Getting Paid To Learn: Is it Enough?

CNN’s special report on being Black in America raised a host of issues, but the one that stood out to me most is education. The achievement gap is not a new problem. Black children continue to under-perform and we continue to be unsure how to remedy the situation. The special raised the question of whether students should receive monetary incentives for good grades. A Harvard economist, Roland Fryer, has instituted a program in New York City which pays students for test scores. Other cities, such as Baltimore and Atlanta, are following suit. The data aren’t in as to whether this approach works in the long-run, but short-term results suggest that the incentives are motivating students.

It’s important, though, to critically examine the variables at play and the methodology that would be needed to deem this approach a success. Those who support this perspective, say that money is an easy way to motivate students to perform in the short-term so that they can be better positioned for the long-run. However, some students are making the decision to work hard and study without these incentives. The difference is intrinsic motivation- the desire to engage in a behavior in the absence of obvious external reinforcers. An example would be the student who studies for studying’s sake. Adding money as an incentive for studying introduces an external reinforcer- rather than an internal reason to study, an individual now also has an external motivator. Some research suggests that when you reward someone for behavior that intrinsically motivating, it can decrease the motivation to continue the behavior. So, if we apply this finding, we could spoil the intrinsic motivation that some students have for learning by offering the monetary reward.

However, we can’t be too quick to bash these programs. My hunch is that it works for certain students. The incentive programs have been mostly aimed at low-income youth and inner city schools. A number of students attending these schools have a host of factors influencing their lives which complicate the idyllic “your job is school” mentality. For example, these students have to possibly contend with financial stress, neighborhood violence, and schools lacking physical and human resources just to name a few stressors. On average a student in a middle-class or upper-middle class family have fewer of these extraneous variables to tackle in addition to focusing on their schoolwork. Perhaps for those students whose lives are already full of demands beyond their years, a basic monetary reward is enough to re-focus their attention towards school. We’ll have to wait until the results start to roll in to know for sure. We’ll know more if we have data from students who were and were not a part of the program from 1) inner-city, resource-poor schools 2) suburban, resource-rich schools, and 3) students from a variety of sociodemographic backgrounds. With that information was can compare results and have a greater understanding of who these incentives work for and for whom they do not.

That last point reminds us that closing the achievement gap is not going to happen with one approach. These interventions are not one-size-fits-all. We have to understand that while we develop programs to students achieve, we also have a responsibility to provide them with educated teachers, safe environments and current resources. Those are the missing variables. Say we find that the monetary incentives work. We can pay kids to study but that does not change the fact that some are learning in dilapidated buildings out of old books with no computer in sight. There are institutional changes that would help support individual students in their pursuit of education. I recall a story of a young girl from Appalachia who graduated at the top of her class and dreamed of being a doctor. Yet, when she entered college, she was years behind her peers in math and science. Whether she earned money for her grades through her early education or had the intrinsic motivation to succeed, as a country we failed her in not providing access to up-to-date resources. We need to do better by our students. Since we don’t seem to be intrinsically motivated, perhaps we need some monetary incentives.

Ethnic Notions

Intent does not equal impact. After all is said and done, that phrase holds true- in the court of law and in personal relationships. If you hit someone with your car unintentionally, it does not make the impact (i.e. bodily harm and legal charges) any less real. If you make an honest statement about a friend or colleague and they are offended, you can talk at length about the person being overly-sensitive or your motive not being malicious- the impact will most likely remain. Think of a time you have felt wronged. Did the perpetrator telling you they didn’t mean to make it better?

Thank goodness for the freedom of speech that our country allows. However, that freedom does not absolve us of accountability for the consequences of such speech. The New Yorker cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama raises a host of issues. Even if you are not personally offended by the image, it is a good exercise in perspective-taking to consider why it might offend or simply unsettle others.

The main critique of the New Yorker’s cover is that it too closely resembles what some believe to be true. I get the joke, but there’s no “ha-ha,” because too many others see it as an accurate reflection of their beliefs about Obama. The magazine has acknowledged that the cover incorporates many of the stereotypes and falsehoods which have been pumped into the media. That was the point. However, given the number of people who honestly believe these falsehoods, it seems a dangerous line to walk.

A recent Newsweek poll suggests that a number of Americans believe Obama was raised as a Muslim, attended an Islamic school, is a practicing Muslim, and took his oath of office on a Koran. All of this information is false. So inferring from the data, it seems that there are plenty of Americans feeling validated by the cover rather than amused by the satire. Even if the New Yorker intended to be clever, that does not ensure that the impact will be in line with that intent. So, for those defending the New Yorker on the grounds that they did not intend it to be offensive or controversial, or hold up the fact that the source has been pro-Obama, that is not the whole story. We must also attend to the implications of the cover.

Given the power of media images, I think it is reasonable to be concerned that the intended message of the cover could get lost. Sometimes caricatures take on a life of their own and rather than getting us closer to the “truth” by poking fun through exaggeration (which is what the New Yorker claims) they can take us further from the reality at hand. The magazine suggests that the cover will cause us to reflect on how ridiculous the portrayal of Obama has been. Perhaps. And if so, all is not lost. However, I think we need to recognize that the intent of the magazine does not dictate the impact of the image. We cannot control how others perceive, appraise and make sense of materials. And for that reason alone, it is unfair to minimize the concerns surrounding this cover.

Jackson, Obama Comments Highlight Interconnection Rather than Division

The recent controversy regarding Rev. Jesse Jackson’s comments directed at Senator Barack Obama along with the larger commentary drive home the complexities of the various levels of racism. If we fail to recognize these complexities, we miss the real issue at hand- that racism is not one-dimensional rather it exists on individual, cultural and institutional levels. Essentially, Jackson feared that the tone of Obama’s message- highlighting personal responsibility- would overshadow the collective responsibility of the government. It’s the age old debate of where to focus our attention: on individual or institutional matters. Some have written that the statements highlight a “divide” in the Black community. Rather than a divide, these perspectives represent pieces of the larger web of racism. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

Obama has a point. Institutional barriers have been and need to continue to be removed, but that does not take the place of individual action. Jackson has a point. There are institutional- as Dr. King would call them structural- disparities that are not caused by individual actions (e.g. over-representation of Black students in schools that are lacking resources and credentialed teachers relative to the average public school). They are coming at similar issues from different angles. Far from divided, these assertions are interconnected. If we take education, for example, even if we rise to the occasion as a collective entity to provide access to equal public education, each student still has to be personally accountable and engage in that education. Failings at the different levels could be exacerbated by the other, but broad-reaching success needs movements on both fronts.

Individualism alone will not solve the problems of the Black community nor will the government. I do not think it furthers the discussion on race to blast Obama (or Bill Cosby) for encouraging accountability, nor is it fair to dismiss Jackson (or Rev. Al Sharpton) for pointing out the institutional racism that has perpetuated disparities. Some have urged Jackson to step down or asserted that his time has passed. I would like to suggest that even if that shift were to happen, the institutional racism that he so persistently points out would not disappear. But, perhaps that is why some would like him to be quiet. If we only focus on individual responsibility, this conversation about race gets a great deal more manageable. We get uncomfortable when systemic, long-standing inequalities are highlighted. We long to believe the myth of meritocracy that we promote as a nation. We would rather believe that if you work hard, you will succeed while turning a blind eye to the reality that the mantra is not equally applied (starting with the disparities in infant mortality).

What I find most disturbing about Jackson’s comments actually stems from his apology rather than the initial statements. In his press conference, he seems to suggest that his comments would be less hurtful to Obama because they were made in a one-on-one interaction rather than a public forum. Really? I’m not convinced that I would be comforted by the knowledge that someone saves their offensive comments for private conversation. But, perhaps, that’s a larger discussion of overt versus covert discrimination or even still the cultural acceptance for holding such contradictions (e.g. as long as you keep your biases private, you won’t be called to task).

Fighting racism requires that we recognize the relevance in addressing both the individual and the institution while also holding each other accountable for our actions. We miss the opportunity to have true dialogue when we force comments into camps. Our sound bite culture seems to have limited our ability to tolerate complexity; oversimplifying issues inherently filters out those nuances. Obama and Jackson are not divided. Their comments are as interlinked as the discussion on alternative fuel sources and decreasing consumption when addressing climate change.

All Tangled Up

All this talk of “race,” “racism,” people being “racist,” and the rise in hate groups makes me think we need to step back and make sure we’re all on the same page with what we mean when we use these terms. One of the factors that I think has made the conversations on race most tangled is the failure, or perhaps unwillingness, to understand racism at multiple levels. We’re too quick to label some action or person as racist and “condemn” it or “disown” the person rather than fully analyze the situation. It is such an emotionally charged topic that it makes sense that dwelling on the complexities might be avoided (especially, when we want so badly to believe that race doesn’t matter anymore). However, it is that sort of analysis which will arm us with the ability to have true dialogue. Otherwise, we are left talking around each other while assuming we are actually communicating directly.

We don’t have to agree, necessarily, on the definitions to have these conversations, but we do need to understand how each party is defining their terms. So, let’s start with race. Biologically, we know that there is more genetic variation within groups, we call races, rather than across these groups. Penguins and fruit flies have more genetic variation between each other than we do as humans. So, all that scientific evidence from early 20^th century which claimed racial deficiencies on the basis of skull size, etc. has been found false- social opinion posing as objective research. Therefore, that leaves us with the reality that race is a social construct, which we have created and reified through laws and social dynamics.

Building on that definition, racism is a system of advantage based on racial classifications, which benefits one group over others. Another way to think of it is prejudice plus power. For example, I might have bias, or prejudice, towards red-headed individuals. But unless I (as a non-red-head) hold the power to dictate outcomes for red-heads, we don’t have an ism. If our society had a classification system that separated individuals based on hair color, and over and over non-red-heads were in power and made sure through laws and personal decisions that red-heads did not have access to positions of power, education, and basic services, we might say that it was a system of advantage based on hair color that systematically benefited non-red-heads over red-heads. Getting closer to home, it can be argued that while women can be hatemongers towards men that only men can be sexist. Men have had the power to systematically disadvantage women (i.e. withholding the right to own property, vote, etc.) but not vice versa. So, it’s all based on who has the power in an institution and what they do with that power.

Getting back to my original concern about lack of understanding of the various levels of racism- it occurs on three levels. There is institutional, cultural and individual racism. I would argue that institutional is the most insidious type; however, we’ll start with individual racism since we are most familiar with it and most adept at pointing it out.

Individual racism includes actions such as telling racially derogatory jokes, choosing not to speak to/hire/support/etc. someone because of their racial group membership, or engaging in hate crimes. We can easily think of more examples of individual racism. It’s what most easily comes to mind when the word is brought up- the KKK and cross burning is one of the most common examples I hear when introducing these distinctions. Since Obama has emerged as the presumptive democratic candidate, White supremacy groups have touted an increase in interest and activity. While this is of concern and does suggest that individual racism is still a relevant construct, it’s important not to lose sight of the ways in which other acts, which aren’t so extreme- also constitute individual racism.

Cultural racism involves the larger society (e.g., whose values are promoted or denigrated, who is omitted or distorted in the media?). An easy way to grasp this concept is to consider religious values. The post office, schools, etc. are closed during Christmas and usually over Easter. As a Christian, this set-up is really convenient for me. Society caters to the fact that I might want to travel to be with family, or be off of work to commemorate the holiday. However, the same cannot be said for Yom Kippur, Ramadan or Divali. Some might say, “Well, we can’t have all of those holidays off!” I’m not advocating what we should do about this cultural racism; I’m simply trying to raise our awareness of it as one ways in which we enact this thing called racism. Another example might be the way in which you see people of color in limited roles in primetime television (e.g. narrow portrayals of Indian Americans or Latinos).

Institutional racism occurs on another level where decisions made by the system (e.g., government, corporation) enact systematic advantage. Education is a prime example. There was a time when, regardless of whether an individual wanted to integrate or not, separate but equal education was supported by law. Of course, there is an intersection of these levels. Individuals as a group are the ones who ultimately pass the legislation which govern the institutions. This example is where you can see why it’s important to understand the various levels to understand how they interact and subsequently how to better combat them. Housing, healthcare and the judicial system are other institutions where you can see historical examples of institutional racism. The outcomes of these various institutions differ by an individual’s race. It’s not biological differences that dictate these outcomes (see above). It’s the way in which we as a society limit access that then creates discrepancies which over time look natural. For example post WWII, we had a wonderful opportunity as a country to integrate housing. However, the FHA chose redlining, and we continue to see the ramifications today- both in segregated housing and economic outcomes. For example, the same house in the suburbs might be worth three times the same house in a formerly redlined district. When those parents take the equity out of their home to send their child to college, one set has access to a great deal more money compared to the other. This difference is not a matter of one set of parents being lazy and not taking care of their child. It is linked to institutional decisions that were made on the basis of race. The difference in housing prices is just one example of how institutional laws trickle down to affect a whole host of issues.

I share these examples to say that we need to understand the difference between these levels of racism. The rise in White supremacy groups is fueled by individual racism and most recently the personal fear that Obama will win the presidency. The controversy over LeBron James’ Vogue cover was not about the magazine being racist. It was an issue of cultural racism given the historical ways in which Black men- in relation to White women in particular- have been portrayed. The issue of the achievement gap has a number of causes but unequal resources (e.g., teachers with advanced degrees, books, computers, etc.) rank top on the list of ways our government has enacted institutional racism and disproportionately provided access to some but not others.

These distinctions can be expanded to help examine other types of isms in our society (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism). Unfortunately, they are linked and if you understand one ism well you can understand another. I do think that having a more complex understanding other these systems can help us not feel so overwhelmed, not knowing where to start when something happens in our town, office or country related to race. Knowledge really is power- to be able to analyze an incident for yourself rather than relying on someone else to label it for you. You can have a better handle on things while the media continues to get tangled up in messy definitions.

Making Sense of Contradictions

What does it all mean? Landmark after landmark. Contradiction after contradiction. What does it mean when in the past weeks we have seen a biracial man clinch the democratic nomination and a town in Mississippi host its FIRST integrated prom?

What does it mean when we want people to interact across racial lines yet recent research suggests that the anxiety evoked by these interactions actually perpetuates segregation- for those who are ill prepared for such encounter, which is most of us since, well, that’s the reason we need more of it?

What does it mean when we celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on interracial marriage by hearing from interracial couples of today only to find out that they continue to experience verbal, and sometimes physical, assaults?

I guess it means that, like many things in life, the answer is not that simple. Things aren’t black and white- pun intended. It means we’ve made progress. It also means we have work to do.

Some individuals stress the progress we have yet to make- pointing out the continued examples of racism and other systems of oppression. While other individuals want to highlight the progress we have made thus far- noting legal battles and the diversification of the middle class. The former demands the latter “wake up and stop living in denial.” While the latter is sick and tired of hearing the former complain since “it’s a new day.”

Why can’t we hold both concepts as valid reflections of our current reality? I think what keeps people from doing so is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological tendency to seek consistency. In other words, we don’t like it when we hold competing or contradictory thoughts or beliefs. For example, if you value your money, yet given the cost of fuel, you choose to buy a car that gets a handful of miles per gallon, you will find someway to rationalize your decision. You might make a case for why the car you chose was your only option given your lifestyle; you might start to ride your bike to work to soften the blow. Whatever change you might make is fueled by the fact that valuing money and buying a car that will spend a great deal of your valued resource is incongruent. You need to make everything fit. Research has found that when we have conflicting thoughts, we eliminate one. So, if you purchased the car, you most likely eliminated the thought that you value your money. That thought becomes conditional- i.e. not to the extent that it limits your desire for the car. Getting back to our original issue, if you believe we have made progress in the area of race relations it’s cognitively difficult to simultaneously hold that we also have to press on to make greater strides. On the most simplistic level, the tendency is to reject the competing opinion. It takes cognitive energy to consciously hold competing thoughts. However, I think it’s energy worth expending.

I firmly believe that both perspectives accurately reflect the present day dynamics. Simply refer back to the landmarks and contradiction in the opening to get a sampling of evidence. Arguing one perspective over another denies the complexity that it is not “either/or” it’s “both/and.” Until we recognize that reality and respect the fact that some of us are simple looking at things from a different perspective- some with a greater ability, or perhaps willingness, to change viewpoints- we are wasting our breath. Progress gets mired down by defensiveness and accusations.

We need to tolerate the cognitive dissonance and hold the harsh realities and powerful strides. They are- together- relevant, informative and integral to guiding us forward.

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Transracial Adoption

To take account of race or to not take account of race- that is the question- or at least it is in transracial adoption. The rates of transracial adoption have increased dramatically in the past decades and research and the law are trying to keep up. From the social research perspective we’ve learned a few things. Historically, research on transracial adoption found no differences in outcomes for kids adopted across race compared to same race families. However, more recent research has investigated the racial experiences of adoptees and concluded that they are not monolithic. It appears that parents’ attitudes and behaviors related to racial socialization affect the experience of youth adopted transracially. In addition, for those children adopted transracially from foster care, it seems that problematic parent-child relations have more of an adverse impact compared to children adopted by same-race parents. All of this to say, it makes sense that race- that of the parent and child- would influence the dynamics of adoption.

Inherently there is nothing problematic about transracial adoption. In and of itself it does not cause maladjustment or foster psychological distress. However, the particular experience of being adopted transracially should not be minimized. Children who are of a different race than their parents cope with feeling “different” and may feel alone and confused when faced with discrimination. We need to prepare parents for this reality and encourage them to acknowledge and validate these experiences even though it might be uncomfortable to address. In addition just like every child, transracially adopted children will develop a sense of themselves. However, a key part of developing an identity for children of color often involves integrating race into their sense of self. This process involves integrating personal attitudes and beliefs about oneself and one’s group in addition to integrating familial and societal opinions. Racial identity is a process that needs to be supported, and parents of transracially adopted children need to be knowledgeable about it. Some parents might want to gloss over the issue of racial identity development because they see their child as part of the family and perhaps secretly hope that race won’t matter as much. It would be important for those parents to be assured- just as with any parent- that the process of identity development can be tumultuous but does not negate the familial bonds that have been created. Most adolescents emerge from that process and reconnect with their parents if they have felt supported (if even from a distance) and validated.

Let me be clear, I am a proponent of across-race adoption. Too many kids need homes to make blanket claims that rule out the possibility of adoption for an entire group of people. However, I think that as part of preparing a family for adoption, parents who are adopting a child across-race need to have thought about race as a construct that influences how society perceives people. Heck, this sort or awareness should be a part of all adoptions involving children of color. Why single out White parents? Simply because someone is from a particular racial background does not automatically make them aware of, or sensitive to, issues of race. Why not mandate training on racial identity development for all parents? It’s just that important.

Even if we all agreed that parents seeking to adopt transracially should have some sort of training- just as parents who adopt from another country undergo training to help understand the child’s background- there are legal barriers to limit such efforts. In 1996, the guidelines were changed to enforce color-blindness in adoption so that the race of the child and parent becomes irrelevant. I won’t go into how problematic it is to take this stance (see previous piece), but I will simply say that to be blind to a potential problem hinders you from finding a solution. Since this change, we still lack equity in adoption rates of African American children who stay in foster care on average nine months longer than White children. Perhaps it needs to be re-evaluated.

When adoptive parents facilitate rather than ignore children’s understanding of themselves and their racial background, the results are higher self-esteem, less feelings of marginalization, increased pride in their background, less distress and overall better psychological adjustment. Isn’t that what we want for all children? If so, we should remove the legal red tape and support the movement within the system to take account of race in the adoption process.

Honesty is the Best Policy

Senator Barack Obama is a bi-racial man running for president. Most people label him as African-American. Any way you slice it, there are some people who are not supportive of him solely because of his race. There, I said it.

We seem to tiptoe around this issue despite the evidence. The more heated this presidential bid becomes, the less willing folks are to have complex discussions about the role of race (if you could say we’ve ever been willing). It’s a topic that is claimed to “not matter” yet it matters in so many ways it’s exhausting. If Obama brings it up, he’s playing the race card. If others bring it up, they are being racist. Can we get over ourselves, please? It’s just not that simple.

Race is a powerful social construct. We recreate it and participate in it daily. We know that biologically there are more DNA differences within racial groups compared to across groups, yet many still hold beliefs that African Americans are inherently better in sports due to a genetic advantage, or that Asian Americans are genetically predisposed to be math geniuses. So it should come to no surprise that race is influencing people’s perceptions of Obama.

Earlier in the season, the media kept posing the question “Is America ready for a Black president?” If I missed a resolution to this question, please let me know. My take is that we assumed the answer was “yes” given Obama’s performance in the primaries, yet we continue to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Some might say that it’s not worth giving attention to such a dated perspective, but I think that we must given the gravity of this election. It’s not dated; it’s present day.

In a Washington Post article last week Kevin Merida discussed the racially-charged experiences of Obama’s campaign workers. Some might argue the reactions are simply a function of people being so passionate about the issues and the importance of this race. However racial slurs aren’t warranted when you disagree on healthcare. Why haven’t these experiences been made more public? I think one reason is that the media wants to believe that these examples are exceptions, a few bad apples. I think another reason is that the Obama campaign is working hard not to make race too central- smart move. I believe that if the campaign openly talked about all of the discrimination they have encountered, the general response would be disbelief and assumptions that they were overreacting or being too sensitive. To win this election, Obama needs America to believe its own fantasy- that we are ready for a president who is something other than a White male.

The recent primaries highlight the racial divide. Clinton’s remarks after her recent wins along with the media analyses have stressed that Obama struggles most to secure the support of working-class Whites. If we stop to deconstruct this assertion, we can see another way in which the social construct of race is alive and well. I don’t purport to know what is going on in the heads’ of White voters nor do I believe they are monolithic in their thinking. However, I do know that if we look at history, the intersection of race and class runs deep. Throughout history, marginalized groups have been pit against each other. As a country we only seem to be able to hold once civil right in mind at a time. I can see how our actions could leave some working-class and poor Whites feeling forgotten and less important than people of color- for whom it has been en vogue to advocate for. No wonder some marginalized Whites would much rather see a White female at the helm compared to an African American male. Let me be clear, a true leader would not separate the issues that affect Americans by race or class. A true leader would recognize the interconnection of various isms and advocate in ways that increase access for all. Given Edwards’ recent endorsement of Obama, it will be interesting to see if working-class White voters will translate that gesture into an assurance that Obama “gets it”- sees the connections and is not just a candidate who will focus on race.

There are people who will not vote for Obama simply because of his race. As much as we might long for that statement to be false, merely stating the opposite won’t make it so. And claiming that it’s only a small group of people who feel this way is doing us a disservice and clouding the larger issue. Race plays a role in the dynamics of this election, and the more we fail to talk about it honestly as and influential part of the process, the further we get away from being able to disentangle the stereotypes and misperceptions fueling the fire. It’s complicated. I just hope we can push ourselves to have the complex conversations rather than shy away from the realities.