Group 4 Questions - Week 4 (Lareau & Hill Collins)

1. In “Social Structure and Daily Life”, Lareau writes, regarding possible inequality in treatment of Black and White students at Lower Richmond, that “Although white administrators and teachers generally did not agree, other Black educators at the school echoed these concerns” (p. 18) Do you think this issue is entirely objective, and that Black students are necessarily being treated unfairly? Or is it necessary that where one side of the “argument” sees inequity, the other must see equity (in this case of the two schools, or in a case of role reversal), and it is only in terms of Black and White? Is this issue at Lower Richmond solely objective, or does race past and present affect the perceptions of both groups of educators? How can we work to make sure that educators acknowledge color, but do not allow color to affect treatment or preference? Is this possible, impossible, or just improbable, if some educators are not “able” to recognize inequity or inequality in treatment of students?
2. On several occasions, Lareau discusses disparities in financial capital and spending between urban and suburban schools, based on social class differences and overall socioeconomic status of residents. Should the focus, then, be on breaking down barriers of social class in an effort to mitigate the effects of stratification and resulting funding differences? Or should the focus be, at least in the short term, on redistributed allocation of ALL funds from all districts on a state or federal level, so that all schools at least have the same financial capital per student? With the rise of the Common Core and federal mandates of all schools, should this be the case anyway? Should this give way to equality of base performance to equalize results of social class? Would this in turn help schools to become one of the “great equalizers” (p. 15), as it is supposed to be under rules of meritocracy?
3. Lareau’s tone clearly changes as she describes the Lower Richmond and Swan schools. Is this simply because the qualities that Swan possesses are objectively nicer, or does the language used work to further create a sense of disparity. Consider this quote concerning the Swan school: “There are so many trees, flowering shrubs, and flowers that when the seasons shift, the presence of nature is almost overwhelming. In fall, burnt-orange-colored leaves carpet the ground; in spring, a sea of yellow daffodils appears, while overhead, white and pink dogwoods pop into bloom” (p. 20). Regardless of this very poetic language, there is clearly a drastic difference in the atmosphere of the two schools. However, how does Lareau utilize language to further emphasize possible extremes in environment. Should we use language in this way, or should we try to objectify the discussion as much as possible so that we can focus on the issues at hand? Or is this kind of language necessary to truly show readers how much of a difference social class and race make in schooling?
4. Lareau writes “Despite this close attention to multiculturalism, the emphasis on diversity [at Swan] is largely symbolic since, unlike at Lower Richmond, here nearly all students, educators, administrators, and service personnel are white” (p. 21). In “Toward a New Vision”, Hill Collins states that “from the perspective of the privileged, the lives of people of color, of the poor, and of women are interesting for their entertainment value” (p. 458). Does the display of diversity at Swan promote an awareness and celebration of cultures and equality, or does it simply prove Hill Collins’s point? Is this show of multiculturalism working to bring people together across race, gender, and class, or is its sole purpose to make the staff and student body feel better about what Lareau describes as a very white (and presumably relatively closed-off) community? How can we tell when these displays represent a commitment to diversity, integration, and equality if there is no sign of these ideas in action?
5. In thinking about “relationships of those of unequal power” (Hill Collins, p. 459), is it realistic to ask those in power to give up power? Is it human nature for one group to constantly strive for power over another, and is there anything we can do to change this? She also writes in her essay that “Few of us can manage to study race, class, and gender simultaneously” (p. 460).  Should we then work to end domination an inequality in one of those capacities before tackling the next, if so few can study (let alone affect) each of those? (I’m not sure of the answer to either of these, but wanted to pose this question for discussion.)