Peabody Journal of Education

ISSN: 0161-956X (Print) 1532-7930 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

A Strategic Racial Equity Framework

Liliana M. Garces & Cynthia Gordon da Cruz

To cite this article: Liliana M. Garces & Cynthia Gordon da Cruz (2017) A Strategic Racial Equity
Framework, Peabody Journal of Education, 92:3, 322-342, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2017.1325592

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1325592

Accepted author version posted online: 01

May 2017.
Published online: 01 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 53

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpje20

Download by: [Boston University] Date: 05 August 2017, At: 09:08

 PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 92:322–342, 2017
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0161-956X print / 1532-7930 online
DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2017.1325592

A Strategic Racial Equity Framework

Liliana M. Garces
The University of Texas at Austin

Cynthia Gordon da Cruz

Saint Mary’s College of California
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Despite the achievement of key civil rights milestones as well as growing public awareness and
concern, educational inequities for students of color and other historically marginalized stu-
dents continue to persist throughout the U.S. educational system (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani,
2010).1 With regard to educational access, African-American, Latino/a and Native American stu-
dents have less access than their white peers to highly qualified teachers, well-resourced schools,
low student-to-teacher ratios, and school communities with high expectations (Diamond, 2008;
Ferguson & Mehta, 2004; Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000; Kozol, 2005; Orfield & Lee, 2005).
At the high school level, while 75% of white students earn high school diplomas, only about 50%
of African-American, Latino/a and Native American students graduate with regular high school
diplomas in four years (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004). Discrepancies by race and eth-
nicity continue through postsecondary education, where the enrollment and graduation rates of
African American/black, Latino/a, Pacific Islander, and Native American students continue to lag
behind those of white students (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In 2012, the six-year com-
pletion rates among first-time full-time students who started at all 4 year institutions were about
40%, 51%, 49%, and 40% for black, Latino/a, Pacific Islander, and Native American students,
respectively, compared to 62% for white students (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
The pursuit of educational equity has often been achieved through legal remedies and civil
rights legislation (Orfield, 2014). Yet, landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases have powerfully in-
fluenced the effectiveness of available policies to address racial inequities in education (Garces,
2014a; Orfield, 2014). The current legal environment has contributed to an era in which the tools
that were used to address racial educational inequities have been co-opted in a way that will
further create and deepen these inequities, rather than ameliorate them. This has been done,

Correspondence should be sent to Liliana M. Garces, The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Educational
Administration, 1912 Speedway, D5400, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: [email protected]
1 In this paper, we are focused on racial inequities in the area of education. The inequities in this area, however,

are deeply connected to the racial disparities that are also evident in other areas, such as the availability of health
care (Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2002), wealth (Shapiro, Meschede & Osoro, 2013), levels of poverty (Macartney,
Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013), quality of work environment (Mishel, Bernstein, & Allegretto, 2005), and imprisonment rates
(Alexander, 2010). These disparities are also connected to the racial violence and explicit racial hostility that communities
of color continue to face across the country, violence that has become all the more prevalent since the election of Trump.
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 323

in part, through the application of a color-blind framework for evaluating the constitutional-
ity of race-conscious education policies and practices, such as voluntary desegregation poli-
cies in K–12 education or affirmative action policies in higher education admissions (Garces,
2014a). The application of a color-blind framework in the legal arena has contributed to a shift
in policies and practices that ignore institutional racism and the conditions that need to be in
place to promote meaningful, valued, and authentic engagement of communities of color in our
democracy.
There is a pressing need for educational scholars to think about and argue for transformative
policies and practices that aim to ensure full participation for members of communities who have
been historically excluded from engaging meaningfully in institutions, society, and our democ-
racy. By full participation, we are referring to the goal of “creating institutions that enable people,
whatever their identity, background, or institutional position, to thrive, realize their capabilities,
engage meaningfully in institutional life, and contribute to the flourishing of others” (Sturm,
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2011, p. 4). Full participation, in particular for communities of color,
is an elusive goal when contemporary racial inequities in access and outcomes in U.S. education
are so glaringly large, and violence, intimidation, and threats of deportation and incarceration
against communities of color are ever present. The concept of full participation moves beyond
a goal of “equal access and opportunity” to asking questions about where change is needed to
support institutional conditions, cultural practices, and policies that contribute to historically
marginalized people being respected, valued, and meaningfully engaged in important areas of
society.
Drawing from Bell’s scholarship (1980, 2000, 2004), and the lenses of interest convergence
and racial realism in particular, we argue that effectively advancing full participation by members
of marginalized communities requires incorporating the lessons of past civil rights victories (of-
ten achieved when the interests of minorities converged with those of the white majority), while
attending to and subverting the manifestations of racism and oppression in contemporary U.S. so-
ciety (racial realism). Bell’s groundbreaking thesis of interest convergence (1980) suggests that
the historical achievement of justice outcomes for African American communities has primarily
been driven by moments when their interests converged with those of the white majority. The
theory, however, also teaches us that, when political needs change, this advancement for blacks
(and other subordinated communities of color) will be retracted. Thus, following periods of ad-
vancement, we will see periods of retrenchment. The principle Bell advanced involves “racial
realism,” a lens that “recognizes the real role of racism in our society,” which we must “deflect
and frustrate [in] its many manifestations” (Bell, 2000, p. 80). The principle teaches us that only
by accepting that racism is real and operates in different ways at different points in history, can we
slowly work toward a different future that challenges racism and the ways it structures meaningful
engagement in important areas of society.
Our analysis is thus motivated by Bell’s theories of interest convergence and racial realism,
which illuminate the ways in which educational policies and practices have shifted to repeal
progress for communities of color, culminating in a period of retrenchment and renewed forms
of racism.2 We are not the first to employ these theories from Bell in an analysis of educational
policies and practices. In an analysis of the affirmative action debate, for example, Jayakumar
and Adamian (2015) introduce the notion of “interest convergence expansion” that contributed

2 For an extensive overview of scholars who have applied analyses that draw from critical race theory and Bell’s

foundational theories to illuminate racial disparities in education, see also Howard and Navarro, 2016.
 324 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

to incremental progress for racial justice and the times of “interest convergence constriction”
that then require renewed bases of critical consciousness to advance racial justice. Similarly, we
posit that this current period of retrenchment and renewed forms of racism require different ap-
proaches for generating greater racial equity in education and advancing the interests and rights
of communities of color.
In this article, we seek to advance such an approach, which we term “a strategic racial eq-
uity framework.” In conceptualizing this framework, we borrow from and combine concepts
and strategies of other frameworks in education—including critical race theory (e.g., Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012; Howard & Navarro, 2016; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1998),
racial literacy (Guinier, 2004), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991; Núñez, 2014), opportunity
hoarding (DiTomaso, 2013; Lewis & Diamond, 2015), and community organizing (Alinsky, 1971;
Su, 2007; Warren & Mapp, 2011). We also utilize elements of critical race praxis for educational
research (Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015), which extended Yamamoto’s (1997) critical race praxis
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

to the area of educational research. That latter framework includes four tenets: (a) relational ad-
vocacy toward mutual engagement; (b) redefining dominant and hegemonic systems; (c) research
as a dialectical space; and (d) critical engagement with policy.
We combine concepts and strategies from the above-mentioned areas to theorize the applica-
tion of three basic principles:

(1) attending to the dynamic relationship among power, race, and identities;
(2) actively naming and addressing hidden contributors to inequity; and
(3) generating power among marginalized communities of color toward transformative
policies.

These three principles recognize the complexity and fluidity of identities, the shifting mani-
festations of racism, the importance of building intentional relationships within and across his-
torically marginalized communities to generate power, and the power dynamics that shape how
educational policies are framed and enacted. Whereas other work (cited above) has addressed
each of these concepts in more detail, in our analysis here, we combine them in one framework
as a guide for educational policies and practices that can generate greater racial equity. In this ar-
ticle, we bring together concepts from scholars in different fields (education, law, sociology) and
areas (K–12 education, higher education, employment, legal studies) that are oftentimes separate
from one another, to generate creative approaches that can help address shifting manifestations
of racism and oppression. In our discussion of each principle in the latter part of this article, we
integrate examples across educational contexts (K–12 and higher education) to illustrate how the
strategic racial equity lens can be employed to guide educational policies and practices.

INTEREST CONVERGENCE AND RACIAL REALISM

First, we describe Bell’s principles of interest convergence and racial realism in more detail.
Then, we use these concepts to illuminate a current period of retrenchment in civil rights and
social justice, marked by shifting forms of racism, which require strategies for moving forward.
We describe examples of such strategies in a strategic racial equity framework.
The thesis of “interest convergence,” as advanced by Bell (1980), is a form of coalition pol-
itics that has been used to explain important past civil rights victories. The thesis asserts that,
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 325

historically, African Americans gained ground toward social justice primarily when their inter-
ests converged with those of the white majority. As Bell (2000) articulated, “[I]t does not require
an unreasonable reading of history to conclude that the degree of progress blacks have made away
from slavery and toward equality has depended on whether allowing blacks more or less oppor-
tunity best served the interests and aims of white society” (p. 63). The thesis has been extended
to explain racial integration in athletics (DeLorme & Singer, 2010; McCormick & McCormick,
2012), business, and the workplace (Ramirez, 2004; Wiecek & Hamilton, 2014). The most promi-
nent application of this thesis in the area of education includes an explanation of the historic Brown
v. Board of Education (1954) decision mandating the integration of public schools. As Ladson-
Billings (2004) explains, rather than representing an altruistic goal to advance the interests of
African Americans, the Court in Brown found that “separate is inherently unequal” because it
supported not only the interests of blacks for improving their social condition and those of black
children, but the interests of whites after the Cold War, which included improving the nation’s
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

image, quelling racial unrest domestically, and stimulating the economy.

In his writings, Bell added a corollary to the thesis of interest convergence, recognizing that
the convergence between black and white interests might be temporary, outlining how the gains
achieved through interest convergence are often lost afterward (Bell, 1980). In other writings
he states, “even when interest-convergence results in effective racial remedy, that remedy will
be abrogated at the point policymakers fear the remedial policy is threatening the superior so-
cietal status of Whites, particularly those in the middle and upper classes” (Bell, 2004, p. 69).
Applying Bell’s corollary to the thesis of interest convergence, for example, Ladson-Billings ex-
plains that the aftermath of the decision in Brown also led to a set of compromises that eventu-
ally undermined the Court decision’s ability to support the educational experiences of students
of color. These compromises included job loss for African American educators, a legal strategy
that framed the problem as one of “black inferiority,” a missed opportunity to build coalitions
between working-class whites and black communities, and the closing of black schools. In this
way, as an instrument for historical analysis, the concept of interest convergence remains an im-
portant and useful tool for understanding historical progress toward racial and educational equity
and the inevitable retrenchment from these advancements in light of the compromises inherent in
the approach.
Later in his scholarship, Bell introduced the thesis of racial realism. Whereas interest con-
vergence serves to explain historical developments and, specifically, past legal and policy deci-
sions that expanded rights and opportunities for people of color, “racial realism” is a forward-
looking concept and asserts that, with regard to social justice, racism is a permanent feature of
American society (Bell, 2004). In a keynote address, Bell wrote: “we must address the reality
that we live in a society in which racism has been internalized and institutionalized to the point of
being an essential and inherently functioning component of that society” (1991, p. 88). He argued
that continuing to advance civil rights required this realistically based understanding of the per-
manence of racism (1991). However, his scholarship was also a hopeful and even revolutionary
call to action: he emphasized the importance of developing actions and tactics that addressed such
manifestations of racism and assumptions of white dominance (Bell, 2004). Bell’s acceptance of
racial realism, as Feldman (2012) explains, also arose from an understanding of history that in-
cluded interest convergence. The two principles, therefore, inform each other. The cyclical pattern
of advancing and then retracting rights is predictable. Thus, we must promote an approach “that
recognizes the real role of racism in our society and seeks to deflect and frustrate its many man-
 326 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

ifestations” (Bell, 2000, p. 80). In other words, to advance racial equity, advocates must remain
vigilant and recognize renewed forms and shifting manifestations of racism that require strategies
to address them and create new interest convergences (see also Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015).

LEGAL AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS AND SHIFTING

MANIFESTATIONS OF RACISM

Applying Bell’s principles of interest convergence and racial realism helps illuminate the ways
in which recent legal and policy developments exemplify how previous gains for people of color,
after interests converged, are now being rolled back. Further, these two principles highlight the
emergence of a form of racism that is based on the illusion of color blindness.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Current Period of Retraction: A Color-Blind Framework and the Diversity Narrative

For a number of years, legal decisions have co-opted tools once used to address inequities, such
as race-conscious policies in postsecondary education (oftentimes termed affirmative action), to
protect white privilege and deepen racial inequities. This co-option of policies has given rise to
a period of retraction of the progress that had been made against racial inequities. One example
that illustrates this co-opting includes the application of a color-blind framework within the legal
arena to analyze the constitutionality of race-conscious postsecondary admissions policies. As
Bell and others (e.g., Garces, 2014a; Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015) have argued, the application
of this color-blind framework, which, in higher education, started with the Court’s 1978 decision
in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, shifted the focus of race-conscious educational
postsecondary policies from addressing racial discrimination (the original intent of affirmative
action policies) toward a more generalized goal, the promotion of diversity. After Bakke, justifying
race-conscious policies by considering their effects on societal discrimination or racial inequities
was no longer permitted. Instead, institutions could only focus their “race-conscious” efforts on
pursuing a “heterogeneous student body” (Bakke, p. 315). As Justice Powell noted in the decision,
diversity includes “a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics, of which racial and
ethnic origin is but a single, though important, element” (Bakke, p. 315). And to attain this goal,
institutions could use race as only one of many factors in their decision-making. In this way,
Bakke equated “race-conscious” policies with “diversity-focused” efforts, while also eliminating
the consideration of race to address racial inequities and ongoing discrimination.
In addition, for the first time in the context of education, in Bakke the Court extended a “strict
scrutiny”3 standard to policies that were implemented to include racial minorities—as opposed
to policies that were intended only to exclude racial minorities. By doing so, the Court equated
efforts to advance equity for blacks and other marginalized populations with efforts that could be
discriminatory against whites (Bell, 2004, p. 69). This shift provided a constitutional justifica-
tion for individuals to challenge race-conscious policies as “discriminatory,” particularly against
whites, on the grounds that such policies were not “narrowly tailored” because they “unduly bur-

3 Strict scrutiny involves the Court’s highest level of review and is the hardest one to meet; it requires a “compelling

interest” and means that are “narrowly tailored” to this objective.

 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 327

den” other racial groups. In an analysis of the case, Bell (1992) wrote, the Court used abstract
concepts such as “equality, to mask policy choices and value judgments” and “effectively chose
to ignore historical patterns and contemporary statistics to ‘protect whites’ race-based privilege”’
(p. 369).
After Bakke, advocates of race-conscious education policies capitalized on the narrow avenue
the case left for institutions to justify them (diversity) to win subsequent cases such as Grutter v.
Bollinger (2003), a case challenging the University of Michigan’s affirmative action admission’s
policy. In this case, social scientists focused on documenting the benefits of diversity, particularly
for white students (e.g., Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2003). As a strategy, the approach was
intended to demonstrate an “interest convergence” on the part of whites and students of color,
so as to generate interest on the part of the justices to rule in favor of the university. Ultimately,
the Court, in a 5–4 opinion, upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious policies under limited
circumstances based, in part, on notions of how the benefits of diversity accrue to all students,
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

regardless of race.
The victory, however, also came with substantial compromises. As Bell (2003) argued, focus-
ing on the diversity rationale, as opposed to the need to address past and ongoing racial barriers,
enabled “courts and policymakers to avoid addressing directly the barriers of race and class that
adversely affect applicants” (p. 1622). Shifting the focus of race-conscious admissions policies
away from addressing racial discrimination and toward the purpose of obtaining the educational
benefits of diversity allowed institutions to “retain policies of admission [standardized test scores
such as SAT or LSAT] that are woefully poor measures of quality, but convenient vehicles for ad-
mitting the children of wealth and privilege” (Bell, 2003, p. 1632; see also Guinier, 2015; Soares,
2011). As Garces (2014a) has argued, the decision reinforced a divide between the goal of foster-
ing racial diversity and that of addressing persistent racial/ethnic inequities in education, while
furthering an inaccurate understanding of racial diversity as something that comes at the expense
of, rather than as necessary for, educational quality.
The Court’s decisions in Bakke and Grutter also had important implications for race-conscious
policies in K–12 education. In a decision regarding the consideration of race in K–12 student as-
signment policies (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007),
the Supreme Court reaffirmed a compelling interest in the educational benefits of diversity, but
limited the ways in which race can be used to attain it. In its analysis, the Court applied the
strict scrutiny standard, for the first time in the K–12 context, to examine the constitutionality
of the school districts’ student assignment policies, which used a student’s racial background as
a tiebreaker when considering whether to grant a student’s transfer request. Although the Court
endorsed a compelling interest in schools avoiding the harms of racial isolation and obtaining the
benefits of a racially diverse student body, the Court prevented the school districts from consid-
ering race in their assignment policies to achieve these goals, requiring instead what under legal
analysis would be considered “race-neutral” approaches because they do not directly consider
race.4

4 In his controlling opinion, Justice Kennedy outlined specific examples of permissible approaches, such as the strate-

gic selection of new school sites, drawing attendance zones with a general recognition of neighborhood demographics,
allocating resources for special programs, recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion, and tracking enrollments,
performance, and other statistics by race.
 328 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

In the aftermath of Bakke, Grutter, and Parents Involved, the implementation of the di-
versity narrative in the K–12 and higher education context has limited, and to a certain ex-
tent excluded, the full participation of students of color within educational institutional life. In
K–12 schooling, diversity-related policies have focused primarily on reducing between-school
desegregation—and severely limited the ways in which even that can happen—while within-
school segregation persists, with students placed in different educational tracks by race and lan-
guage (Garver, 2016). Without deliberate attention to the integration of students within schools,
desegregation becomes a superficial remedy of having different students in one space without
doing the much harder work of building networks, relationships, and understanding across racial
lines.
Similarly, in higher education, the term diversity has been redefined as a term that captures dif-
ference, with oftentimes lack of attention to the ways in which such differences matter in students’
lives and how differences in race and ethnicity are correlated with access to privilege and power
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

(Allen, 2011). This is evidenced by the lack of focus that is placed on how institutions need to
transform to become more responsive to and supportive of students of color (e.g., Ahmed, 2012;
Dowd & Bensimon, 2014). Discussions around race are difficult all around (Singleton, 2013), and
engaging in discussions of privilege and power, which are required to allow for meaningful inter-
actions across race, can be especially difficult. This is particularly the case for individuals who
hold privileged identities, such as white faculty and students. Institutions therefore need to cre-
ate supports that facilitate these interactions, while generating awareness of privilege and power
that contribute to inequitable structures, systems, and policies. But rather than employing such
a model, instead, in K–12 and postsecondary education, the model is a deficit-based orientation
of “remediation,” focused on how to “fix” students of color so that they can achieve traditionally
defined markers of educational success or the need to assimilate students of color into a domi-
nant space. And the diversity rationale, as enacted within institutions, serves to normalize such
white-dominated spaces (Berrey, 2015).
The Court’s most recent decisions regarding race-conscious admissions practices in higher
education, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) and Fisher v. University
of Texas (2013, 2016), further reinforce the use of a diversity narrative and impose a color-blind
approach to educational policy that overlooks systemic inequity. In Schuette, the Court upheld the
constitutionality of a ban on race-conscious policies in admissions in Michigan, reversing a lower
court ruling that had found that the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantee of the equal
protection clause. In five different opinions, the justices outlined extremely varied understandings
of the ways in which the equal protection clause should be understood to operate in our democracy,
each with strong and passionate disagreement about the ways in which race continues to matter
in our society. Rather than understanding race-conscious policies as a way to further diversity
or to address persistent racial inequality, the various opinions in Schuette demonstrated that the
majority of the justices on the Court at the time viewed race-conscious admissions policies as
“preferences” that embody racial discrimination, not policies that address it. The use of race
in admissions policies, therefore, is viewed as highly suspect, and, as the Court articulated in
Fisher (2013, 2016), must require the consideration of other possible “race-neutral” alternatives
before race is considered. Within this color-blind ahistorical framing that ignores existing racial
inequities, affirmative action is viewed as a policy that preferences people of color and as reverse
discrimination of white students, rather than as one that seeks to counteract cumulative advantages
that occur to dominant white populations.
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 329

Similarly, while the Court’s second decision in Fisher (2016) did not overrule the precedent
in Bakke and Grutter, as many in the education community feared, it reminded institutions of
the limited ways in which they could consider race in their policies to advance a compelling in-
terest in the educational benefits of diversity. For institutions to legally consider race, the Court
required that the university give “serious, good faith consideration to workable race-neutral alter-
natives” (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003, pp. 339–340, as cited in Fisher v. University of Texas, 2013,
p. 2420) and that “no workable race-neutral alternative would produce the educational benefits
of diversity” (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2013, p. 2420). These requirements, which reinforce
the illusion of color blindness based on an assumption that policies can be “race-neutral,” move
institutions further away from being able to consider the systemic and societal ways in which race
affects educational opportunity (Garces, 2014a).
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

The Racist Dimensions of a Color-Blind Framework

These various color-blind approaches from the legal arena (i.e., the requirement of a “diversity-
focused” goal to justify the consideration of race as one of many factors in postsecondary ad-
missions (Bakke) or in K–12 student assignment policies (Parents Involved), and the additional
requirement that schools and universities pursue so-called “race-neutral” alternatives before they
can consider race) have influenced educational policy. This reframing of race-conscious poli-
cies through a color-blind framework has important racial consequences (e.g., Garces, 2014a;
Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015), which when examined closely, represent a form of racism that
renders invisible systems of white privilege and dominance. By labeling the awareness of race
as “racist,” a color-blind framework equates any classification on the basis of race with harm-
ful discrimination (Garces, 2014b). As such, it runs the risk of silencing any public analysis and
serious discussion of the ways in which race continues to matter in shaping students’ experi-
ences and educational opportunities—ways that are extensively documented by social science
research (Carter & Reardon, 2014; Duncan-Andrade, 2007, 2009). Instead, racism becomes pri-
vatized and reduced to individual acts, making it nearly impossible to draw important connections
between historical legacies of institutionalized exclusionary policies and practices and contempo-
rary reasons for inequality that have been widely documented in numerous social science studies
throughout the decades (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Brown et al., 2003; DiTomaso, 2013; Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006). By silencing or excluding racial analyses that could uncover the links between
present-day inequities and historical—yet persistent—legacies of exclusion, the color-blind fram-
ing renders invisible the mechanisms that advantage whites in American society. It also limits the
policy remedies available to address the effects of past discrimination. Thus, color blindness does
more than serve as an alternative to race-consciousness: it operates to protect white advantage.
On the other hand, race-consciousness—particularly in a form that is unrestricted by legal
requirements—allows us to see the mechanisms at play that contribute to and exacerbate in-
equities, such as “structural racism.” This concept, from the field of sociology, is most currently
used to describe the persistent, self-reinforcing negative impact on people of color “of ostensibly
race-neutral policies within and among institutions” (Wiecek & Hamilton, 2014, p. 1103) and
“refers to a system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequal-
ities” (Keleher et al., 2010, p. 3). The concept is useful for evaluating how historical legacies,
individual actions, societal structures, and institutional policies and practices collectively and
 330 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

interactively result in the uneven distribution of wealth, opportunities, and symbolic advantages
and disadvantages along racial lines.
An understanding of structural racism allows one to identify the contributors of racial dis-
parities “in the processes, procedures, policies, historical conventions, assumptions, and beliefs
regarding operational functioning that occur within, between, and among the social institutions
that make up a society’s infrastructure” (Wiecek & Hamilton, 2014, p. 1106). Within this frame-
work, racial disparities are accurately understood as the result of “institutional arrangements that
distribute resources unequally and inequitably” (p. 1106), as opposed to being attributed to indi-
viduals’ behavior or the result of an express intent to discriminate. They are the consequence of
interconnected systems and processes that also adapt to thwart, rebuff, or withstand threats to the
current system of inequality (e.g., Roithmayr, 2014).
Yet, within a color-blind framework, these mechanisms are rendered invisible and the only
actions that are seen as contributing to racial inequity are overt acts that explicitly seek to dis-
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

criminate. This shift in focus from the structural to the individual shuts down attempts to reshape
institutionalized practices and policies that have differential impacts on people of color, even
if those negative impacts are not intended by the individuals working within the institutions. It
also allows for the characterization of “race-neutral” policies as admirable (what well-intentioned
and good individuals should strive for) and, therefore, “fair.” The focus on the individual further
entrenches and polarizes racial identities as binary (black/white) and fixed, creating situations
whereby “interests” are construed narrowly and in ways that do not offer many opportunities for
strategic alignment. This understanding of what the principle of color blindness renders invisible
illuminates the current state of affairs as a form of racism. That is, color blindness maintains white
advantage by camouflaging itself in the pretense of “race-neutrality” (Bonilla-Silva, 2014).
Thus, the current period of retrenchment—exemplified in policies that are grounded in an il-
lusion that color blindness is possible, fair, and desirable, and in outdated notions that limit racist
acts to ones committed by individuals intentionally—must be addressed. We need to understand
that a color-blind framework is a current manifestation of racism that must be counteracted with a
set of approaches that tackle systems of white dominance and the underpinnings of such a frame-
work that preclude strategic alliances and the building of power among communities of color.
Simultaneously, we need to strategically build new areas of interest convergences among inter-
secting and shifting identities (i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship status, language,
class, etc.) in ways that challenge simplistic categories of black and white. In this way, we can
more effectively advance the full participation of historically and currently marginalized peoples
in important areas of society. We finish this paper by outlining an approach that we term a strate-
gic racial equity framework. This approach is based on three fundamental principles we outline
next.

PRINCIPLES OF A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK

The strategic racial equity framework integrates strategies and concepts from related theories,
including critical race theory (e.g., Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Howard & Navarro, 2016;
Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1998), racial literacy (Guinier, 2004), intersectionality
(Crenshaw, 1991; Núñez, 2014), opportunity hoarding (DiTomaso, 2013; Lewis & Diamond,
2015), and community organizing (Alinsky, 1971; Su, 2007; Warren & Mapp, 2011) to advance
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 331

three principles. These three principles include: (1) attending to the dynamic relationship among
race, power, and identities; (2) actively naming and addressing hidden contributors to inequity;
and (3) generating power among marginalized communities toward transformative policies. We
interweave multiple examples of its application, so that readers spanning K–12 and postsecondary
contexts can understand how the principles can be applied in practice.

Attending to Dynamics of Race, Power, and Identities

A path forward fundamentally requires attending to the dynamic relationship among power, race,
and identities. Our current approach in education policy, necessitated by Supreme Court cases
such as Parents Involved, Fisher, and Schuette, is to move away from race, and look instead to
other factors (e.g., class, geography, etc.) that are often proxies for race in “race-neutral” policies.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Yet, it is illogical to seek to impact and assess racial equity without attending to and looking at
race (Carter, Skiba, Arredondo, & Pollock, 2014). As Guinier (2004) argues, rather than denying
a focus on race, stakeholders and policymakers should aim for racial literacy. To be racially
literate in our current context is to simultaneously not lose sight of race and to not only focus on
race. Race should be understood as dynamic and in relationship with fluid identities and access
to power. To become racially literate stakeholders and policymakers should “interrogate … the
dynamic relationship among race, class, geography, gender, and other explanatory variables” (p.
115).
Further, racial literacy stresses the relationship between race and power (Guinier, 2004).
Guinier (2004) reminds us that power or, in her words, agency is both an individual phenomenon
as well as one connected to larger environmental and institutional factors that influence an indi-
vidual’s capacity to exercise this agency. We borrow from Karlberg (2005) to understand power
as having the capacity to do something, such as to carry out one’s wishes or to access resources
and opportunities that impact one’s life. Integrating this understanding of power with Guinier’s
(2004) emphasis of power operating at individual and institutional levels, the first principle of
our framework calls for power analyses to evaluate how multidimensional sets of policies, laws,
assumptions, and/or cultural practices (that operate both consciously and unconsciously in fluidly
changing cultural contexts) inequitably affect individuals’ or groups’ capacity to access opportu-
nities and resources.
In addition to a focus on power, a racial literacy lens requires a focus on dynamic shifting
identities—among which race is a critical one—and the relationship between these identities and
the power to access opportunities and resources. The concept of intersectionality provides a help-
ful lens for developing racial literacy with a focus on these dynamic shifting identities (Crenshaw,
1991; Hill Collins, 2000; Núñez, 2014). Intersectionality similarly argues for the importance of
scrutinizing power and highlights the need to consider broad social dynamics that create and per-
petuate inequity for individuals according to their multiple identities. Building on the work of
other scholars, such as Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Núñez (2014) of-
fers one possible set of concrete guidelines for undertaking the type of power analyses we call
for in the first principle of our framework. Núñez (2014) recommends examining power in re-
lationship to: (a) multifaceted individual identities (e.g., ethnicity, citizenship status, class, and
gender); (b) historical context; and (c) four domains of society. These four domains include “(a)
organizational (e.g., positions in structures of society such as work, family, and education), (b)
 332 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

representational (e.g., how groups of people are portrayed in media, everyday talk, and cultural
imagery), (c) intersubjective (e.g., relationships between individuals and members of groups),
and (d) experiential (e.g., how people make sense of their life experiences or tell stories about
their lives)” (Núñez, 2014, p. 88). Building on Jones and McEwen’s (2000) work, Núñez (2014)
illuminates the multifaceted and fluid nature of individuals’ identities.
Núñez’s (2014) framework of intersectionality is particularly promising for identifying the
complex ways in which identity, context, and systems of interlocking power and oppression
shape individual experiences. Fundamentally, the framework allows us to move beyond a
black–white conception of race that may operate to sustain white privilege. Instead, this lens al-
lows one to consider that at a given point in time, in a particular social context, one identity may
be more prevalent for an individual than another; yet, with a slight shift in context, a different
core identity or set of core identities could emerge as salient. Further, these shifts in saliencies of
identities could have important implications for identifying policies that seek to promote equity.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

This principle, for example, can be used to better understand the experiences of an increas-
ingly diverse Latina/o population, the percentage of which is projected to double from 2008 to
2050, from 15% to 30% (Berstein & Edwards, 2008). By considering social dimensions of geog-
raphy and history, we can better understand that the experiences of Latina/o immigrant students in
California could be very different from (or related to) those of their Latina/os counterparts who
live in states that have seen more recent immigration of Latina/os, such as Georgia, North Car-
olina, Mississippi, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Núñez,
2014). By adding other interrelated dimensions of identity (e.g., citizenship status, language, or
class) and local school context, we may identify additional relevant dynamics of power. For exam-
ple, we can better identify where interests converge for the passage of bilingual K–12 education
policy by understanding that such a policy may be in the best interests of different groups of peo-
ple in different geographic locations depending on particularities such as immigration patterns,
school district boundaries, school board membership, and political aspirations of policymakers in
a specific geographic location. By understanding the multiple dimensions across which individ-
uals’ experiences can vary, and the differential access afforded to those identities in the specific
context in which educational change is sought, researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders
can be better positioned to support educational change by helping expose dynamics of power in
a particular situation.
Thus, in contrast to simplistic notions of static identities, more realistically understanding the
dynamics of power, race, and identities in particular contexts can help illuminate interest conver-
gences that further a civil rights and social justice agenda. That is because we can better under-
stand how interests may change depending on the issue, comprehend the fluid nature of identity,
and identify who has power to make change in a particular social context. This is an example of
how to put into practice a “multilayered approach [to] challenge the dominant narrative within and
across different spheres of influence” (Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015, p. 36) and an understand-
ing that “power is contested in relational ways within and across selves” in the work “toward
liberation” (p. 38).
Even as we recognize that our identities are intersectional, multiple and partial, racial identity
is still particularly salient in the context of accessing opportunities to high-quality education in the
United States. This is based on the fact that racial identity has always been, and continues to be, a
key divider of provision of educational opportunities. Thus, while recognizing multiple identities
and arguing for the importance of attending directly to them to open up more opportunities for
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 333

interest convergences, simultaneously, race—in the U.S. educational context specifically—

remains a salient identity to which we must centrally attend when attempting to forward edu-
cational justice. For this reason, we turn to the next principle underlying a strategic racial equity
framework.

Actively Naming and Addressing Hidden Contributors to Racial Inequity

A strategic racial equity framework further requires actively naming and addressing the hidden
(and not so hidden) policies and practices that contribute to and perpetuate racial inequity. In-
formed by Freire’s (1970) pioneering work, many scholars (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Duncan-
Andrade, 2007) emphasize the importance of developing a “critical consciousness” to understand
how education systems “systematically privilege whiteness” (Jayakumar & Adamian, 2015, p.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

41). Our analysis emphasizes the importance of readily accessible language for naming these
structures that preserve white advantage and adds theoretical framings on white opportunity
hoarding (DiTomaso, 2014; Lewis & Diamond, 2015, described next), as concrete tools for de-
veloping this language.
Color blindness, which as we and others (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2014) argue, is a manifestation
of current racism, is premised on the illusion that we do not see race or that by pretending not
to see race we can somehow counter discrimination. However, structural racial inequality, both
visible and invisible, fundamentally shapes individual experiences and access to educational op-
portunities. Thus, countering a color-blind framework requires: (a) actively naming the social and
historical context that shapes current events and policies, (b) making explicit the advantages af-
forded to whites based on laws, policies, and cultural practices, and (c) developing language and
other tools for naming privilege and advantage. This principle is consistent with one of the critical
race praxis for educational research tenets Jayakumar and Adamian (2015) advance: “redefining
dominant and hegemonic systems” (p. 41). Developing fluency for naming and addressing priv-
ilege is one example of a specific tactic to thwart racism and challenge white dominance that is
consistent with Bell’s (2003) racial realism recommendation: to engage in strategies that strive
for triumph in the face of accepting how deeply embedded racism is within our society.
Educational policies and practices do not operate in isolation, nor can they be devoid of a
broader historical and institutional context. Indeed, even the practices that we may deem not to
be discriminatory in our everyday interactions can promote inequity and sustain white advan-
tage (Pollock, 2008). Yet, in a society that emphasizes individual effort, we do not have readily
accessible conceptual language to talk about how individual actions can be embedded within a
broader set of processes and structures that perpetuate inequity. One helpful approach can be
found in Lewis and Diamond’s (2015) three-pronged assessment tool for understanding contrib-
utors to racially inequitable education outcomes. After deconstructing the inaccurate theory that
black students are not performing as well as their white peers because of an aversion to “acting
white,” Lewis and Diamond (2015) outline three levels of actors, policies, and practices that are
contributing to educational inequity: structural, institutional, and race-based status beliefs.
At the structural or societal level, disparities in income and wealth, along with racial seg-
regation in housing and schools, are linked to inequitably distributed resources across racial
groups (Lewis & Diamond, 2015). For example, wealth is defined as the net mean worth of all
financial assets in a family (Bobo, Kluegel, & Smith, 1996); it includes not only the financial
 334 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

resources accumulated over one’s lifetime, but also resources inherited across generations (Oliver
& Shapiro, 2006). Wealth is a more accurate gauge of a family’s economic stability than income.
Racial/ethnic wealth disparities result from interconnected structural barriers reaching as far back
as slavery and continuing with social and economic segregation, immigration laws, institutional
discrimination, and other policies that have disadvantaged blacks and Latinos. One policy ex-
ample is the National Housing Act of 1934. This act enabled home ownership for many white
families while black families were routinely denied access to these same loans. The impact of
policies such as these are reflected in current home ownership rates; as of 2015, 67.8% of white
families, 47.7% of black families, and 47.3% of Latino families own their own homes (Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2016). Median household wealth follows a similar
racially inequitable pattern; in 2011, the median wealth holdings for families were $111,146 for
white households, $7,113 for black households, and $8,348 for Latino households (Sullivan et al.,
2015). These wealth holdings mean that in a crisis situation when a family loses steady income,
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

the average white middle-class household could support a middle-class standard of living for
about 4 1/3 months; in contrast, the average black middle-class household could not even support
this standard of living for one month (Oliver & Shapiro, 1997). Such disparities in household
wealth mask individual contributions to life success.
At the institutional level, practices within schools, such as classroom and teacher tracking, and
“opportunity hoarding” further contribute to racially inequitable outcomes (Lewis & Diamond,
2015). Opportunity hoarding is the practice of dominant group members who are in control of
resources (such as influencing access to advanced placement [AP] classes) or regulating the dis-
tribution of resources in ways that ultimately restrict nondominant group members from gaining
full access to such resources.5 This process played out, for example, in one racially diverse mid-
dle school, where white students represented almost 90% of students in AP classes and almost
80% of students in honors classes; however, black and Latino students made up more than 60% of
the students in regular-level classes (Lewis & Diamond, 2015). Further, the most qualified teach-
ers were teaching students in the AP and honors classes, with less-qualified teachers with fewer
years of experience teaching the regular classes. These racially tracked courses came about as
parents of underachieving white students, engaging in opportunity hoarding, would demand that
their children be placed in honors and AP courses and if they did not receive favorable grades
would hire tutors so that their students could complete the material. These disparities in access to
institutional resources through opportunity hoarding influence students’ opportunities for success
and contribute to unequal educational outcomes.
At the individual level, race-based status beliefs (i.e., shared cultural stereotypes, or stories and
narratives used to justify structural and institutional inequalities along racial lines) can also con-
tribute to inequitable outcomes (Lewis & Diamond, 2015). These beliefs are largely unconscious,
but not inevitable. Further, they reinforce inequity by shaping day-to-day interactions. Such race-
based beliefs include lower expectations for the intellectual abilities of students of color (Steele,
2010) or hyper-monitoring and referrals of African American and Latino students for disciplinary
action (Losen & Gillespie, 2012; Skiba et al., 2011). These narratives help to reinforce inequities
because performance expectations (race-based or otherwise) have real implications for how stu-
dents perform in schools (Weinstein, 2002).

5 The concept of opportunity hoarding can be related to the concept of whiteness as property as advanced by Harris

(1993), though such an analysis is outside the scope of this paper.

 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 335

DiTomaso (2013), in a groundbreaking study for helping understand how racial inequity can be
maintained and perpetuated without overt acts of racism, demonstrates how opportunity hoarding
operates to perpetuate racially disparate outcomes in life opportunities outside of education. She
finds these inequities persist more due to whites treating members of their own predominantly
white social networks preferentially than due to explicit exclusion of other groups or racially
discriminatory beliefs. After interviewing a sample of working, middle, and upper-class whites
about their life experiences, political standpoints, and beliefs about racial inequality in America,
DiTomaso (2013) found that whites tend to favor other whites in the labor market. Further this
opportunity hoarding has significant impacts on life outcomes because of whites’ greater access to
people in positions of power through their churches, schools, and families. Although opportunity
hoarding is an example of systematic advantage afforded to whites, the concept is not widely
known and instead, practices like it are normalized through deracialized cultural sayings such as,
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.”
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

In addition to naming the structures and practices that perpetuate racial inequities, we need
to develop greater fluency to discuss the related concept of white advantage in concrete and ex-
plicit ways and address head on the uncomfortable feelings that such discussions generate. For
example, we can easily say there are “systems of privilege,” but what are these systems and how
do they work? Fluid answers to such questions should be made part of public discourse (Lakoff,
2005) and could contribute to more accurate analyses of the causes, and thereby, strategy develop-
ment for building racial equity. In her landmark article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible
Knapsack,” McIntosh (1990) presented clear language for exposing the everyday privileges and
advantages that white people may experience on a daily basis (e.g., not being followed in a store,
or told they are “articulate” for a white person, etc.). One way to put the second principle of
the racial equity framework into practice is to develop a similar list for naming the privileges in
education that contribute to the persistence of racialized inequity.
In short, this principle is another example of how to put Bell’s (2000) theory of racial realism—
developing hopeful strategies to counter deeply embedded racist structures in our society—into
practice. Actively naming and addressing contributors to inequity are fundamental steps that can
counter a color-blind framework and expose, rather than hide, practices that contribute to and
perpetuate racial inequity. This requires understanding and developing tools to talk about and an-
alyze how widespread cultural phenomena, such as white opportunity hoarding, may play a larger
role in inequitable employment practices than explicit white racial bias. Further, actively naming
practices that contribute to inequity requires introducing terminology—such as race-based sta-
tus beliefs (Lewis & Diamond, 2015)—for everyday conversations that encourage discussion of
white privileges in our education system.

Generating Power Among Marginalized Communities Through

Relationship-Building

In addition to naming and addressing the policies and practices that sustain inequity, a strate-
gic racial equity framework is focused on the importance of generating power among histor-
ically marginalized communities of color to enact transformative policies in education. Inte-
grating philosophies and lessons from community-organizing theory (Alinsky, 1971) and social
capital theory (Coleman, 1988) specifically, this principle focuses on generating power among
 336 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

communities that have historically been marginalized in an attempt to minimize the inevitable
compromises that happen as a result of interest convergence as traditionally conceived (i.e., inter-
ests across black and middle or upper-income white communities within a hegemonic system).
In analyses of previous civil rights “wins,” racial justice scholars have questioned whether com-
munities of color have given up too much in order to align their interests with whites and advance
a collaborative agenda. As we explained earlier, Ladson-Billings (2004) argues that the Brown
decision did not effectively support the educational experiences of students of color because the
legal strategy framed the problem as one of “black inferiority” and the strategy missed opportu-
nities to build coalitions between working-class whites and black communities in seeking quality
education. Generating power among marginalized communities to enact policy change can help
communities of color avoid giving up too much to align their interests with whites. This is in part
because the voices of marginalized communities can help frame policies in a manner that recog-
nizes the strengths within communities of color. As framed in critical race praxis: “the power of
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

those in oppressed positions [are] the source of transformation potential” (Jayakumar & Adamian,
2015, p. 46, citing Freire, 1970).
To be sure, because of inequitable power to access resources and opportunities, garnering
power to enact change among communities of color can be difficult. However, strategies from
community organizing, which have helped advance the interests of marginalized groups (Alinsky,
1971; Warren & Mapp, 2011), can help provide a path forward. Community organizing can create
opportunities for marginalized communities to collectively generate power to address shared is-
sues of concern and influence how policies are framed and subsequently enacted. Jayakumar and
Adamian (2015) refer to this imperative as generating “interest convergence expansion.” These
strategies include developing leadership capacity, leveraging power through organized and in-
formed individuals, building relationships, and building social capital. Principle 3 builds on these
foundational community organizing strategies, while at the same time emphasizing an explicit fo-
cus on shared interests across seemingly dissimilar, shifting identities (principle 1) and on naming
the hidden contributors to racial inequity (principle 2).
Among the numerous strategies in community organizing, we focus on the building of relation-
ships and social capital because these are key for generating power among marginalized groups
working together to enact social change. Social capital exists in the relationships among people
and facilitates actions within social structures (Coleman, 1988). A social capital framework can
be used to understand how the resources in relationships can help in accomplishing tasks and
receiving goods within a given social structure or environment. Within community organizing
literature, the concept of social capital includes both bonding and bridging social capital (e.g.,
Putnam, 2000; Warren & Mapp, 2011). Bonding social capital is often utilized to describe mem-
bers within a community—often marginalized communities of color—building relationships with
one another (e.g., low-income Vietnamese mothers in one school district building relationships to
address a shared issue of concern). Contrastingly, bridging social capital is often used to describe
members of one community building relationships outside their regular social network, such as
individuals in a marginalized community building relationships with individuals, who are often
white, in formal positions of power.
Although many community organizers utilize the building of social capital as an organizing
strategy (Warren & Mapp, 2011), the concept has also been critiqued. For example, Schafft and
Brown (2003) argue that social capital, particularly when measured quantitatively as a statisti-
cal variable, can actually obscure unequal access to power and privilege. Based on their own
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 337

previous case studies, Schafft and Brown (2003) question whether social capital as a concept can
actually capture the complexity of social structures in a particular context, arguing that social
capital is only an interesting concept when attention is given to “the historically developed social
conditions that have created and reproduced structured inequality” (p. 338). Thus, they argue for
the importance of analyzing the circumstances in a particular environment—such as the history
and social networks—that afford differential access to resources. For instance, this historical and
social context, similar to what Bourdieu (1986) refers to as the habitus, differentiates the creation
of social capital to “hoard” opportunity (DiTomaso, 2013; Lewis & Diamond, 2015) from the
creation of social capital as utilized in community organizing. Rather than “hoard” opportunity,
community organizers often encourage members of the community to build relationships and so-
cial capital for collective access to resources, such as improving educational access not just for
“my child,” but for “all our children” (Ishimaru, 2014; Ishimaru, Gordon & Cervantes, 2011).
Given that all relationships and relationship-building mechanisms are not equally influential, ef-
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

ficacious, or valued, this approach also requires strategic support for constituents to build both
bonding and bridging social capital to access resources in the context of a society with entrenched
white hegemony.6
The way we envision this third principle in practice addresses this critique of social capital (i.e.,
that the research of social capital does not capture the complexity of social structures and power),
because we call for the third principle to be combined with the first two principles: analyzing
shifting, intersecting, and contextualized identities and power in particular contexts (principle 1)
and naming the contributors to a facet of inequity in an embedded historical context (principle
2). Augmenting Bourdieu’s conception of social capital within a habitus, we propose generating
power among marginalized communities through relationship and social capital building with
explicit attention to race-conscious interest convergences and analyzing and addressing the con-
tributors to racial inequity.7
In practice, this principle can be enacted when members of multiple marginalized communi-
ties organize to interrupt dominant discourses that sustain their marginalization. In the context
of parental engagement, for example, deficit-oriented approaches, based on inaccurate dominant
discourses, might include teaching communities to “value” education. Contrastingly, alliances
among marginalized communities, along with explicit attention to the power dynamics in a par-
ticular context, can provide the space for members of marginalized communities to introduce
counter-narratives such as the intersecting values of the long-standing struggle for educational
opportunities in Mexican American communities (Valencia, 2002) and the core value of educa-
tion for liberation in African American communities (Perry, Steele, & Hillard, 2003).
One particular example of this principle in practice is provided in a study by Ishimaru and
Takahashi (2017/this issue) of a school district–university design research process that involved
bringing together nondominant families from different racial/ethnic communities to change edu-
cational practice around the shared interests of all children. To honor salient identities in a par-
ticular context and counteract unequal access to power, research team members utilized multiple
strategies. These included ensuring that parents of color were in the numerical majority in project

6 In this way, the use of social capital within community organizing is distinct from opportunity hoarding in terms of

both purpose and strategy.

7 As Su (2007) illustrated by integrating a critical race theory framework in her research of five south Bronx organizing

groups, the most successful organizing groups were ones that implemented race-conscious approaches. The proposed
approach in our analysis thus builds on Su’s (2007) work on critical race theory and education organizing strategies.
 338 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

meetings; having separate meetings among parents (without district personnel) to give them space
to build relationships, identify shared priorities, and strategize solutions; explicitly reflecting on
the power dynamics in the room with families and educators; privileging parents’ decisions about
how to proceed in the process; and using protocols to balance talk time and limit the exercise of
positional power during meetings. This design process cultivated a form of collective agency
among parents and teachers and resulted in a new curriculum for the district parent academy, as
well as a set of principles and practices to enact more equitable collaboration between families
and schools. The use of these explicit strategies can be used to generate power among historically
marginalized communities to enact transformative education policies and practices.

CONCLUSION
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

The goal of the strategic racial equity framework is to provide a path forward for transformative
policies and practices that support full participation for members of communities who historically
have been excluded from engaging meaningfully in our democracy. We believe this approach can
help respond to the current period of retrenchment in civil rights in which we find ourselves—a
period in which dominant discourses such as color blindness are thwarting racial justice efforts. To
do so, we draw from concepts and frameworks across diverse academic fields that do not typically
work in concert such as critical race theory, racial literacy, intersectionality, opportunity hoarding,
and community organizing, and utilize elements of critical race praxis for educational research.
Building on an already-developed body of work within each of these areas, we argue that when
woven together within a strategic racial equity framework for a broad education audience, these
concepts have the potential to advance creative approaches to generate transformative policies.
Although we do not believe that a strategic racial equity approach is sufficient on its own to
dismantle systems of power upon which our nation was built or help end the racism that continues
to plague our society, we do hope it helps to more strategically address how racism continues to
operate within our society and educational systems. By attending to the dynamics of race, power,
and identities, with concepts from critical race studies, for example, we can help disrupt the dom-
inant discourse that identities are static, built along traditionally conceived racial and ethnic lines,
or somehow disconnected from power. By naming and addressing how social and historical con-
texts and white privilege contribute to racial inequity with concepts from sociology, we can better
identify contributors to success, such as inherited wealth or racialized social networks. Finally,
by joining strategies from community organizing with the first two principles of the strategic
racial equity framework, we can create new interest convergences across fluid and shifting iden-
tities in particular contexts to create opportunities to build social capital and enact change. In this
way, the framework helps illuminate concrete strategies for enacting changes in educational poli-
cies and practices that support full participation for historically marginalized communities in our
democracy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Academy for Educational Studies 2014/2015
Critical Questions in Education Conference in San Diego, California. We are grateful to
anonymous reviewers and the editors of the Peabody Education Journal for their insightful feed-
back on this work.
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 339

AUTHOR BIOS

Liliana M. Garces is an Associate Professor in the Program of Higher Education Leadership at the
University of Texas at Austin. Her research, which focuses on the dynamics of law and educational
policy, examines access, diversity, and equity-related policies for marginalized populations in
higher education and the use and influence of research in law.

Cynthia Gordon da Cruz is on the full-time teaching faculty at Saint Mary’s College of California,
teaching in the Justice, Community and Leadership program and at the Kalmanovitz Graduate
School of Education. Her research, which focuses on community-engaged scholarship, critical
democratic citizenship, antiracism, and community organizing, provides policy recommendations
to carry out inclusive excellence in higher education institutions.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press.
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York, NY: Random House.
Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES
2010–015). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf
Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(518),
518–533.
Bell, D. (1991). Racism is here to stay: Now what? Howard Law Journal, 35, 79–93.
Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bell, D. (2000). Race, racism and American law (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Law & Business.
Bell, D. (2003). Diversity’s distractions. Columbia Law Review, 103, 1622–1633.
Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Berrey, E. (2015). The enigma of diversity: The language of race and the limits of racial justice. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Berstein, R., & Edwards, T. (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. U.S. Census Bureau News.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20080822044429/http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/
archives/population/012496.html
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2016). Report on the economic well-being of U.S. households in
2015. Retrieved from https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf
Bobo, L., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (1996). Laissez-faire racism: The crystallization of a ‘kinder, gentler’ anti-black
ideology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Brown, M. K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T., Oppenheimer, D. B., Shultz, M. M., Wellman, D. (2003). Whitewashing
race: The myth of a color-blind society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Carter, P. L., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Inequality matters (William T. Grant Foundation Paper). New York, NY: William
T. Grant Foundation.
 340 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

Carter, P., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M., & Pollock, M. (2014). You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in
addressing racial discipline disparities. Discipline Disparities Highlights. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/∼
atlantic/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Acknowledging-Race_121514.pdf
Chang, M. J., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (2003). Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial
dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.
Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University
Press.
DeLorme, J., & Singer, J. N. (2010). The interest convergence principle and the integration of Major League Baseball.
Journal of Black Studies, 41(2), 367–384.
Diamond, J. (2008). Focusing on student learning. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race in
school (pp. 254–257). New York, NY: New Press.
DiTomaso, N. (2013). The American non-dilemma: Racial inequality without racism. New York, NY: The Russell Sage
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Foundation.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Engaging the race question: Accountability and equity in U.S. higher education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers
in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 617–638.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(2), 181.
Feldman, S. M. (2012). Do the right thing: Understanding the interest convergence thesis. Northwestern University Law
Review, 106(248), 248–260.
Ferguson, R. F., & Mehta, J. (2004). An unfinished journey: The legacy of Brown and the narrowing of the achievement
gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 656–669.
Freire, P. (1970/2007). Pedagody of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Continuum.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 Sp.Ct. 2411 (2013).
Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: A dilemma of quality and quantity. Teaching
and California’s Future. Davis: University of CA, Davis.
Garces, L. (2014a). Aligning diversity, quality, and equity: The implications of legal and public policy developments for
promoting racial diversity in graduate studies. American Journal of Education, 120(4), 457–480.
Garces, L. (2014b, September 1). What to do about a “color-blind” Supreme Court? [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://aeradivisionj.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-to-do-about-color-blind-supreme.html
Garver, R. (2016). Segregation in segregated schools. In E. Frankenberg, L. Garces, & M. Hopkins (Eds.), School inte-
gration matters: Research-based strategies to advance equity (pp. 121–134). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-divergence
dilemma. The Journal of American History, (June), 92–118.
Guinier, L. (2015). The tyranny of the meritocracy: Democratizing higher education in America. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 286(106), 1707–1791.
Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Howard, T. C., & Navarro, O. (2016). Critical race theory 20 years later: Where do we go from here? Urban Education,
51(3), 253–273.
Ishimaru, A. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Har-
vard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216.
Ishimaru, A. M., Gordon, C. J., & Cervantes, R. (2011). “A match on dry grass”: Organizing for great schools in San Jose.
In M. R. Warren & K. Mapp (Eds.), A Match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform (pp.
33–65). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 A STRATEGIC RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK 341

Ishimaru, A. M., & Takahashi, S. (2017/this issue). Disrupting Racialized Institutional Scripts: Toward Parent–Teacher
Transformative Agency for Educational Justice. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(3), xx–xx.
Jayakumar, U. M., & Adamian, A. S. (2015). Toward a critical race praxis for educational research: Lessons from af-
firmative action and social science advocacy. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity, 1(1),
22–58.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(4), 405–414.
Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pursuing peace through discourse intervention.
International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(1), 1–19.
Keleher, T., Leiderman, S., Meehan, D., Perry, E., Potapchuk, M., powell, j. a., & Yu, H. C. (2010). Leadership and race:
How to develop and support leadership that contributes to racial justice. Leadership for a New Era. Oakland, CA:
Leadership Learning Community.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three
Rivers Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7),
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

3–13.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68.
Lakoff, G. (2005). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Victoria, Australia: Scribe Pub-
lications.
Lewis, A. E., & Diamond, J. B. (2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school.
Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA.
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups
by state and place: 2007–2011 (American Community Survey Brief No. 11–17). Washington, DC: US Census
Bureau.
McCormick, A. C., & McCormick, R. A. (2012). Race and interest convergence in NCAA sports. Wake Forest Journal
of Law & Policy, 2(1), 17–43.
McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Retrieved from https://nationalseedproject.org/
white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack
Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Allegretto, S. (2005). The state of working America. Ithaca, NY: ILR.
National Housing Act of 1934. H.R. 9620 73d Congress. Retrieved from https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?item_id=
457156&filepath=/docs/historical/martin/54_01_19340627.pdf
Núñez, A.-M. (2014). Employing multilevel intersectionality in educational research: Latino identities, contexts, and
college access. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 85–92.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1997). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (2006). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (10th anniver-
sary edition). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Orfield, G. (2014). Tenth annual Brown lecture in education research: A new civil rights agenda for American education.
Educational Researcher, 43(6), 273–292.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Rights Project at Harvard University.
Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind
by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hillard, A. (2003). Young, gifted, black: Promoting high achievement among African-American
students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Pollock, M. (2008). Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race in school. New York, NY: New Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Ramirez, S. A. (2004). Games CEOs play and interest convergence theory: Why diversity lags in America’s boardrooms
and what to do about it. Washington and Lee Law Review, 61(4), 1583–1613.
 342 L. M. GARCES AND C. GORDON DA CRUZ

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Roithmayr, D. (2014). Reproducing racism: How everyday choices lock in white advantage. New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Schafft, K., & Brown, D. (2003). Social capital, social networks, and social power. Social Epistemology: A Journal of
Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 17(4), 329–342.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
Shapiro, T., Meschede, T. & Osoro, S. (2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap: Explaining the black-white
economic divide (Research and Policy Brief). Waltham, MA: Institute on Assets and Social Policy.
Singleton, G. (2013). More courageous conversations about race. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Skiba, R., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national
investigation of African-American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review,
40(1), 85–107.
Smedley, B., Stith, A. & Nelson, A. (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Soares, J. (2011). SAT wars: The case for test-optional admissions. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Downloaded by [Boston University] at 09:08 05 August 2017

Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and the experiences of Chicana and
Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121–136.
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011, September). Full participation: Building the architecture for
diversity and community engagement in higher education. Paper presented at the Imagining America: Artists and
Scholars in Public Life conference, Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN.
Su, C. (2007). Cracking silent codes: Critical race theory and education organizing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 28(4), 531–548.
Sullivan, L., Meschede, T., Dietrich, L, Shapiro, T., Traub, A., Ruetschlin, C., & Draut, T. (2015). The racial wealth gap:
Why policy matters. Retrieved from https://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2015/RWA.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, The National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Table 376: Percentage of first-
time full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year institutions who completed a bachelor’s degree, by
race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2005.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_376.asp
U.S. Department of Education, The National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Table 302.65: Percentage of 18- to
24-year-olds enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and state: 2014. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_302.65.asp
Valencia, R. R. (2002). “Mexican Americans don’t value education!” On the basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunk-
ing. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 81–103.
Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wiecek, W. M., & Hamilton, J. L. (2014). Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting structural racism in the
workplace. Louisiana Law Review, 74(4), 1095–1263.
Yamamoto, E. K. (1997). Critical race praxis: Race theory and political lawyering practice in post-Civil Rights America.
Michigan Law Review, 95(4), 821–900.