For years, social scientists have stumbled over each other's theories in their feeble attempts to explain why "Latinos" and African-Americans fail in Amerikkkan schools and Amerikkkan society in general. Many of these theories have involved explanations based upon differing levels of intelligence and genetics. As a result, these theories are inherently racist and cannot be taken seriously. The most famous study of this nature can be found in the book "The Bell Curve" in which the authors facilitate such theories in order to justify their assumption that "Latinos" and African-Americans fail in Amerikkkan schools because they have inferior genetics. John U. Ogbu was the first scholar to develop a theory which finally explained the discrepency between those students who excel in Amerikkkan schools (Whites and Asians) and those student who fail in Amerikkkan schools (Mexicans and Blacks). His theory is very simple and other social scientists probably missed it because many of them were Europeans and worked within a Euro-centric frame of reference. John U. Ogbu on the other hand was a Nigerian and thus had an outsiders perspective. His theory simply stated that Amerikkkan society is inherently racist and actively discriminates against non-European groups. Those groups who have faced this racism over the span of generations thus eventually developed a deep understanding of the odds that were against them and they decided school would not get them anywhere in Amerikkkan society. School and Amerikkkan society in general became something to resist and they strived to maintain their own identities instead. Ogbu explains that groups who only recently migrated to Amerikkka do not see this racism and attribute such incidents of racism to their own "lack of understanding of American culture" or to their "ignorance of the English language." These groups thus excel in school because they are not aware of the racism that they encounter on a daily basis. This is why first generation immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Peru do so much better than multi-generation Mexicans. Academic success thus has nothing to do with intelligence but has everything to do with racism in Amerikkka. Ogbu's model has been confirmed over and over again by social scientists and we now have a deep understanding of why our people fail in Amerikkkan schools.

According to Anne Davidson, “one of the more enduring cornerstones of American thought is the conviction that education offers a route to social mobility for peoples of all backgrounds (1996).” This conviction however does not hold up when it is considered that as Davidson notes, “African American and Latino youth, as well as children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, drop out at rates higher than their peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 1994: Tables 106, 112, 116).” In the year 2000, 4.0% of all Asian/Pacific Islanders, 7.0% of all Euro-Americans, 13.0% of all African Americans, and 28.0% of all Hispanic Americans dropped out of school. In the same year 91.8% of all Whites graduated, 94.6% of all Asian/Pacific Islanders graduated high school compared to 83.7% of all Blacks and 64.1% of all Hispanics respectively (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001).
Social mobility in the United States is dependent upon the level of education. According to the statistics then, more Asian/Pacific Islanders and Euro-Americans are attaining social mobility in American society than Hispanic American and African Americans. Social Scientists have developed many different models to explain this discrepancy with varying degrees of success. Some theorists such as A.R. Jensen have proposed the idea that those minorities who consistently fail lack the intelligence to complete the required schoolwork (1969). Such an explanation relies on the assumption that certain groups are genetically endowed with adequate intelligence while others are not.

Other theorists such as C.T. Ramey and T.M. Suarez have gone further to suggest that this lack of appropriate intelligence is a result of inadequate home environment and early socialization (1985). Elaborating upon this assumption is the theory that minorities fail in schools because of their low socioeconomic status (Bond, 1981). Some of the more prominent anthropological views on this subject can be found within the language, communication, and cultural discontinuities models. According to these models, minority children fail in school because the cultural, communicative, and linguistic styles they learn at home are in contrast to those of the schools they attend. This then creates a barrier which is very difficult for minority students to overcome (Phillips, 1976).

As John U. Ogbu has aptly pointed out, all of these theories may be valid to a certain extent but the one phenomenon these theories fail to explain is the variation found between minority groups. While it is true that many minority students dropout out of high school, it is also true that some minority students manage not only to stay in school but also to excel at levels usually expected of other groups. None of these theories can effectively explain why recent Central American immigrants generally fair much better in school than second or third generation Mexican Americans. Although both groups encounter the same degree of racism and linguistic/cultural differences, Central American students are able to succeed more often than multi-generational Mexican American students (1990).

According to Ogbu, these variations can be explained by examining the historical and wider societal forces that can encourage or discourage the minorities from striving for school success, the folk theories or a group’s collective orientation toward schooling, and the minorities’ own notions of the meaning of schooling in the context of their own social reality (1991a). The very nature of a groups’ incorporation into any society deeply influences that groups’ cultural model and their expectations from the society in which they reside. Immigrant minorities are those who voluntary relocate from their homeland because they believe the United States has much more to offer in terms of political freedom, economic well-being and general opportunities. Although immigrant minorities face prejudice and outright racism on a daily basis, they nonetheless manage to do well in school. Examples of immigrant minorities are Punjabi Indians in Valleyside, Calfornia, and the Chinese in Stockton, California, and Central American Hispanics in San Francisco, California.

Involuntary or castelike minorities are those who did not choose to become incorporated into a society. Instead they were forcibly incorporated into a society by means of slavery, conquest, or colonization. In contrast to voluntary immigrants, involuntary minorities do not view America as the land of opportunity. Involuntary minorities tend to view their situation in America as a deep departure from their former freedom and believe they were much better off in the past. Because of this historical perspective, they do not have the positive view towards the future characteristic of voluntary immigrants. The racism they face in America is thus viewed as undeserved oppression and these minorities believe such racism can only be eliminated through collective struggle against the dominant group. Examples of involuntary minorities are African Americans in Stockton, California, Native Americans in the United States, and Mexican Americans in Santa Cruz, California (Ogbu, 1990).

Voluntary immigrants and involuntary minorities have distinctly different notions of the meaning of school that is directly related to their unique situations. When faced with racism from the dominant group, these groups interpret this racism in vastly different terms which in turn affects their motivation to succeed in school. Voluntary immigrants usually interpret the racism they encounter as barriers to be overcome. These barriers are viewed as temporary and are believed to disappear with hard work and more education. One important aspect of the voluntary immigrant is the possession of a relatively negative frame of reference back home. Often, voluntary immigrants look to their situation in their homeland and reason that they are much better off in America. Because of this frame of reference, they tend to look at the future as positive and argue that it can only get better than what they had in their homeland.

Even when they are given menial jobs or are ridiculed, they reason that it is due to the fact that they are still considered foreigners and do not speak the language well. They are thus motivated to learn American culture and the English language in order to alleviate the barriers they encounter. Learning the language and other cultural features is not viewed as threatening to their own primary cultural/language differences (the culture maintained by the group before immigrating to the United States) and they constantly strive to be selective in what they learn while continuing to maintain their own culture as best they can.

Involuntary minorities on the other hand do not view the discriminatory treatment imposed upon them as temporary. Instead, they view this treatment as undeserved and permanent. One crucial difference is that involuntary minorities do not have a homeland in which to compare their present situation. Furthermore, whenever a comparison is made, it is to their past history before they were incorporated into American society. This past history is usually viewed as a golden age and is thus considered better than their current situation in America rather than worse.

Involuntary minorities are said to be characterized by a secondary cultural system in which their beliefs and practices are either new creations or reinterpretations of old ones. This cultural system is believed not only to be different from that of the dominant group but also in direct opposition. This cultural system is thus perceived as something to be maintained while mainstream American culture is something to be resisted.

The secondary cultural system is usually developed after the group’s initial inclusion into the dominant society. It thus becomes a collective identity which is based on the discriminatory treatment received from mainstream society. Alleviation of discrimination can only be accomplished thus through collective struggle or a modification of the rules. Since they witnessed their parents and other relatives fail in their attempts to work hard and strive for education in order to get ahead, they come to the conclusion that even if they wanted to succeed there are barriers in place which prevents them from doing so. Involuntary minorities thus have little motivation to succeed if they believe it will not get them anywhere. Furthermore, whenever a member of an involuntary minority group attempts to succeed by diverging from this collective identity and learning the dominant groups’ culture, they are ridiculed and discouraged by peer groups. Changing ones cultural orientation in order to succeed may be viewed as “acting white” or “selling-out (Ogbu, 1991a).”

Voluntary Immigrant Case Studies

Before Ogbu’s much needed analysis of success and failure of America’s minorities, it was simply assumed that some minorities were smarter than others. Throughout the course of my own research at Norwalk High School, I observed students on many occasions reasoning that Asians do well in school because they are smart. The assumption held by these students was that Asians have innately higher levels of intelligence as compared to other groups which explains why they have higher success rates in the classroom. Before Ogbu’s critique, this was also the point of view held by many scholars and their theories (as discussed above) actually attempted to explain why some minorities lacked this intelligence. It is now understood that voluntary immigrants excel in school because of their unique cultural frame of reference rather than a superior genetic endowment.

The most prominent case study dealing with voluntary immigrants is the Punjabi Sikhs in Valleyside, California. According to Margaret A. Gibson, “Between 1965 and 1980 the number of Asian Indians living in and around Valleyside increased tenfold, to more than 6,000 by local estimates (Bhachu and Gibson, 1991).” Almost the entirety of these immigrants are from the state of Punjab and about 90% are Sikhs. The Punjabi Sikhs who received all of their education in the United States did relatively well academically. In some cases, they even took more advanced academic courses than their white counterparts. As in the case of most voluntary immigrants, Punjabi Sikh students encountered racism, conflicts between the cultural values of their parents and their peers, and the task of learning a new language. According to Bhachu and Gibson, “they are verbally and physically abused by majority students, who refuse to sit by them in class or on buses, crowd in front of them in lines, spit at them, stick them with pins, throw food at them, and worse (1991).”

It is amazing that in the midst of such a hostile environment, Punjabi Sikh students manage to succeed. Their parents were aware of the barriers their children encountered but reasoned that they were no excuse for poor academic performance. The students were constantly reminded by their parents that in America there are many more opportunities than back home. The parents instructed their children to take from American society only what they needed to succeed and disregard the rest. It was said that if they followed exactly what the Americans do, they would be lost (Bhachu and Gibson, 1991).

Comparable to the Punjabi Sikhs are Central American immigrants in the western United States. The students in the study by Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco encountered gang violence and drug use amongst other students on a daily basis. They were often harassed by other students and sometimes even robbed and beaten. Their teachers were burnt-out and most were pre-occupied with the threats of gang violence. When the teachers did focus on the lesson plan, the students reported that the lessons were repetitive, boring, and were not challenging. Since the majority of the Central American students were refugees, they had a deep understanding of the hardships their parents underwent in their home country.

This understanding often put a lot of pressure on the students to succeed in school. They were motivated by the fact that their parents made sacrifices on their own behalf in order that their children could have good lives. Although like the Punjabi Sikhs, the Central American students faced incredible hardships at school, they constantly pointed out that it was much worse in their homeland. This dual frame of reference provided them with a positive outlook and they reasoned that no matter how bad it is here, they had more opportunities to “become somebody” than they would have had in their home country (Suarez-Orozco, 1989).

Involuntary Minority Case Studies

In contrast to voluntary immigrants, involuntary minorities face the same racism yet do not succeed in school. Involuntary minorities do not view this racism as a temporary impediment but a permanent barrier. As a result, involuntary minorities develop oppositional identities in which they resist adopting American cultural values and strive to maintain their own. A good example of involuntary minorities is the study of African Americans in Stockton, California by John U. Ogbu. African American students in the study lagged behind their Euro-American counterparts in school as they received lower grades and were stuck in remedial courses. African Americans also dropped out at a much higher rate than Euro-Americans and fewer attended college or even completed high school.

African-Americans’ employment opportunities were restricted to unskilled labor which meant that they were often subject to seasonal employment, underemployment, and unemployment. Even when African-Americans had equal education as their Euro-American counterparts, they were paid much lower wages. They were also unable to move into neighborhoods of their choice by renting or buying homes due to racism and discrimination. African-Americans were thus stuck in a caste-like situation whereas no matter how hard they tried, it seemed like they could never get ahead due to discrimination.

Although parents wanted their children to excel in school, and the students also wanted to excel, African-Americans continued to fail. The students believe their chances of “making it” in mainstream society is not as good as the dominant group and this affects their perception of schooling. At a young age they begin to realize that for African Americans the connection between school success and one’s ability to get ahead is weak. Even though their parents encourage them to do well in school, the struggles of their daily lives sends a strong often contradictory message to the child.

Past successes with the Civil Rights Movement and other collective struggles instill in them the idea that there is indeed something wrong with the system. The result then is that “some black youths use this to rationalize their low school performance when, in fact, they fail because they do not work hard (Ogbu, 1991b).” Other survival strategies such as “hustling” work to provide a survival strategy independent of “the system.” This allows the child to avoid working for “the white man” and often doing schoolwork is viewed as “doing the white man thing (Foster, 1974).” Some failing students interpreted doing schoolwork as obeying white people’s orders, just as their ancestors did in the time of slavery. African-Americans in Stockton thus have a firm oppositional identity which works to dissuade students from succeeding in school (Ogbu, 1991b).

Another good example of an involuntary minority is the Ute Indian tribe of Utah. The pivotal United States Supreme Court cases of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia in the 1830’s made it mandatory for the Utes to attend public schools in Utah to the dismay of the non-Indian population. Today, Utes face expressed racial bias by the Euro-American population. There were often stereotypic images of American Indians as being savage, lazy, dirty, and drunken. According to Ute parents, educators continue to believe outdated myths that performance is determined by race. They also expressed a concern that their children were not getting equal education.

According to Betty Jo Kramer, “few Ute parents, public school teachers or administrators had high academic expectations of Ute children (Kramer, 1991).” Whenever parents expressed a concern that their children be educated, it was only because state law obliged them to attend. This attitude that schooling is unimportant was also pervasive in Ute society as it was often pointed out that some tribal council leaders had very little education.

This resistance to education on the part of the Ute parents was mostly due to the fact that non-Indian values were promoted in the classroom. Attempts were made by the tribe’s education division to incorporate Ute culture and history into the classroom but failed. The Utes thus maintained an oppositional identity which effectively persuaded the students to reject American values and follow Ute values instead. Since Ute culture was viewed as being in direct opposition as American culture, students did poorly in the schools. The public school system failed to offer a meaningful education to Ute students and the Tribal Council did not promote education as having a purpose in peoples’ lives (Kramer, 1991).

References Cited

Bhachu, Parminder K. and Margaret A. Gibson
1991 The Dynamics of Educational Decision Making: A Comparative Study of Sikhs in
Britain and the United States. In Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative
Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson and John U.
Ogbu, eds. Pp. 63-95. New York: Garland Publishing.

Bond, G.C.
1981 Social Economic Status and Educational Achievement: A Review Article.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 12(4):227-257.

Davidson, Anne Locke
1996 Making and Molding Identity in Schools. New York: State University of New
York Press.

Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Paul Rabinow
1982 Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: the
University of Chicago Press.

Foster, H.L.
1974 Ribbin’, Jivin’ and Playin’ the Dozens: The Unrecognized Dilemma of Inner City
Schools. Cambridge Mass.: Ballinger.

Foucault, Michel
1980 Truth and Power. In Colin Gordon ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972-1977. Pp 109-133. New York: The Harvester Press.

Foucault, Michel
1983 The Subject and Power. In Dreyfus, H.L., and Rabinow, P. (authors), Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Pp. 208-226. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Gibson, Margaret A.
1988 Punjabi Orchard Farmers: An Immigrant Enclave in Rural California.
International Migration Review 22(1):28-50.

Jensen, A.R.
1977 How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Harvard Educational
Review 39:1-123.

Kramer, Betty Jo
1991 Education and American Indians: The Experience of the Ute Indian Tribe. In
Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary
Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 287-307. New York:
Garland Publishing.

Lee, Yongsook
1991 Koreans in Japan and the United States. In Minority Status and Schooling: A
Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson
and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 131-167. New York: Garland Publishing.

Matute-Bianchi, Maria E.
1991 Situation Ethnicity and Patterns of School Performance Among Immigrant and
Nonimmigrant Mexican-Descent Students. In Minority Status and Schooling: A
Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson
and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 205-247. New York: Garland Publishing.

National Center for Education Statistics
1994 Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Center for Education Statistics
2001 Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000. Electronic document,
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001, accessed April 6, 2004.

Ogbu, John U.
1978 Minority Education and Caste: the American System in Cross-Cultural
Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, John U.
1990 Minority Education in Comparative Perspective. The Journal of Negro
Education 59(1):45-57.

Ogbu, John U.
1991a Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities in Comparative Perspective. In Minority
Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary
Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 3-33. New York:
Garland Publishing.

Ogbu, John U.
1991b Low School Performance as an Adaptation: The Case of Blacks in Stockton,
California. In Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant
and Involuntary Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 249-
285. New York: Garland Publishing.

Phillips, S.U.
1976 Commentary: Access to Power and Maintenance of Ethnic Identity as Goals of
Multi-Cultural Education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 7(4):30-32.

Ramey, C.T. and T.M. Suarez
1985 Early Intervention and the Early Experience Paradigm: Toward a Better
Framework for Social Policy. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society 7(1):3-
13.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M.
1989 Central American Refugees and U.S. High Schools: A Psychosocial Study of
Motivation and Achievement. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M.
1991 Immigrant Adaptation to Schooling: A Hispanic Case. In Minority
Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary
Minorities. Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu, eds. Pp. 37-61. New York:
Garland Publishing.