While the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic creeped up on the global powers, injustice in our policing system has plagued our country for ages but has been deemed taboo. This white elephant in the room has grabbed the attention of the public after the gruesome and hate fueled murder of George Floyd. The Black Lives movement has reignited the cry for racial equality across all borders and through all industries. However, it’s important and crucial to note that this systemic racism has been an ongoing battle for the past century. Sixty-five years ago, brown versus board of education court case took place which ruled that racial segregation in public schooling was ruled unconstitutional. This brought upon the emergence of the civil rights movement with key leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Jackie Robinson, and all the other members of black communities who took part in the rebellion for justice. To compensate for the lack of knowledge regarding African American history, government and school districts decided to cram all the information into one month known as Black History Month where the curriculum focuses on certain exceptional leaders instead of collective action gains through community based social justice movements. In order to enact long lasting change, education reforms have to follow which is why as a student attending an educational institution, I intended to research the inner workings of knowledge.

My official research question is how universities are addressing the inclusion issue in their syllabi. There will be four parts or hypotheses of this research paper; 1) The Neoliberal understanding – mainstream but not trying to deconstruct or critique race studies, 2) The knowledge structure or academia implemented teaches us how to brush over certain topics but not how to be critical, 3) Inclusivity of race studies isn’t institutionalized which leads to a lack of understanding, 4) Cost of tuition, housing, and course materials aren’t equivalent in worth to what students are learning specifically; students of color cannot see themselves in their textbooks or designated courses. Before diving into this research paper, I will be defining some key terms.

The majority of western syllabi express neoliberal understanding which tends to lead to mainstream learning instead of trying to deconstruct thought processes. This international perspective is emphasized through many types of curriculum and strays towards an obsession of standardized testing and accountability rather than dismantling of the overall system. The idea of education reform took flight during the 1990s during the Bush presidency. The journal, Illusion of Inclusion, provides some background into the history of the beginning of education reform by stating, “In the 1990s Governor George W. Bush was a progenitor of systemic reform through his support for the alignment of standards to high stakes testing and accountability in Texas (McNeil, 2005).” (Heilig, Brown, & Brown 2012). The key word in this statement is systemic reform, because systemic reform is in actuality very disconnected from educational reform as changing certain rules and regulations to achieve a degree gives the allusion of changing academia but instead just increases degree requirement pressures. Although creating a requirement for exploring racial tendencies seems pretty direct with a precise objective, “…other universities that require students to fulfill a diversity requirement allow a number of different courses to count. Iowa State University, for instance, has said that ‘Archaeology of North America’ and ‘American Sign Language I’ satisfy the school’s diversity requirement” (Deruy, 2016). Despite the good intentions of the authorization of a new subset of requirements, it actually defeats the purpose because now instead of an intersectional approach being applied to preexisting courses, selected courses are centralized to be the only ones addressing race and gender studies. Students then adhere to the façade of being tolerant and anti-racist and move on with their everyday lives instead of continuously using real world applications. Certain institutions also try to beat around the bush and take the easy way out of teaching students about systemic racism and sexism by throwing money to the problem (the ineffective method this country uses to solve most of it’s inbuilt systemic problems).

Neoliberal understanding places heavy emphasis on using grants to help minority communities as an appearance to close the achievement gap instead of empowerment through education reforms. In a sense, it almost lets the school ‘off the hook’ and excuses them from being critical educators and learners. However, it has been proven that throwing money to a systemic problem isn’t actually a solution as proven by Brookings press as it states, “But the last national evaluation that measured Title I’s effectiveness, the ‘Prospects’ study, did not find evidence that it improved student achievement.” (Dynarski & Kainz, 2015). Title 1 is a federally funded educational program where schools with large concentration of low-income students will receive supplemental funds to assist in meeting student’s educational needs. Based on statistics on public schooling, there are 48% white students enrolled as of 2017 and 15% black students enrolled as of 2017 which is about a 3:1 ratio (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). From these numbers, 8 million white students are part of Title 1 school districts and 5 million black students respectively (Kids Count Data Center, 2017) which is more so a 1.5:1 ratio which doesn’t equate to data provided above. Evidently, more black students reside in poverty which resulted in more being enrolled in title 1. However, title 1 actualizes the hegemonic narratives of meritocracy as it solidifies the idea of “if you work hard enough, you can achieve anything” and provides eternal value to a sum of federal money under false pretense. The American dream ideal is severely flawed as it subconsciously coerces black students to become compliant with the system instead of questioning their surroundings. Atlantic states that “Godfrey points to research that suggests people who really believe the system is fair internalize stereotypes—believing and acting out false and negative claims about their group—more readily than those who disavow these views.” (Anderson, 2017).

The knowledge structure or academia engrained into the system teaches us how to brush over certain topics but not how to be critical. Academia presented doesn’t show a bigger picture and instead only associates key marginalized groups to acts and history of violence instead of also showcasing their achievements throughout complicated and controversial American history. When instructors first introduce the black community, it usually begins sometime in middle school in respect to the Civil Rights movement or slavery in the triangle trade. An article from PBS Education further explains the one-dimensional point of view of the black community by stating, “African history and the heritage of an entire group of people is commonly yet mistakenly introduced with “slavery” as its initial point of reference.” (Mourning, 2019). Instead of expressing the multifaceted nature of black history in America, they degraded it to a singular section on slavery. This in turn then belittles the community and places them as the ‘weaker’ group in the power dynamic between the social hierarchy of white colonizers with socio-economic power and helpless black communities. On the flip side, some history textbooks actually tried to completely remove black history in totality as stated in The Illusion of Inclusion: “They were successful in helping to get many of the most egregious revisions expunged, such as the replacement of slavery in all Texas textbooks with the words ‘Atlantic triangular trade.’” (Heilig, Brown, & Brown 2012). In addition to wrongfully commemorating slavery as the sole part of black culture and history, history textbooks already centralize their pain and torture of the community as a part of American colonization history.

Curriculum does a great job at tip toeing around history however it is fails to manifest the idea that issues of race aren’t a ‘past solved problem’ but instead still have huge underlying tones in present day history. Hence, students lack the ability to apply concepts to a real world setting as academics aren’t required to teach regarding ‘touchy’ subjects as race relations are shown to be more of a matter of opinion than fact. As explained by an example from the Atlantic article titled, The Complicated Process of Adding Diversity to the College Syllabus, “The university has a diversity requirement right now, but myriad courses qualify and Easley thinks too many of them center on an under covered topic (African American cinema, for example) instead of focusing on the interactions between people from different backgrounds that can help students navigate campus and, later, the workforce.” (Deruy, 2016). As much as there’s a need to explore black community and black culture through all walks of life and to shed light on the role they have played through the centuries, it’s just as necessary to place emphasis on how to view each of them as an individual human being instead of just a chapter in history.

Inclusivity of race studies isn’t institutionalized everywhere which leads to a lack of understanding. It is only mentioned in courses of social sciences and standardized testing with no intersectional approach in sight just as a political plot to garner the camouflage of enacting change to the system. One text mentions how, “In Texas, eleventh-grade U.S. history social studies TEKS have high stakes for secondary students because they are aligned with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) exit exam, one of four exams that at the time of writing are required for graduation from a Texas high school.” (the illusion of inclusion). This is a prescriptive technique that doesn’t actually engrain any sense of inclusion in the student’s mind but just urges them to memorize pieces of history to give the illusion of diversity. If we think about it, this is actually an attempt of the national government to codify an appearance of an education system that is battling oppression, but it still doesn’t defeat the fact that these rulings haven’t originated from local privileged institutions. The importance of incorporating these studies into all subjects as race is part of every facet of daily life and even plays a hug role in career paths. For instance, “In forestry, people need to secure the trust of landowners from all backgrounds, and the process of earning that trust varies depending on who the landowner is.” Teaching students how race and gender are intertwined in the job market better equips them to navigate different career paths with an understanding approach. This can only be accomplished if students are taught to not just address race and gender in a history lesson but to practice identifying and understanding those themes in other sects of study and professionalism alike.

Cost of tuition, housing, and course materials aren’t equivalent in worth to what students are learning specifically; students of color cannot see themselves in their textbooks or designated courses. The price of tuition is already very high for students from lower socio-economic areas which are usually people of color and already puts them at a disadvantage from social, economic, and familial pressures. Atlantic news mentions an example from an alumna of the education system, who is a recruiter for students of color now, “At his own college, Easley was initially hired to focus on recruiting students of color, but they were among the most likely to drop out. After talking to students, he discovered some had negative experiences with faculty and realized, he said, that he needed to help faculty learn to interact with people from different backgrounds.” (Deruy, 2016). Due to societal status and economically unstable locations that most of these children of color are born into, they are already extremely susceptible to dropping out from school. In high school, a black student is twice more likely to drop out as compared to a white student (United Way of King County, 2019). On top of that inbuilt stress, black students also feel mistreated by their own educators and lack trust as the students feel like strangers in what is supposed to be their safe space. Students from different races already pay a high sum to be educated but the education provided isn’t catered to their needs as they aren’t represented in their own course load.

Despite this country being the melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, marginalized students are still not seeing their communities being represented in educational text. A renowned scientist, Block, focuses his research on making his biology-based course, intellectually rigorous as he quotes, “’This is understanding the audience that you’re teaching to and making sure everybody thrives in the environment. There are large classes and students with very diverse experiences.’ When he teaches now, Block, a scientist known for his research of circadian rhythms, makes sure his slides reflect the diversity of the students in his course. ‘We’re all looking for me in those pictures,’ he said.” (Deruy, 2016). Underrepresentation in academia is a direct hit to the identity of black students as they are forced to conform to American ideals and are not provided any existent or noticeable dose of their knowledge on their culture. There is no sense of belonging for black students as they are subconsciously prohibited from connecting to their community’s past due to their educators, who are being funded in order to teach crucial events in history so that it may not repeat itself. Another prime example of this is an first-hand account from a man who witnessed this same feeling personally when he was a youth: “NCSU’s Easley, who as a young black man at the University of Georgia in the late ‘90s said he didn’t feel like he belonged or saw himself reflected in his classes, echoed Block. ‘Our black students are sitting in class wondering how [they’re being perceived by their professor],’ he said. ‘Those thoughts impact how students perform.’” (Deruy, 2016). Feeling a sense of misplacement is damaging to the psyche of each black student and detracts them from the willingness and motivation to learn further as the teachings don’t seem to hold any feasible connect to their lives at a deeper level.

Many of the sources provided showed me that there is a lot of work to be done to really achieve an inclusive environment which is why I conducted an experiment of my own to specifically investigate courses at Rutgers University. Rutgers University is a public university in the heart of New Jersey and is known for its diverse student population. With this in mind I decided to enact a grass roots level-based research project where I could examine the spectrum of inclusivity across courses. In order to pick an experimental group, I decided to survey my International Political Economy class for feedback on their experience with classes taken at Rutgers. Due to the online learning structure right now, I decided upon a google form as the most feasible and accessible option for students to fill out. Along with the help of Professor Brittany Anlar, I created a google form with questions pertaining to measuring inclusivity and diversity in course materials and class dynamic. Professor Anlar then sent out the optional google form to the class and asked them to fill out the form anonymously. One the responses were sent in, the feedback was thoroughly assessed and the results didn’t vary and were centered around the need for more representation. Some of the main conclusions and key numbers drawn from this survey are bulleted below.

· 50% of students surveyed were part of an underrepresented minority group

· The mean number of courses taken by each student is around 15 (rounded to the closest whole number)

· From a scale of 1 to 10 (0 being not diverse and 10 being diverse), students felt as if the diversity level was around a 7.

o Diversity spectrum was based on the number of students of color in the classroom or course

· Out of the courses taken, the average number of courses that included race or gender studies was around 3.

o Choosing which courses were “inclusive” was dependent upon whether it had reading about race and gender or had female academics or authors of color

· All the “inclusive” courses listed by the students either belonged to the political science department or the history department

· On average, the percent of professors of color that students had was 20 percent.

· 100% of students voted yes to have more professors of color

After reading these results, I realized there is a huge discrepancy between the student body and faculty body in terms of representation and inclusion. Going off of the statistics above, majority of classroom spaces are composed of students of color yet the faculty, which should be representative of their pupils, merely holds a fifth of people of color. This speaks volumes to the lack of representation in terms of faculty members at Rutgers University. Students possessing the inability to find themselves in their instructors shouldn’t be normalized. As supported by Pew Research, “In fall 2017, about three-quarters of post-secondary faculty members in the U.S. were white (76%)” (David, Leslie, & Fry, 2020). This blatant disregard for diversifying faculty drastically impedes student’s education. A piece of evidence from the national journal supports that “Ninety-three percent of all respondents feel that minority professors positively impact the education of minority students, whereas 84 percent of all respondents feel that minority professors are positively impacting the education of non-minority students” (Collins & Kritsonis, 2006). With an electrified political atmosphere with racial tensions, bringing more BIPOC into conversations and educational institutions is integral to students gauging a better understanding of their cultural memory and engraining a holistic actively critical approach in their education.

A fallacy that supporters of institutionalized curriculum support is the preconceived ‘positive’ of incentivizing diversity courses for students. of institutionalizing curriculum is that it incentivizes taking diverse courses. However, in the long run there are certain complications attributed to institutionalizing race and gender studies into curriculum as it usually has the tendency to have a memorization approach rather than application-based tactic. More required courses mean that it might be harder to fulfill general education or core requirements which then can cause a bump in the road for students trying to transfer. Saint Edwards University, a progressive catholic school in Texas, “…is in the process of rethinking and scaling back its much-lauded, decades-old diversity curriculum in part because of pressure to reduce the number of general-education requirements, make it easier for transfer students to graduate on time, and better enable students to earn minors” (Deruy, 2016). Alongside the students being burdened, training professors to teach cross-culturally also requires more time, effort, and funding.

One passage from The Complicated Process of Adding Diversity to the College Syllabus paraphrases the misleading information asymmetries surrounding inclusive curriculum:

“But the idea is predictably controversial, with critics saying the requirements are a left-leaning affront to academic freedom. And even professors who are generally supportive of incorporating conversations about diversity into their teaching sometimes say they don’t know where to begin; lots of schools like to talk about diversity, but it’s a nebulous if nice-sounding word, and schools that espouse the broad concept sometimes fail to define exactly what they mean or expect when they tell professors to weave it into their work.” (Deruy, 2016).

Throughout the research conducted by these authors and my own survey, I had gained an understanding of the complicated nature of an ‘inclusive’ curriculum. Research shows that select districts recognize that there is a problem, but these steps implemented by the federal and state level education departments aren’t doing enough to be critical. Good intentions back these protocols but it can lead people to become complacent to these models of learning. The problem is that currently curriculum follows a double edge sword methodology as it strives to have inclusive classrooms and tries to incorporate diverse coursework but on the other hand it fails to truly engage with the material and then disrupts the two step motive which is key to accomplish giving students a well-rounded education and understanding.

After concluding my research and experimental results in this paper I narrowed it down to a three-step solution-based process in order to dismantle the system from a bottom up strategy.

There needs to be a critical approach to preexisting course material rather than the creation of new diversity requirements

An intersectional lens has to be applied to real life application-based exercises through instruction

Review processes need to be conducted to hold professors accountable for whether or not they include the two rules listed above actively into their course and need to face equal repercussions.