a woman of color who is a faculty member myself, I have commonly had people mistake me for a student or otherwise be in disbelief that I am, in fact, a professor.) One professor started a Twitter thread shared microaggressions he had received, including: “You speak so well—were you adopted?” and “I see you struggle with certain words that start with specific letters—I know that is a common problem for your people.”

Faculty of color also experience surveillance and harassment on campus. A few months ago, a Black professor at Santa Clara University described how campus security racially profiled her brother and followed him back to her home. Afterward, security required the professor to show her campus ID to prove she lived in her own house (HuffPost).

Moreover, many faculty of color must contend with institutions and disciplines that call their credentials and accomplishments into question. In 2019, Dan-el Padilla Peralta, a professor of Classics at Princeton University, was speaking on a Society for Classical Studies conference panel when he was told by a white female independent scholar that the only reason he got his job was because he was Black, an accusation that reeks of tokenism (Inside Higher Ed). That she felt comfortable enough to make these remarks in public speaks to the reality of the academy as an overwhelmingly white institution. In 2015, only 10.5% of all Humanities doctoral degrees were awarded to people from underrepresented backgrounds, and the percentage for Classics doctoral degree holders is even less: 3.9% (American Academy of Arts and Sciences). While many at the conference denounced such racist remarks, her view highlights the entitlement endemic in these historically white spaces.

In response to this incident, Peralta commented on this pervasiveness: “White fragility disrupting the practice of grounded and data-backed critical scholarship: what a surprise… This wasn’t the first and won’t be the last time I receive the ‘you got X because you’re Black’ treatment; and if I had a dollar for every scholar of color with the same experience, I’d hum Cardi B’s ‘Money’ all the way to a safe deposit box” (Medium).

But what is most troubling for Peralta—and for many other scholars of color—is what these institutions and disciplines are missing. They don’t realize that it is precisely because of a diverse faculty of scholars and teachers that new paths can be forged in research. As Peralta put it, “I should have been hired because I was Black… because my Black being-in-the-world makes it possible for me to ask new and different questions within the field, to inhabit new and different approaches to answering them” (Medium).

Through their research, a more diverse professoriate can ask a more diverse set of questions—questions that are critical of using whiteness and capitalism as the norm by which all other subjects and ideas are measured. In the United States, the history of knowledge production has established a Euro- & Western-centric point of view (Journal of Black Studies, Equity & Excellence in Education). While disciplines like sociology and public health have historically touted their commitment to “objectivity,” the particular standards by which issues such as the family unit and disease were measured assumed whiteness as the ideal (Seeing Race Again).

Although legitimate ways of knowing are produced outside of the Ivory Tower, it is still important to increase the number of faculty of color at institutions of higher education. It is high time that we expand our understanding of what a professor looks like. A more diverse faculty is another step towards further exploration of issues that are important to communities of color and their liberation. It is another step toward building a more equitable future.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

A 2017 survey reports that only 18.9% of full-time faculty in higher education identify as people of color (National Center for Education Statistics)
A lack of racial diversity in the professoriate means that the image of what a “professor” looks like remains predominantly white & male.
Through their research, a more diverse professoriate can ask a more diverse set of questions—questions that are critical of using whiteness and capitalism as the norm by which all other subjects and ideas are measured.

6/11/2020 | Support Black-owned businesses.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20

Support affirmative action in schools.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Happy Thursday! As promised, here's an overview of affirmative action, particularly how it's unfolding in higher education right now. This was a conversation requested after last week's newsletter on tokenizing people of color. I hope it encourages us to look at key issues with a nuanced lens and hold conflicting truths. In this case, we can acknowledge the flaws of affirmative action programs while working to improve it.

How has affirmative action impacted you? Respond to this email with your stories. And get your questions ready for Saturday, where we dive deeper on the key topics from this week with community insights and feedback.

Thank you all for pitching in to make this possible! You can make a one-time or monthly contribution on our website, PayPal, Venmo (@nicoleacardoza) or subscribe monthly on Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Follow conversations on affirmative action and how they impact your alma mater and/or schools in your community.
Ensure affirmative action initiatives at your company or organization are equitable for all marginalized groups.

If you're based in CA:
Vote to repeal Proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment from 1996 that banned any consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions at the University of California, the California State University and other public entities.

GET EDUCATED

By Jami Nakamura Lin

Last week, the U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process (NYTimes). The case argues that Asian American and white applicants have 10–25% of the chance of being admitted as African Americans with similar applications, and accuses Yale of “unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs” (Washington Post). Harvard won in a similar case last year, but the case was appealed with support of the Trump administration in early 2020 (Inside Higher Ed). Both Ivy League schools “categorically denies” these claims, each asserting their commitment to fair and equitable acceptance policies (Washington Post). Regardless, the challenges against both universities, in the midst of conversations of race and equity, have placed the strengths and peril of affirmative action in the spotlight.

The idea behind affirmative action is simple: create rules and regulations that require organizations to proactively pursue equitable practices re: hiring, acceptance rates, etc. This means excluding race, ethnicity, and gender from the selection process and choosing the best candidate, regardless of identity. But it also means including race, ethnicity, and gender in the selection process to ensure a diverse and equitable community. This creates a paradox – how do we equitably prevent racial discrimination without reinforcing it at the same time? This matches public perception; a Gallup poll shows that most Americans both support affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and oppose hiring decisions that take racial backgrounds into consideration (Gallup).

Before we dive into the nuances, let’s explore why affirmative action is relevant to education. In America, communities of color have had significantly less educational opportunities than their white peers, based on a wide range of factors that perpetuate systemic oppression. From inequitable public school funding to redlining, the school-to-prison pipeline to lack of representation in staff and administration, students of color face challenges for equitable educational opportunities (Brookings for a quick overview, and visit our archives for newsletters related to education). Because of these factors, it’s no surprise that 65 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, students are increasingly attending racially segregated schools (Vox).

Besides, access to quality higher education in the U.S. has been reserved for the wealthy and privileged, made evident by the college-admissions cheating and bribery scandal that made news last year – right around the same time as the Harvard case (The Atlantic). Even without fraud, these families have more opportunities to secure a spot for their children at prestigious universities (examples at The Atlantic). Affirmative action at universities is designed to weigh these systemic disparities against applications for marginalized groups, create a more equal playing field, and create more accountability for inclusivity. Studies show that marginalized communities that have benefited from affirmative action are more likely to graduate college, earn professional degrees, and have higher incomes than peers who haven’t, which fosters necessary social mobility for disadvantaged populations (Harvard).

Critics against affirmative action in schools argue that it takes away spaces from white students that deserve the spaces as much, or more so, than marginalized groups. Ironically, the group of people that have benefited most from affirmative action has historically been white women. When affirmative action was institutionalized in 1961 by President Kennedy, it focused on “race” and “color,” a direct response to the growing civil rights movement of the era (Vox). The term is designed to encourage companies and institutions to “do something,” and was coined by an African-American lawyer named Hobart Taylor, Jr. (New Yorker). Pressure from the Women’s Movement in the late 1960s encouraged President Johnson to amend the order to include gender. After two decades of affirmative action in the private sector, the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) (Vox). Despite this, most white women are in opposition to affirmative action, and most cases brought against affirmative action initiatives are led by white women (Vox).

But the particular case against Yale was initiated by an Asian American advocacy group, which raises another critical lens to the issue. Affirmative action is intended to support people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, there are concerns about how Asian Americans are treated based on the “model minority myth,” a stereotype suggesting that all Asian Americans are smart, hard-working, and likely to be successful (Wiley). Thus, schools may cap the number of Asian American recipients to make way for other marginalized groups. This is called “racial balancing,” and harms everyone, including Asian Americans. It reinforces the stereotype and treats Asian Americans as a homogenous group (American Progress). Data shows that college attendance rates vary drastically among Asian ethnicities, so it’s crucial to hold affirmative action programs accountable for how they can fuel these disparities (American Progress). When it comes to the Yale case, 20% of Yale’s undergraduates are of Asian descent, 14% are Hispanic or Latino, 8% are Black, and 7% are multiracial (Washington Post).

Affirmative action can also fall flat if students aren't adequately seen, heard, and supported once they arrive on campus. Students can find themselves propped up as tokens for colleges and universities to look more diverse than they really are (Anti-Racism Daily). And students at colleges across the country have taken to social media to share sobering accounts of racism and discrimination they've faced from teachers, administration, and peers (Vox). If we don't find a more equitable way to implement affirmative action practices and policies, we can continue to uphold the same systems of oppression within higher education.

Some people have argued shifting affirmative action from looking at race towards analyzing class, which would support economically disadvantaged individuals across race and gender divides (The Atlantic). Others suggest that we need to shift the outcomes away from this “quota” mentality to “outcomes” for systemically marginalized groups: less diversity, more reparations (The Atlantic). Whatever the case, it’s clear we need a more equitable solution. Part of that needs to be investing in solving the systemic inequities that have created this issue.

But another necessary component of this work is protecting the right to implement affirmative action policies altogether. The Trump administration rescinded Obama-era guidance documents encouraging affirmative action at colleges and universities back in 2018, which signaled potential lawsuits to come (NPR). The decisions at Yale and Harvard could signal more comprehensive efforts to dismantle affirmative action as a whole. Like many responses to social injustice, affirmative action is not perfect. But the concept can’t be discarded based on its application – we need to do better, and continue to advocate for equitable opportunities for all.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process
Affirmative action has been proven to increase opportunities for marginalized communities, but also contribute to the "model minority myth" and view Asian Americans as a homogeneous group
Dismantling affirmative action can reduce collective accountability for inclusivity for marginlized communities