Feigenblatt Trends and Debates in American Education

A Hispanic Perspective
1. Auflage 2023
ISBN: 978-84-19690-05-0
Verlag: Ediciones Octaedro
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 110 Seiten

The volume covers a range of topics related to American education from a Hispanic point of view. Legislative intervention in the teaching of social studies in Florida, critical race theory in education, strengths and weaknesses of the decentralized American education system, and the higher education of Hispanics in the United States, are some of the topics explored. The volume concludes with a critical interpretation of the shortage of teachers in the State of Florida at a time of great socioeconomic and political polarization in the United States of America, as a representative case of the central debates in education of the second decade of the twenty-first century.

Dr. Otto Federico von Feigenblatt holds a bachelor's degree in social sciences from Ritsumeikan University of Asia Pacific (Beppu, Japan), a Master's degree in International Development from Chulalongkorn University (Bangkok, Thailand), a Doctor of Philosophy in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from Nova Southeastern University, a Doctor of Education in Leadership in Education from Nova Southeastern University, and two postgraduate degrees in Social Justice and International Relations and a Master's degree in anthropology and archaeology from Harvard University (Boston, Massachusetts). Dr. von Feigenblatt has completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of San José, Costa Rica with a focus on management and leadership. Dr. Otto Federico von Feigenblatt is a corresponding academician of the prestigious Royal Academy of Economic and Financial Sciences of Spain, honorary academician of the Royal Academy of Doctors of Spain, and full member of the National Academy of History and Geography of Mexico. Britain's Brain Charity Trust chose him for the 2022 Brain of the Year Award for his contributions to the integration of mind maps in the field of education. He currently serves as Professor and Chair of the Graduate Education Department, Latin Division of Keiser University (Fort Lauderdale, Florida).

Autoren/Hrsg.

Feigenblatt, Otto Federico von

Leseproben

2

Critical Racial Theory in Education: Controversies and Alternatives

There are a wide variety of critical theories, all originally derived from Marxism (Lemert, 2004; Willis, 2007). Traditional critical theory focuses on the unparalleled existence in societies of the impact that some institutions have in perpetuating social injustice (Stuart Sim, 2005; Williams, 1997). One of the characteristics of critical theory is that it rejects objectivity and firmly adopts the point of view of those it considers to be victimized by unjust structures. In other words, critical theory does not pretend to be impartial but rather to highlight injustices in support of marginalized groups (Minow, 1997). Thus, the many versions of critical theory differ from most theoretical frameworks traditionally related to research in the social sciences. Critical theorist combines social activism with research and thus integrates an important ideological aspect into the research process (Chodorow, 1997).

The first chapter of this volume introduced some central debates in American education, and in particular the controversy over legislative intervention in education. In particular, the debate about alleged police abuse in the United States, and also about the role of the racial construct in education, has taken center stage in the country’s social polarization. Racial Critical Theory is not new, it is one of the great branches of critical theory, along with critical gender theory and a wide variety of critical cultural theories (Bartky, 1997; Beauvoir, 1997; Charlesworth, 1997; Chodorow, 1997; Gottlieb, 1997; Holmstrom, 1997; Jaggar, 1997; Lemert, 2004; Minow, 1997; Murphy & Dingwall, 2007; Stuart Sim, 2005; Williams, 1997; Willis, 2007). Historically, critical racial theory has existed mostly in academic settings in universities, particularly in departments of so-called African American studies, something very peculiar to the United States but with little significance outside very small circles of intellectuals and political activists. Considered a radical theory in the social sciences with race as a construct, and rejected in anthropology and cultural sociology, it has regained new vigor in the United States due to its perceived usefulness for social activists (von Feigenblatt, 2015).

Before we can explain the nature of critical racial theory it is important to expose the history of the concept of race and its rejection by most social scientists. Partly a product of the classifying impulse of the European Enlightenment, the racial construct attempted to classify humans into racial groups. Humanity was initially divided into Negros, Mongoloids, and Caucasians. All three groups are very broad and include a wide variety of ethnic groups with physical and cultural characteristics that transcend continents and civilizations (von Feigenblatt, 2015). All three categories were further simplified outside academia in the American colonial dichotomy that classified people as black or white. The dichotomy described above derives in part from the system of slavery imposed on the British colonies of North America (Gearhart, 2005).

Historically, the definition of the «black» race has evolved until its heyday of elaboration during the era of segregation in the South of the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century (Chetty, Hendren, Jones & Porter, 2018). According to this classification system, having even a minimum percentage of black «blood» automatically means that the person is considered «black». In this case, paradoxically, phenotypic aspects are ignored, and the genealogy of the person is emphasized. A person may have pale complexion and be considered black if one of their grandparents was considered black (Gearhart, 2005). There are several explanations for the development of this system of racial classification. One of the most widely accepted focuses on the white minority’s fear of losing control over a majority group (Hochschild, 1995). After the abolition of slavery, the white minority attempted to crystallize its dominance by maintaining a strict racial classification to limit access to public services and limit interaction within groups. The Jim Crow laws were based on the division of races, but only two existed from the legal and social point of view, particularly in the South of the United States (Hochschild, 1995; Hochschild & Powell, 2008).

The long and difficult struggle for civil rights initially focused on attacking the Jim Crow system and emphasizing the humanity of blacks to justify their inclusion in the social and political life of the country (von Feigenblatt, 2015). The goal of most civil rights groups was the erosion of the racial classification system. A central figure in the struggle for civil rights was Dr. Martin Luther King (von Feigenblatt, 2015). But it is also important to remember that other groups fought for an alternative view of the relationship between racial groups. Paradigmatic examples were Malcolm X and the terrorist group known as the Black Panthers. These groups accepted an alternative identity and internalized racial differences; a phenomenon known in Marxist theory as false consciousness, in this case from the point of view of racial identity. The difference is that the Black Panthers and to some extent also Malcolm X tried to forge an alternative identity to empower blacks but separated and in opposition to whites (von Feigenblatt, 2015). In the 60s of the twentieth century, Dr. Martin Luther King’s version emerged as the victorious vision, in part because of its message of nonviolence and its promotion of the social and economic integration of blacks in the United States.

However, the alternate versions represented by Malcolm X and the Black Panthers have never totally disappeared from the public sphere. They endured marginally in groups of radical intellectuals and social activists. The issue of police violence and the supposed racial content of racial prejudice in the United States has given new impetus to socio-political perspectives normally considered marginal. It is difficult to explain why these marginal perspectives have resurfaced at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, but some contextual factors can be highlighted. Donald Trump’s presidency was interpreted by some progressive groups as a direct attack on the consensus achieved during the decades after Martin Luther King’s famous speech in Washington DC (Abramowitz, 2018).

President Trump included elements of racial nationalism in some of his speeches and received support from groups known as «white nationalists» (Abramowitz, 2018). Groups that emphasize the Anglo-European history of the United States as a central aspect of the country’s development (Gillion, 2020). Trump’s surprising popularity also scared liberal groups in urban centers traditionally controlled by the Democratic Party. Most of the media, traditionally controlled by liberal groups, also reacted to the frontal attack of Trump and his conservative allies (Gillion, 2020). An important example of this phenomenon is the case of Project 1619 presented in the first chapter of this volume (Harris, 2020; Kaufman, 2019). The New York Times, CNN, and other prominent outlets moved in a more ideological and distinctly liberal direction in an effort to counter the Trumpist movement, mostly focused on social media and Fox. The sheer resources of the largest media corporations propelled marginalized groups to the center of the national debate on issues of race and values. Isolated cases of police abuse received front-page coverage, and hours of live television were devoted to issues of social and racial justice (Harris, 2020). Thus, the radicalization of the civil rights struggle is partly a reaction to Trump’s conservative populism.

For many radical academics focused on critical racial theory, it was a great opportunity to get out of the basement of the Ivory Tower and take advantage of the social and political situation to advance their careers. The case of Hannah-Jones is emblematic of this phenomenon (Harris, 2020). A New York Times journalist who spearheaded the 1619 project, reinterpreting U.S. history from an emphasis on the phenomenon of slavery, and who has a master’s degree in journalism, and a minimal number of scholarly publications, but a large following due to the publicity received thanks to the support of the media and the New York Times. Hannah-Jones applied to receive a position as a professor at the University of North Carolina, initially her application was denied, but due to great pressure from the media and her thousands of followers, the University was virtually forced to give the position of professor with continuous contract to a person without a doctorate and with a minimum number of academic publications. Something impossible for anyone else with a lack of academic credentials. It is important to note that the University of North Carolina is a public institution that receives funds from taxes paid to the state of North Carolina. In other words, every North Carolina resident is indirectly paying Professor Hannah-Jones’ high salary, a much higher salary than many other historians with doctorates.

Figures like Hannah-Jones receive constant media coverage on civil rights issues and in particular on aspects of education. Its visibility, combined with the perception of many parents that schools are being used to radicalize their children without asking their permission, has made racial critical theory a highly sensitive...