The decentralization of race: tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy

Abstract

This article examines California’s Student Equity Policy crafted by policymakers to “avoid an underclass of ethnic minorities” in higher education. We combine tenets from critical race theory, interest convergence, and color-evasiveness to qualitatively interrogate 17 policy documents including chaptered bills, legislative mandates, and implementation guidelines related to the reform effort. We highlight how revisions to the reform deliberately inoculated a race-conscious policy into an effort targeting all students. Over the policy’s 25-year history, we found that policymakers continuously diluted the role of race and opportunities to address racial disparities in legislative mandates. Implications for this research emphasize the significant role of policymakers in crafting legislation that explicitly draws attention to inequities faced by racially minoritized students in higher education. It considers practitioners’ ability to implement these policies in ways that can improve racial equity. We conclude by sharing recommendations for scholars seeking critical approaches to understand how racially minoritized students benefit, or not, from equity initiatives crafted by policymakers.

Keywords:

• Higher education policy
• critical analysis
• discourse
• race

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

Notes

1 The term “minoritized” is used instead of “minority” or “students of color” throughout this paper to signify that persons are not born into a minority status, but are subordinated and rendered into minority positions by US social institutions (See Gillborn, 2006 or Harper, 2012).

2 The Chancellor’s Office provided three methods to calculate and identify disproportionate impact in the planning process. They are the “80% Rule,” “Proportionality Index,” and the “Percentage Point Gap;” each method having different groups as comparisons (i.e., within-group, student average, highest-performing group) as well as thresholds for determining actionable inequities (See Noldon, 2015 for more information).

3 Before 1984, California Community Colleges were free of any enrollment fees.

4 California Voter Information Guide for 1996, http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/1139

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eric R. Felix

Eric R. Felix is the proud son of Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants. I am the product and beneficiary of public education from kindergarten to graduate school. I now serve as an Assistant Professor at San Diego State University in the Department of Administration, Rehabilitation, and Postsecondary Education.

Adrián Trinidad

Adrián Trinidad is a Ph.D. candidate and research assistant at the Center for Urban Education and the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. His research explores transfer pathways for racially minoritized community college students, policy implementation, and organizational change in higher education.