The Education System and Black Philosophy: Through the Lens of Oppression
The following is the United States Department of Education’s mission statement:
“ED’s (Education Department) mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”
(US Department of Education)
While the United States of America becomes an increasingly diverse country along ethnic and racial lines, the student population in primary schools is beginning to reflect on the sudden changes in society. As a result of the upsurge of diverse backgrounds that enter the nation, examining and analyzing the complexities of different racial and cultural experiences has become a priority in identifying and understanding inequity in social institutions, specifically in primary school education. Race and education have always been connected in the way that opportunities for learning have been manifested and distributed in schools in the United States. Marginalized groups have historically sought out educational inclusion as a gateway to economic stability and empowerment, political representation, and, most importantly, social transformation through accumulating epistemic positions of power. Since Brown v Board of Education and the illegalization of school segregation in 1954, the United States education system has worked to “promote student achievement” by “fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access,” and the current educational climate for non-white students would suggest that although there is educational improvement across racial lines, there are still enormous gaps in terms of student achievement. In order to understand academic and opportune disparities in education, and with the assistance of Kristie Dotson, George Yancy, and Kimberle Crenshaw, I will identify and analyze epistemic oppression in the American education system (most relevantly seen/ through academic exclusion, ignorance of diverse backgrounds, and defamation of Black history) and its effects on communities of color, while arguing for the application of lived experiences, Critical Race Theory, and intersectionality to the fair development of future education curriculum and structure.
Numbers Never Lie
Since I am studying both philosophy and psychology as my majors, I like to incorporate their respective theories and proofs in the assessment of social inequities, specifically primary school education. Through my experience with psychological research, I have a firm belief that numbers never lie, and that statistics are the best way to understand significant differences between different groups. As the population of the United States rises to 329.5 million people as of the 2020 Census, K-12 student enrollment is estimated at about 50.6 million; with the increasingly diverse and prodigious population, it is difficult to make assumptions about the education system and analyze significant differences in education between students without the help of statistics (NCES, 2020). Statistics allows us to apply numbers to traditionally nominal values and understand the differences between diverse students by relating the findings of a valid, representative sample to the greater population. In this case, the National Center for Education Statistics provides information regarding the total enrollment, percentage of enrollment for each ehtnic and racial group, achievement, and achievement differences.
Before analyzing and critiquing the education system, we first must acknowledge the dynamically changing population of primary school students in the United States. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), as of fall 2018, Latinx students make up 27% of the national student population, Black students make up approximately 15%, and Asian students 5%; in closer analysis, the NCES also shows that all of these marginalized groups have been growing in their respective percentages, showing the growth of these communities in our modern day society. These populations will remain around the same amount for some time, due to a prediction of the reduction in student enrollment in the 2020s. On the contrary, the white student percentage of the population has been shrinking; from a majority of 54% in fall 2009, to a smaller amount at 47% in fall 2018. As the percentages of white students continue to decrease, it has been the opposite for other ethnic and racial groups. With the growing diversity within the United states, race has always mattered, and will continue to impact the structure of our education system (NCES, 2016).
Understanding the diverse student population is essential to the acknowledgement and study of the effects of different educational experiences. Students of color experience education differently than white students, and the historically significant achievement gap between Black and white students can help us understand this concept. For instance, a study from the National Center for Education Statistics examines the differences between white and Black student achievement. In predominantly Black schools, both white and Black students alike score, on average, about 8 points lower than students in schools with a low density of Black students (NCES, 2011). Although the achievement gap is not affected by the density of Black students in a school, the fact that the scores are lower in schools with a higher percentage of Black students makes it evident that there is a problem greater than the identities of these students. In addition to analyzing the achievement gap between Black and white students, the NCES also studied the effect of socioeconomic status on achievement and Black student density in a respective school. The research concludes that when socioeconomic differences are controlled, the achievement gap becomes significantly smaller, introducing the idea that although race is a primary issue in schools, institutions also do not account for the socioeconomic backgrounds of the diverse student body (NCES, 2011). Although the nation is becoming more diverse and the student population is following in trend, the achievement gap between Black and white students remains intact, despite the decades of educational reform to create equity in our education system.
Understanding Epistemic Oppression
In order to identify and analyze the ways in which students of color are oppressed and suppressed from educational opportunities, we need an understanding of the concept of epistemic oppression and what actions it may entail. In her article A Cautionary Tale On Limiting Epistemic Oppression, Kristie Dotson explains that “epistemic oppression refers to epistemic exclusions afforded positions and communities that produce deficiencies in social knowledge” (Dotson, 24). In other words, epistemic oppression is the epistemic exclusion of particular communities in the realm of social knowledge, and places one way of thinking over the other. Epistemic exclusion, according to Dotson, “is an infringement on the epistemic agency of knowers that reduces her or his ability to participate in a given epistemic community,” while epistemic agency refers to the “ability to utilize persuasively shared epistemic resources within a given epistemic community in order to participate in knowledge production and, if required, the revision of those same resources” (Dotson, 24). To simplify this train of thought, epistemic agency comprises knowledge accumulated in order to participate in the social production of knowledge and the revision of it, and epistemic exclusion removes people from their social positions of knowledge. Epistemic oppression creates a type of social hierarchy that values certain methodologies, and prevents anybody outside of that culture from achieving or accomplishing as much as others that are a part of it.
By relating the statistics regarding the white-Black student achievement gap and the growing percentage of students of color in the United States to Dotson’s explanation of epistemic oppression, we are able to compare the disparities in education to epistemic exclusion, or the exclusion of certain groups from achieving their potential positions in the social knowledge hierarchy. For instance, in regards to the achievement gap between white and Black students, statistics show that although the density (respective percentage) of Black students in a school does not affect the actual achievement gap whatsoever, it is noted that the overall achievement of students in schools in which 60-100% of students identify as Black is 8 points lower than other Black student density categories, being 0-20%, 20-40%, and 40-60% (NCES, 2011). If we take into consideration Dotson’s idea of epistemic exclusion, it is understandable that schools with a higher density of Black students are not providing the same education experience as schools with a more diverse or white student population. While it is important to take note of schools with a high Black student density, it is also crucial to be critical of the other side of the spectrum; the average score of white students in schools with a Black student density of 0-20% was at its highest (NCES, 2011). This makes evident that as the percentage of Black students decreases, white student achievement increases, furthering an understanding of the racialization of our education system. The achievement gap between white and Black students supports the narrative that Black students are excluded from accumulating positions of epistemic power through the obstruction or infringement of their epistemic agency; the consistency of the poor average achievement for Black students is caused the reduction of educational resources used to create agency, and, in conclusion, is an effect of epistemic oppression. The United States education system is flawed with its racialization of education; by creating a different primary school experience for students of color, the education system infringes on the agency of its students.
In order to further the understanding of the role of epistemic oppression in the racial disparities of the American education system, Tyrone Howard and Oscar Navarro highlight the work of multicultural and critical race scholars, and suggest that social inequity in education was based on three central assumptions:
1. Race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United States.
2. U.S. society is based on property rights.
3. The intersection of race and property creates an analytical tool through which we can understand social (and, consequently, school) inequity.
(Howard et al., 6)
By analyzing the intersection of race and property in the education system, Howard et al. provides a framework that outlines the idea that the diverse identities of students were not the only reason for the gaps in educational achievement and opportunity, but that the institutional practices and curriculum also played a part in creating conditions that were “not often sensitive to, or inclusive of, the needs of non-White students” (Howard et. al, 5). Overlooking structural inequality places the fault on students who achieve poorly, which just so happens to proportionately be students of color. This voiding of systemic inequity is an example of epistemic oppression, as the dominant methodology and white bodies are given social epistemic positions over underrepresented bodies and ways of thinking. While the United States Department of Education preaches equal access and opportunities, it fails to acknowledge the impact of racial and ethnic backgrounds in its implementation of structural goals as detailed in the Mission Statement.
Identifying and Limiting Epistemic Oppression
In her analysis of epistemic oppression and its effects on the minority community, Kristie Dotson also explains the social injustices that come with epistemic violence. She describes the first order as testimonial injustice, which is “the epistemic injustice that occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word” (Dotson, 26). Testimonial injustice can be seen as a direct discreditment to minority thinkers by, and in the context of, white epistemology. Dotson uses the example of Patricia Williams and her experiences with a Benetton shop; Williams was denied access to a shop in Benetton during holiday season, while white customers were inside shopping as they pleased. The store was open to the public, so Williams explains that the sole reason for her denial of entrance was racial discrimination, but her encounter with the store owners was not the instance of testimonial injustice. The injustice occurred when she tried to write an article to be submitted to the Stanford Law School, but it was labeled as an unwarranted credibility deficit (Dotson, 27). Despite Williams writing on her personal account of the events and the racial discrimination in which she faced, her credibility was negated by the Stanford Law School, given as a result of negative prejudicial stereotypes. Testimonial injustice targets certain groups in their “capacity as knowers” by discrediting experiences and knowledge outside of the white epistemic field; Williams was discredited in her personal accounts of the events due to racial discrimination and stereotype.
Although specific instances of testimonial injustices in the United States are difficult to document, we can analyze the causes of the discrediting Black students in primary schools. According to the United States Department of Education, more than 80% of classroom teachers are white, middle class, and monolingual (US Department of Education, 2012). These teacher demographics suggest that most teachers may be unaware of the different racial experiences, cultural knowledge, and social environments that their diverse students bring to the classroom everyday. If teachers are unable to acknowledge the relevance of white privilege and how it can have profound effects on students of color, regardless of what they do, white students will always have the upper hand in the realm of academic achievement. This is a structural perpetuation of epistemic oppression; failing to address the issue of the lack of diversity in the teaching field only furthers the problem of systemic oppression. Although an ignorance of whiteness is not a direct example of testimonial injustices, it can work to discredit minority students in their interpretations of education. Racial discrimination and stereotype is not as prevalent in education as it was in the 20th century, but failing to acknowledge whiteness as a structure that has serious effects on students of color.
The second order of epistemic injustice that Dotson describes in epistemic oppression is hermeneutical injustice. Hermeneutical injustice refers to “the injustice of having some significant area of one’s social experience obscured from collective understanding owing to a structural identity prejudice in the collective hermeneutical resource” (Dotson, 29). In order to better understand this concept, Dotson describes Carmita Wood’s experience with sexual harassment; Wood worked at university in a nuclear physics department, and another employee would verbally and physically sexualize her, causing her health to erode and eventually leaving her job. As she requested funding from unemployment following her unfair departure, she was rejected, as there was no way for Wood to refer to the actions of the disgusting male employee. Breaking the silence of such experiences in the workplace resulted in the coining of the term ‘sexual harassment;’ prior to this instance of legal action from Carmita Wood, sexual harassment was not acknowledged by white epistemology. Since sexual harassment and actions in which it encompasses were never acknowledged in white society, government and legal officials never included it in the development of law. Dotson refers to this lack of collective understanding as hermeneutical injustice, as Wood was unable to speak on her experiences due to the lack of terminology and acknowledgment in the white sphere of thinking.
Going back to the previous statistics regarding the lack of diversity in the teaching field, it is rather significant that although white students only make up 47% of student enrollment in the United States, the extremely high percentage of white, middle class teachers suggests that there is a demographic divide in education. As I said in the explanation of the first order of epistemic injustice, the demographic divide between teachers and students suggests that teachers may not acknowledge or understand the diverse student backgrounds that come into their classrooms. In addition to an ignorance of white privilege and its effects on students of color, the demographic divide also suggests that “schools often operate as spaces where the realities of race and racism go undiscussed, even if understood by the students” (Howard et. al, 9). Since teachers may lack an understanding of diverse backgrounds, they probably do not have experience with racial discrimination, nor would they find a reason to discuss or teach it in the classroom.
For instance, in a New York Times article titled Two States, Eight Textbooks, Two American Stories, Dana Goldstein documents the differences between history textbooks in California and in Texas. California and Texas serve as two of the biggest states in America, yet the differences between their textbook material is astounding. A key difference between the textbooks was in the analysis of the Harlem Renaissance, a movement that centered around advancing Black culture and civil rights through the fine arts of writing, music, and artistry. In the California textbooks, students read and analyze the impact the movement had on African-American life during the 1920s and 1930s, but in the Texas textbooks, students read that the Harlem Renaissance and the art that was attributed to its exposure was “dismissed for its quality of literature produced” (Goldstein). Tying the physical material of the textbooks to the national demographics of teachers, discussions about race and racism and its effects on communities of color are unlikely to happen in classroom education. Failing to give grounds for discussing race and racism is an example of hermeneutical injustice; students understand the effects of racism, but since it is never brought up in their education as a hermeneutical resource, they do not have the grounds to speak about it in the context of white society and epistemology. This is considered an agential epistemic oppression; by removing or not giving the agency and material to speak on a specific part of people’s social experiences, communities of color are excluded from the production of knowledge in the academic field. Due to a lack of a collective understanding of race and racism in primary school education, schools commit a hermeneutical injustice to students of color by continuing to perpetuate the epistemic injustice/oppression through the ignorance of white privilege and whiteness and its profound effects.
The third, and final order of hermeneutical injustice is explained as contributory injustice; contributory injustice, in the words of Dotson, is caused by an epistemic agent’s situated ignorance, in the form of willful hermeneutical ignorance, in maintaining and utilizing structurally prejudiced hermeneutical resources that result in epistemic harm to the epistemic agency of a knower” (Dotson, 31). Contributory injustice differs from hermeneutical injustice in the sense that contributory injustice lies in the discourse between groups of different hermeneutical resources; she counters the argument that everyone relies on the same set of hermeneutical resources, and instead suggests that we all rely on a different set of interpretive resources based on the different experiences within our lives. Dotson explains that in contributory injustice “both the structurally prejudiced or biased hermeneutical resources and the agent’s situated ignorance are catalysts,” and that the disconnect between different perceptions lies in this gray area. For instance, she uses the interaction between Barbara Smith and Deborah Chay in order to display an example of contributory injustice; Smith was unhappy with Chay’s dismantling of an article she wrote in regards to Black feminism, as Chay claims to identify different structural errors in Smith’s work in an attemp to undermine the legitimacy of Black feminism and its role in academia (Dotson, 32). Smith went on to bluntly explain that Chay simply ‘doesn’t get’ the point of her article, and that Chay’s response is a result of overreliance on theory and overly academic approach to Black feminist philosophy. In the eyes of Barbara Smith, Chay’s employment of her own personal hermeneutical resources to the understanding of Smith’s Black feminism were incompatible, and ultimately led Chay to an intentional distortion of her words. Chay was viewing Black feminism with an academic lens and explained that social transformation did not have a place in academia, whereas Smith argued that through her understanding of her respective hermeneutical resources, academia was the only place for Black feminist philosophy to grow. Deborah Chay’s inability to see that her hermeneutical resources differs from Smith’s is an example of contributory injustice; by demonstrating willful hermeneutical ignorance, Chay commits contrubtory injustice towards Smith and Black feminism through her ignorance of biased epistemic agents outside of her own. While contributory injustice utilizes hermeneutical resources in its nature, the injustice lies in the ignorance to acknowledge different interpretations of the same thing, rather than the suppression of those interpretations through miseducation or lack thereof.
Although specific cases of contributory injustice are difficult to pinpoint in the realm of modern education, the cause of this epistemic injustice in education lies in the production of knowledge and curriculum in the United States. For instance, as a title page, I selected the cover of a recent Texas history textbook that had to be taken out of high school due to its misconstruity of a historical image. If you take a look back to that image, you can see a white woman shouting “You’re an inspiration! Godspeed!” to what appears to be a Black female student as she walks down the street. Yes, the message is positive, but take a closer look at the scene; soldiers in the background, an unrest crowd, the woman even seems to be angry. This scene depicts a crowd that is clearly not in protest against school segregation, and that woman is more than likely not shouting that out to the Black woman. This misinterpretation is detrimental to students who study this textbook, as it applies white hermeneutical resources to the lived history of Black people in order to create a different interpretation of said history. A lack of a diverse set of hermeneutical resources and scholars is the precursor to the misinterpretation of history and miseducation; the education system commits contributory injustice indirectly towards its Black students in its failure to acknowledge the accuracy of Black history as a powerful hermeneutical resource for all students of color.
In Response to Epistemic Oppression in Education
Epistemic oppression in the United States education system is relevant through the achievement gap and academic exclusion, ignorance of diverse backgrounds and their histories, and the misinterpretation of Black history in the context of American society. Since marginalized groups have historically sought education as a means for social transformation, the first institution we must target for change is the education system and the United States Department of education. In order to develop a fair education structure and curriculum, I argue for the application of lived experiences, Critical Race Theory, and intersectionality to account for, and in respect of, the growing diversity in American society and primary school education today.
Although George Yancy explains his concept of lived experiences in the context of black philosophy, I believe that lived experiences play a huge role in primary school education and understanding and analyzing American history. Yancy explains that Black philosophy was created within “interrelated themes of context, situation, and philosophical thought,” meaning that throughout the course of history, changes in social conditions for Black people have led to constant change in their interpretation of differing hermeneutical resources (Yancy, 5). Since Black people have a history of mistreatment in many different societies, the concept of lived experiences is important in the understanding of social oppression today in order to recognize the epistemic oppression in which we face and how to respond to it in the context of modern society. Yancy explains that lived experiences allow for “open ended perspectives and a diversity of voices” to be heard and acknowledged by emphasizing lived experiences as the basis for knowledge and understanding (Yancy, 6). While Yancy’s lived experiences work to correct interpretations and develop a collective understanding of history, it also works to define race and racism as social constructs. In recognizing race as a social construct, Yancy is able to establish a collective understanding that “’blackness’” is itself an identity category that has its origins within history,” and that those origins were to categorize people in society. Through lived experiences and realities of situations and historical events, he explains that “Black philosophy acknowledges its historical conditionality and emergence against the backdrop of white racism, violence, colonialism, dehumanization, enslavement, oppression, and objectification” (Yancy, 7). Although Black students are not the only students of color that experience epistemic oppression, applying lived experiences to the development of education and understanding history can only work to further an equal and equitable education for all students nationwide.
Tracking back to my references of various Texas history textbooks, we can see that the understanding of American history, more specifically Black history, is not collective, and that different states utilize different hermeneutical resources in order to develop curriculum and ultimately produce a disparity in the interpretation of history. To identify an example of how lived experiences are currently not emphasized in our education system, going back to Diane Goldstein’s analysis of California versus Texas history textbooks and their content and interpretation of American history, she explains that immigration and nativism are two of the most important themes across history textbooks nationwide. The difference between the different textbooks is the perspectives in which history is understood; in a California textbook, writers utilize an excerpt from a novel about the experiences of a Dominican-American family in the harsh social conditions of the United States, while a Texas textbook uses the voice of a border patrol agent in the same interpretation of immigration (Golstein). While the perspective of the Dominican-American family gives students an insight as to how immigrant families contributed to society and their hardships in doing so, the quote from the border patrol agent states “if you open the border wide up, you’re going to invite political and social upheaval,” giving students a one-sided view towards immigration. Although the education system used somewhat of a lived experience to explain immigration, the Texas history textbook gives a biased interpretation of the concept at hand; of course someone whose job is to guard the border is going to complain about people crossing the border, as it causes trouble for his line of work, while refusing the explore the perspectives of the thousands of millions of immigrant families that leaked into the United States during the 1900s targets immigrant cultures and discredits their contributions to society. As George Yancy said, lived experiences allow for “open ended perspectives and a diversity of voices” to be heard and interpreted, and although it is education’s purpose to analyze both sides of the spectrum, it is also important to provide equal representation of those voices for them to be heard.
As of late, Critical Race Theory (CRT) has emerged as a hot topic in the education headlines; over half of the United States have voted to ban CRT and the discussion of race and racism in primary school education, which brings us to the question, ‘why?’ To understand CRT, we first have to recognize its history and goal as a lens to view society; CRT was a framework developed in the 1970s by various Black philosophers, such as Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw, revolving around the legacy of race and racial discrimination. CRT is formulated to acknowledge that the United States is grounded by the roots of race and racism, and that these concepts are intertwined within institutions across the United States. The opposition argues that CRT can lead people to assume all white people are racist, and incorporation of this idea into society and specifically education will damage the security and reputation of white students. While endangering white students is not desirable, CRT actually works to do the opposite through the understanding of the connection between race and social institutions and the practice of epistemic exclusion.
For instance, in a close analysis of the Black-white student achievement gap, it is evident that although Black students score fairly low in predominantly Black schools, Black students in schools with predominantly white students tend to score around the same amount on the NAEP scale, at 260(NCES, 2016). In order to further understand these disparities in the environments of education, Howard et. al uses CRT as an analytical lens to conduct research regarding student achievement in predominantly white schools; in an examination of predominantly white schools in the United States, the Black students in those schools reported to be extremely racialized within the context of their social environment (Howard et. al, 2016). Black students reported to have been subjugated and identified as ‘the Black students’ and often struggled socially and psychologically, ultimately taking an effect in their academic life inside of school. Due to these ignorant environments that were supposed to be inclusive, the formation of clubs and groups such as ‘Black Student Union’ gave a safe space within the discriminant environments of predominantly white schools. In using CRT to analyze the achievement gap, Howard et. al is able to conclude that educational institutions do not work to provide safe academic spaces for students of color, and specifically Black students in their case of study.
In using CRT to develop education structure, it also opens the door for a closer analysis of the overlap between different identities and the interlocking oppressions that can arise in the context of white epistemic oppression. For instance, Howard et. al explains the use of CRT in recognizing the relationship between high achieving Black and Latino males and their respective educational experiences. In order to explain and understand their educational and cultural experiences, CRT analyzes not only race, but also other forms of oppression that could potentially impact the student’s overall academic life and performance, which could include socioeconomic status, gender, citizenship, and sexual orientation. Since those identities differ amongst students in the United States, every difference for identity must be accounted for in the context of CRT in analyzing education. In understanding the different educational experiences of differing identities, CRT connects with the concept of intersectionality to create a deeper understanding of the complexities between student identities. Intersectionality is explained as “the interaction of multiple identities and varied experiences of exclusion and subordination,” and can be used in education to understand disparities between identities other than race, and how those identities can overlap and shape their subjectivity in the context of white epistemology (Howard et. al, 2016). The intersection of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation are manisfested in a variety of ways that are employed to oppress different identities, and understanding CRT and applying it to the concept of intersectionality can work to mitigate those epistemic oppressions.
In understanding that race has profound effects on students of color in terms of academic performance, social exclusion, and exploitation of material, intersectionality is essential in explaining that race is not the only identity that is discriminated upon. As I stated previously, intersectionality is the interaction of multiple identities and varied experiences of exclusion and subordination, and that these identities, namely race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, are utilized in ways to epistemically oppress marginalized groups. Through an understanding of the relationship between the oppressions of different identities, intersectionality works to legitimately foster “educational excellence” by ensuring equitable treatment and education. Kimberle Cresnhaw explains the complexities in the experiences of Black women, living in a patriarchal society, in which race and social class have a profound effect on overall life in American society (Crenshaw, 794). Crenshaw’s work has been essential in understanding different social experiences for different women in society, and works to exhibit the marginalized aspects of identity in the perspective of those in the oppressed position. She explains that an “adoption of an intersectional way of thinking about the problem of sameness and difference and its relation to power” is essential to viewing epistemic oppression through the lens of intersectionality, and analyzing the differences in educational experience for different identities. In applying intersectionality to the field of education, we can work to not only understand achievement and educational disparities between students of different racial groups, but also of other marginalized identities.
In the introduction of this essay, I started with the mission statement of the United States Department of Education. Although our education system claims to foster educational excellence through equal access and equitable treatment, an analysis of the statistical differences in academic outcomes between different student identities helps to understand that epistemic oppression is still very relevant today. The goal of this essay was to understand academic and opportune disparities in education by identifying and analyzing epistemic oppression in the American education system recognized through academic exclusion, ignorance of diverse backgrounds, and defamation of Black history and its effects on communities of color, while arguing for the application of lived experiences, Critical Race Theory, and intersectionality to the fair development of future education curriculum and structure. In analyzing statistics and understanding Kristie Dotson’s epistemic oppressions, we were able to identify said oppressions and examples of it in experiences of education in students of color and the achievement gap between Black and white students. In order to respond to epistemic oppression and misinterpretation of Balck history in textbooks, an implementation of Yancy’s lived experiences works to correct the accuracy of history, and ensure that students are able to learn fair and unbiased material in the classroom. In applying Critical Race Theory to education, we can understand that systemic oppression is still relevant today, and the connection between race, social class, gender, and sexual orientation can lead to experiential layers of oppression. And finally, in incorporating Kimberle Crenshaw’s intersectionality, we are able to understand the unique experiences that students of different identities can encounter, and how to engage in intersectionality in academia and education. As a teacher and student, educational equity is essential to the development of our future citizens, and I will continue to implement Black philosophy and its hermeneutical assets in my experiences working within the United States education system.
Works Cited
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608
Howard, T. C., & Navarro, O. (2016). Critical race theory 20 years later. Urban Education, 51(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915622541
Kristie Dotson. (2012). A cautionary tale: On limiting epistemic oppression. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 33(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024
US Department of Education 2011, National Center for Educational Statistics 2016, National Assessment of Educational Progress 2018. https://www.ed.gov/ https://nces.ed.gov/ https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Yancy, G. (2013). Introduction. The Black Scholar, 43(4), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2013.11413658
