What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education (Multicultural Education)
This practical handbook will introduce readers to social justice education, providing tools for developing ''critical social justice literacy'' and for taking action towards a more just society. Accessible to students from high school through graduate school, this book offers a collection of detailed and engaging explanations of key concepts in social justice education, including critical thinking, socialization, group identity, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, power, privilege, and White supremacy. Based on extensive experience in a range of settings in the United States and Canada, the authors address the most common stumbling blocks to understanding social justice. They provide recognizable examples, scenarios, and vignettes illustrating these concepts. This unique resource has many user-friendly features, including ''definition boxes'' for key terms, ''stop boxes'' to remind readers of previously explained ideas, ''perspective check boxes'' to draw attention to alternative standpoints, a glossary, and a chapter responding to the most common rebuttals encountered when leading discussions on concepts in critical social justice. There are discussion questions and extension activities at the end of each chapter, and an appendix designed to lend pedagogical support to those newer to teaching social justice education.br
Paperback
First published November 1, 2011
279 people are currently reading
2811 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
April 20, 2019
An embarrassment. Never in my life have I read something so sanctimonious as this pathetic excuse for a meditation on inequities in society. It has but one purpose: indoctrination.
Indeed, it comes complete with a full chapter of ready-made rebuttals that the student can use to counter common objections (only ever posed in their most crude form), and an appendix containing thinly veiled threats to those students who would disagree with the analysis. A cursory reading of the approximately 220 (counted 22 on one page, x 11 pages) sources in the reference list left me struggling to find a single source that showed any promise of having provided the authors with a contrary opinion, despite the prevalence of informed criticisms of the social justice movement. Laughable caricatures are drawn of entire national histories and the lives of historical figures on the basis of one or two sources. Perhaps most revealingly, when the authors attempt to slay the individualist dragon on page 103, what representation of individualism do they cite? Could it be John Stuart Mill? Milton Friedman? Another thinker from that distinguished intellectual tradition? You would be wrong if you guessed any of the above, for on page 103 the scholarship they cite is their own.
There is an intelligent conversation to be had about race and privilege in Western society, but this is not it. Sensoy and DiAngelo simply knock down one straw man after another. Reducing all of society to "us against them" will do nothing to create any satisfactory sense of "social justice", and indeed the evidence of the last few years would rather seem to suggest the opposite occurs. By rejecting our ability to be recognized as individuals, and by instead defining ourselves by our race and class only, we set a dangerous precedent.
1/5 stars
Indeed, it comes complete with a full chapter of ready-made rebuttals that the student can use to counter common objections (only ever posed in their most crude form), and an appendix containing thinly veiled threats to those students who would disagree with the analysis. A cursory reading of the approximately 220 (counted 22 on one page, x 11 pages) sources in the reference list left me struggling to find a single source that showed any promise of having provided the authors with a contrary opinion, despite the prevalence of informed criticisms of the social justice movement. Laughable caricatures are drawn of entire national histories and the lives of historical figures on the basis of one or two sources. Perhaps most revealingly, when the authors attempt to slay the individualist dragon on page 103, what representation of individualism do they cite? Could it be John Stuart Mill? Milton Friedman? Another thinker from that distinguished intellectual tradition? You would be wrong if you guessed any of the above, for on page 103 the scholarship they cite is their own.
There is an intelligent conversation to be had about race and privilege in Western society, but this is not it. Sensoy and DiAngelo simply knock down one straw man after another. Reducing all of society to "us against them" will do nothing to create any satisfactory sense of "social justice", and indeed the evidence of the last few years would rather seem to suggest the opposite occurs. By rejecting our ability to be recognized as individuals, and by instead defining ourselves by our race and class only, we set a dangerous precedent.
1/5 stars
December 31, 2016
As a grad student in a college of education, I've now taught two different courses to pre-service teachers. One focuses on teaching teen/ya literature, and the other focuses on language use and its relation to learning. I was given lots of freedom to design my courses as I chose, and also free reign to borrow from previous iterations of them. The texts I borrowed tended to dip into issues of social justice here and there, but always leaning more toward classroom management techniques or generating authentic discussion, with the discourse of social justice sitting rather delicately at the margin. Sometimes I'd use a word like "oppression" and not be certain we were all on the same page about how I'm using that word. Sometimes we'd take the time to examine such a word, but sometimes there just wasn't time, and I'd throw out a quick something and we'd have to move on. Try explaining "hegemony" to 20 mostly rural/suburban white kids in five minutes.
Since I've been affiliated with the college I've learned that there really is no required course for teacher certification in my state that engages specifically with the topic. After attending district K-12 board meetings and speaking to board members, K-12 teachers, and local high school students (especially those who have felt threatened by the sociopolitical climate in our schools since the presidential election), I'm hearing a repetitive complaint: teachers aren't getting the preparation they need to be culturally responsive, sensitive to power inequalities in the student body and institutional structures at large, and critical of essentialist and meritocratic paradigms that have dominated public education since it began. Teachers don't have time or energy left in their work week to squeeze in another professional development training, and the ones who would sign up voluntarily are the ones least likely to need it. How are my pre-service students earning their certification without exposure to this material?!
One of my comps requirements is to write a syllabus for a class of my own choosing, and undoubtedly, a course called Critical Social Justice Literacy is what I choose. I still have a semester to teach Language & Learning, and I'll be assigning the first 56 pages of this book as one of our first assignments. This first section lays out very clearly, and in structural layers, the basic cognitive tools of building a social justice consciousness. Chapters include critical thinking/theory, socialization, the difference between prejudice and discrimination, and the dynamics of oppression and power. In the language course it will be handy to have a common understanding of these concepts we tend to take for granted, but in fact often have varied definitions for, because they just don't often get described explicitly. Language plays a central role, as we use these concepts to understand our world and interrelate that understanding to and through others. This reading will help us parse the works of Lisa Delpit, Annette Lareau and James Paul Gee as they grapple with ideas of power in language/discourse, content relevance, various socialized relationships to schooling, and equitable access to resources.
The book contains an appendix that addresses how to encourage your students to ask critical questions that stay fact-based, as often, when discussing personal and emotionally charged ideas, it is easy to protect one's self by relying on personal anecdote and opinion. The authors' principles for constructive engagement are:
1. You don't know what you don't know: strive for intellectual humility.
2. Everyone has an opinion. Opinions are not the same as informed knowledge.
3. Let go of personal anecdotal evidence and look at broader societal patterns.
4. Notice your own defensive reactions, and attempt to use these reactions as entry points for gaining deeper self-knowledge.
5. Recognize how your social positionality informs your reactions to your instructor and those whose work you study in the course.
They also stress the importance of writing and reflecting often, and using that writing space as a place for "grappling," allowing students to become more comfortable with uncertainly and not knowing.
The rest of this book is just as good, but digs deep into issues of privilege as it relates specifically to race (White supremacy) and gender (androcentrism). This examination absolutely belongs in a teacher certification course, but ideally a course with this as its main area of content, as these issues are complex, deeply personal, and often painful. I'll hold that conversation for my comps syllabus. I've already started listing the textual resources I'll want to cover, and I have enough material to teach every day for a year. I'll have to cut, but this book stays.
Since I've been affiliated with the college I've learned that there really is no required course for teacher certification in my state that engages specifically with the topic. After attending district K-12 board meetings and speaking to board members, K-12 teachers, and local high school students (especially those who have felt threatened by the sociopolitical climate in our schools since the presidential election), I'm hearing a repetitive complaint: teachers aren't getting the preparation they need to be culturally responsive, sensitive to power inequalities in the student body and institutional structures at large, and critical of essentialist and meritocratic paradigms that have dominated public education since it began. Teachers don't have time or energy left in their work week to squeeze in another professional development training, and the ones who would sign up voluntarily are the ones least likely to need it. How are my pre-service students earning their certification without exposure to this material?!
One of my comps requirements is to write a syllabus for a class of my own choosing, and undoubtedly, a course called Critical Social Justice Literacy is what I choose. I still have a semester to teach Language & Learning, and I'll be assigning the first 56 pages of this book as one of our first assignments. This first section lays out very clearly, and in structural layers, the basic cognitive tools of building a social justice consciousness. Chapters include critical thinking/theory, socialization, the difference between prejudice and discrimination, and the dynamics of oppression and power. In the language course it will be handy to have a common understanding of these concepts we tend to take for granted, but in fact often have varied definitions for, because they just don't often get described explicitly. Language plays a central role, as we use these concepts to understand our world and interrelate that understanding to and through others. This reading will help us parse the works of Lisa Delpit, Annette Lareau and James Paul Gee as they grapple with ideas of power in language/discourse, content relevance, various socialized relationships to schooling, and equitable access to resources.
The book contains an appendix that addresses how to encourage your students to ask critical questions that stay fact-based, as often, when discussing personal and emotionally charged ideas, it is easy to protect one's self by relying on personal anecdote and opinion. The authors' principles for constructive engagement are:
1. You don't know what you don't know: strive for intellectual humility.
2. Everyone has an opinion. Opinions are not the same as informed knowledge.
3. Let go of personal anecdotal evidence and look at broader societal patterns.
4. Notice your own defensive reactions, and attempt to use these reactions as entry points for gaining deeper self-knowledge.
5. Recognize how your social positionality informs your reactions to your instructor and those whose work you study in the course.
They also stress the importance of writing and reflecting often, and using that writing space as a place for "grappling," allowing students to become more comfortable with uncertainly and not knowing.
The rest of this book is just as good, but digs deep into issues of privilege as it relates specifically to race (White supremacy) and gender (androcentrism). This examination absolutely belongs in a teacher certification course, but ideally a course with this as its main area of content, as these issues are complex, deeply personal, and often painful. I'll hold that conversation for my comps syllabus. I've already started listing the textual resources I'll want to cover, and I have enough material to teach every day for a year. I'll have to cut, but this book stays.
December 14, 2020
"This practical handbook will introduce readers to social justice education, providing tools for developing ''critical social justice literacy'' and for taking action towards a more just society. Accessible to students from high school through graduate school, this book offers a collection of detailed and engaging explanations of key concepts in social justice education, including critical thinking, socialization, group identity, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, power, privilege, and White supremacy. Based on extensive experience in a range of settings in the United States and Canada, the authors address the most common stumbling blocks to understanding social justice. They provide recognizable examples, scenarios, and vignettes illustrating these concepts. This unique resource has many user-friendly features, including ''definition boxes'' for key terms, ''stop boxes'' to remind readers of previously explained ideas, ''perspective check boxes'' to draw attention to alternative standpoints, a glossary, and a chapter responding to the most common rebuttals encountered when leading discussions on concepts in critical social justice. There are discussion questions and extension activities at the end of each chapter, and an appendix designed to lend pedagogical support to those newer to teaching social justice education."
January 16, 2018
I echo another reviewers (Douglas) 1 star rating of this book:
"There is an intelligent conversation to be had about race and privilege in Western society, but this is not it. Sensoy and DiAngelo simply knock down one straw man after another. Reducing all of society to "us against them" will do nothing to create any satisfactory sense of "social justice", and indeed the evidence of the last few years would rather seem to suggest the opposite occurs. By rejecting our ability to be recognized as individuals, and by instead defining ourselves by our race and class only, we set a dangerous precedent."
"Is Everyone Really Equal" is nothing more than a liberal diatribe full of ideological contradictions and opinions. Better social justice conclusions and discourse could be drawn from a collection of 'Peanuts' comics.
"There is an intelligent conversation to be had about race and privilege in Western society, but this is not it. Sensoy and DiAngelo simply knock down one straw man after another. Reducing all of society to "us against them" will do nothing to create any satisfactory sense of "social justice", and indeed the evidence of the last few years would rather seem to suggest the opposite occurs. By rejecting our ability to be recognized as individuals, and by instead defining ourselves by our race and class only, we set a dangerous precedent."
"Is Everyone Really Equal" is nothing more than a liberal diatribe full of ideological contradictions and opinions. Better social justice conclusions and discourse could be drawn from a collection of 'Peanuts' comics.
October 19, 2015
Who wants an overpriced "guidebook" full of mind-numbingly obvious statements about power and privilege? ...Yeah, me either.
October 24, 2018
This book, unfortunately, was a letdown from start to finish. First off, I went into this book thinking that I wouldn’t like it because it is a social justice education textbook. I tend to be more in the middle of the political spectrum, so I often disagree with some of the arguments that books like these propose. However, the reason I actually ended up disliking this book has nothing to do with its political leanings.
The most glaring issue with this text is its lack of sources, and its lack of critical analysis of the concepts being talked about. I was absolutely astonished by the lack of citations, and the age of many citations. Many that were provided were 20 or 30 years old, and when you add that to the fact that they were very few citations even for major and important concepts, it makes this book feel very unreliable. I often found myself agreeing or understanding where the authors were coming from, but from an intellectual standpoint I couldn’t support what I was reading because it wasn’t well researched and cited.
To add to that, the authors don’t even discuss most social justice concepts very well from a social justice standpoint. For instance, they brought up multiple times their condemnation of the sex trade and the porn industry. This is not something that is widely accepted even among social justice scholars, in fact the current view point is to support sex workers. There were other things like this that kept popping up in the text that just didn’t make sense, and I was really baffled that they were in there. It made the text seem unreliable even from its own viewpoint.
Overall, I thought the text was very generalized. It never went into enough detail on any concept they were talking about. Even if you leave out the fact that they barely glossed over details of any opposition, this book is still such an overview of the concepts that I walked away feeling like I would’ve learned more from a quick Google search, or even scanning the YouTube comments section.
I had to read this book for a course at my school, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone else interested in learning about social justice concepts. I wouldn’t even recommend it to those who are social justice scholars or advocates themselves. It’s really just a bad book no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, or what your views are on social justice. It will leave you wanting more in the end, but not in a good way. Instead of feeling inspired to learn more, you’ll be so frustrated by it’s unacademic tone that you’ll feel like you need to do your own research to compensate.
I am honestly really disappointed by this book. It talks about a lot of really good concepts, and brings up some really good points, but like I’ve said it’s lack of academic sources and citations, and it’s overly generalized view with no real answers makes it seem almost pointless. I’d really like to read a better, more well thought out book on the same topics, because they really are interesting and important to education. This book just didn’t deliver on any of them.
The most glaring issue with this text is its lack of sources, and its lack of critical analysis of the concepts being talked about. I was absolutely astonished by the lack of citations, and the age of many citations. Many that were provided were 20 or 30 years old, and when you add that to the fact that they were very few citations even for major and important concepts, it makes this book feel very unreliable. I often found myself agreeing or understanding where the authors were coming from, but from an intellectual standpoint I couldn’t support what I was reading because it wasn’t well researched and cited.
To add to that, the authors don’t even discuss most social justice concepts very well from a social justice standpoint. For instance, they brought up multiple times their condemnation of the sex trade and the porn industry. This is not something that is widely accepted even among social justice scholars, in fact the current view point is to support sex workers. There were other things like this that kept popping up in the text that just didn’t make sense, and I was really baffled that they were in there. It made the text seem unreliable even from its own viewpoint.
Overall, I thought the text was very generalized. It never went into enough detail on any concept they were talking about. Even if you leave out the fact that they barely glossed over details of any opposition, this book is still such an overview of the concepts that I walked away feeling like I would’ve learned more from a quick Google search, or even scanning the YouTube comments section.
I had to read this book for a course at my school, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone else interested in learning about social justice concepts. I wouldn’t even recommend it to those who are social justice scholars or advocates themselves. It’s really just a bad book no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, or what your views are on social justice. It will leave you wanting more in the end, but not in a good way. Instead of feeling inspired to learn more, you’ll be so frustrated by it’s unacademic tone that you’ll feel like you need to do your own research to compensate.
I am honestly really disappointed by this book. It talks about a lot of really good concepts, and brings up some really good points, but like I’ve said it’s lack of academic sources and citations, and it’s overly generalized view with no real answers makes it seem almost pointless. I’d really like to read a better, more well thought out book on the same topics, because they really are interesting and important to education. This book just didn’t deliver on any of them.
July 18, 2022
One of the best textbooks I’ve ever had for a class! Great way to start my masters program!
April 14, 2021
I had to read this book for an Education class I took at school. Both the class and the book weren't really my cup of tea. Just after reading the title of this book I could tell the book and I probably weren't going to get along too well. Which made taking notes for quizzes that much more exciting.
As someone who tends to have *ahem* more conservative values when it comes to the political realm, I found a lot of the topics in here to be frustrating to read, and full of a lot of liberal statements that I didn't necessarily agree with. Which isn't necessarily bad, I think it's good to engage with other perspectives, however, my experience with this book was more frustrating than not. Every now and then I would find myself agreeing with a statement, but that was not a frequent occurrence.
Politics aside, even if I were to agree with the authors, I'm not sure how I would ever feel about using this as a textbook. The authors frequently make very strong statements, but lack when it comes to the evidence, research, and sources department to support their statements. This would be one thing if the authors had significant credentials to their name, while even so, I would still expect to see a significant amount of research and evidence to back their claims. To me, this book seems like a very long opinion piece, backed with a few studies and facts here and there. Which makes for a long frustrating read, and results in a disheartened college student.
As someone who tends to have *ahem* more conservative values when it comes to the political realm, I found a lot of the topics in here to be frustrating to read, and full of a lot of liberal statements that I didn't necessarily agree with. Which isn't necessarily bad, I think it's good to engage with other perspectives, however, my experience with this book was more frustrating than not. Every now and then I would find myself agreeing with a statement, but that was not a frequent occurrence.
Politics aside, even if I were to agree with the authors, I'm not sure how I would ever feel about using this as a textbook. The authors frequently make very strong statements, but lack when it comes to the evidence, research, and sources department to support their statements. This would be one thing if the authors had significant credentials to their name, while even so, I would still expect to see a significant amount of research and evidence to back their claims. To me, this book seems like a very long opinion piece, backed with a few studies and facts here and there. Which makes for a long frustrating read, and results in a disheartened college student.
July 12, 2016
Want a quick run down on social justice? Read this book.
March 14, 2019
I really wanted this to be a lot more useful than it was. The content wasn't anything that was new to me, but it didn't seem to be written in a way that would effectively engage people for whom it was new information, so it wasn't really clear who the target audience was (solely based on the writing; the fact that it's a textbook for college students in a sort of Social Justice 101 type class is obviously a pretty big clue about who the target audience is). Many of the concepts are so watered down that it's not even clear to me that they effectively convey the concepts. It was particularly annoying that the authors clearly know that transgender and nonbinary people exist, but offer very weak representation of issues specific to this population; similarly, disability issues are rarely mentioned and are even used as metaphors in ways that underscore how ill-equipped these authors are to effectively address ableist privilege and oppression. I wouldn't say "don't read this", there's certainly some useful stuff in here, but I'm sure there are better books out there to accomplish what this book is trying to accomplish, and if there aren't, there really ought to be (and even if there are, there really ought to be more).
January 14, 2019
This is the book I've been looking for! It's written as a textbook (focused on the US and Canada), but it is really accessible and easy to read. I love this book because it uses a critical social justice perspective to introduce important and complex issues to people who may not have previously had the opportunity to develop much social justice literacy. For me, it is a great tool to learn how to discuss these social issues with others. Looking at the chapter titles shows just how relevant this book is to every person: Culture and socialization, Prejudice and discrimination, Oppression and power, Understanding privilege through ableism, Understanding the invisibility of oppression through sexism, Understanding the structural nature of oppression through racism, and more. It's one of those books I definitely want to buy, read again, and constantly reference, as I continue on my journey to becoming more fluent in social justice so that I can change my actions accordingly.
August 21, 2018
Challenging subject matter, but foundational in terms of helping me better understand -isms like racism, sexism, ableism, & more. I read this as part of a book study at work which was great for providing a way to discuss concepts and chunk the content. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in issues of equity and social justice in US and Canadian educational contexts.
November 2, 2018
A great introduction to social justice education.
August 4, 2025
Read it for class, definitely makes you check yourself. I recommend to those who want to go into education. Anti-woke crowd gonna hate this one.
November 14, 2019
I gave this book 5 stars because of the accessibility to topics in social justice education. Is it the most polished, no. But it is definitely a great place to start and it worked quite well as a reference text to my course, Multiculturalism and Diversity in Education.
July 17, 2023
I had to read this book for a class, but it was honestly so good! It’s well written and very comprehensible. I recommend this for anyone who is looking to increase their social justice literacy!
July 18, 2023
10/5. This was a textbook for one of my higher ed courses in my graduate program. It explains justice and equity in such clear language and reads less like a textbook and more like nonfiction. HIGHLY recommend to anyone interested in social justice issues or even just better loving people and understanding systemic issues that have trickle down effects.
November 21, 2018
This was a really great textbook to read for my educational class. It was boring towards the end because it became a repetitive rehashing of the same ideas. However, I think this is an important text for all educators.
December 1, 2022
This book touches on some essential topics. A must read for any person looking to further their social justice exploration from the perspective of someone from the dominant group.
July 22, 2023
{Another grad school read}
April 28, 2023
DNF. Had to read this for a class. Absolutely not a credible source that should be used for a college level class.
First, the authors specifically state that they will avoid using numerous citations in the text in order to make it easier to read. (my reaction: exCUsE mE?!) Citing sources shouldn’t make text harder to read. If a student is having a harder time reading it, it’s because it is a higher level reading text and they need to learn to read text with citations. Not using citations is not at all academic or credible. It is a feeble excuse for not having sources to back up the arguments you’re trying to make.
Second, the tone of the book is very strange and also not conducive for learning. The authors dedicate the first two whole chapters (that’s right, TWO!) to discussing how to learn this content in a class. I’m sorry, but as a student, I am very much offended at being told how to conduct myself in a class like this. The perspective presented to look at the content with was filled with contradictions. We must be open-minded and open to new ideas, but also forget everything you’ve ever learned about racism and take everything this book says as gospel? We must be willing to be critical thinkers, but we are not allowed to debate or question anything in the text? Surely, I’m not the only one seeing the irony here.
Third, if I learned anything from this book, it’s that CRT (Critical Race Theory) is stupid. The arguments made supposedly in support of this theory do not stand up against common sense. The ideas are contradictory and specifically fitted in contexts that make them look reasonable; which means that when you put those exact same ideas in other contexts, they fall apart. The authors did not present themselves to me as credible sources of authority, thus I did not trust barely anything they claimed.
If this is what today’s brightest thinkers are thinking, I am afraid for where we’re headed.
First, the authors specifically state that they will avoid using numerous citations in the text in order to make it easier to read. (my reaction: exCUsE mE?!) Citing sources shouldn’t make text harder to read. If a student is having a harder time reading it, it’s because it is a higher level reading text and they need to learn to read text with citations. Not using citations is not at all academic or credible. It is a feeble excuse for not having sources to back up the arguments you’re trying to make.
Second, the tone of the book is very strange and also not conducive for learning. The authors dedicate the first two whole chapters (that’s right, TWO!) to discussing how to learn this content in a class. I’m sorry, but as a student, I am very much offended at being told how to conduct myself in a class like this. The perspective presented to look at the content with was filled with contradictions. We must be open-minded and open to new ideas, but also forget everything you’ve ever learned about racism and take everything this book says as gospel? We must be willing to be critical thinkers, but we are not allowed to debate or question anything in the text? Surely, I’m not the only one seeing the irony here.
Third, if I learned anything from this book, it’s that CRT (Critical Race Theory) is stupid. The arguments made supposedly in support of this theory do not stand up against common sense. The ideas are contradictory and specifically fitted in contexts that make them look reasonable; which means that when you put those exact same ideas in other contexts, they fall apart. The authors did not present themselves to me as credible sources of authority, thus I did not trust barely anything they claimed.
If this is what today’s brightest thinkers are thinking, I am afraid for where we’re headed.
March 17, 2022
This text worries me, for it's clearly intended for young adults, that is, those learning to think and those who have marks on their mind. And really, who pours over a text like this? Read it, get to the assignment, the essay, get the mark, and get on with other concerns.
However, this book is very poor at what it should do well, proving its conclusions with cogent, solid arguments. It is filled with equivocal definitions and statements, it strawmans its opponents, the rare instances of quantitative data are misused, and it relies often on arguments from power. All in all, its arguments are so weak it commits one of the worst writing tricks, assuming your readers will never see beneath the baloney. That its audience is young and eager students makes this all the worse, for many won't have the time the concern or the capacity (yet) to ferret out these fallacious arguments. I cannot fathom the authors are not aware of these troubles, for if an ordinary but careful reader as I am sees them bouncing off the pages, and if that same quiet reader is bound (for the first time) to enter the fray of a book reviewing, then certainly the authors, their editors, or the (threateningly mentioned) peer reviewers would see them all the more readily.
One quick example: the data they use to demonstrate (in the end) white supremacy is, at best, flawed. Life expectancy, household income and poverty rates do not do the job for them. Yes, they do if one but skims their numbers, but household income is a terrible measure of wealth. It incorporates just so many variables. For example, Indo-american household income was a staggering 135,000 in 2018, twice Asian Households and more than twice white households. Per capita income would have been the honest choice, and its numbers would show less difference. But when The US population is examined only a touch more carefully, median American age (white = 44, bipoc = 31) reveals the rather odd fact that white America is heavy with folks in their 50's and 60's, the highest earning age, while BIPOC Americans are younger and thus in their early working years. Because people earn more the older they get (once 44, Americans earn 25% more than 30 year olds) we can see that income variance between racial groups largely falls aside. Again the point: our authors are presenting superficial and slippery evidence, very slippery indeed. Their other choices, life expectancy and poverty, are similarly fraught and slight digging harms again their conclusion of white supremacy: their poverty numbers do not control for recent immigrant and refugee populations, populations whose poverty rates are much higher than native born citizens. Refugees and recent immigrants controlled for, poverty rates between racial groups narrow considerably, and some groups equalize. Most odd is that Latino and Asian populations are not included when speaking of life expectancy: both these groups are longer lived than white Americans, Asian women and men both by 10%. White supremacy? Certainly there's an argument for this, but our authors do not make it, not at all. The complete elision of Indigenous groups when speaking of life expectancy and wealth is simply baffling, for including Indigenous communities would have bolstered their conclusions, but are ignored.
I lied: one more on their rare use of quantitative data: a study they cite as lynchpin evidence in two chapters, and to which which they devote a page to its findings and give the grand title "seminal" is a 1980 study concerned with grades 2 and 5 schoolchildren, and their notions of knowledge. This seminal study was a sampling of 5 schools in New Jersey, and undertaken in such an anecdotal way that "study" is too strong a term. The researcher herself, first chronicling her findings, reports that conclusions should not be drawn from her slight sampling of data: she leaves her work as a hypothesis worthy of more discussion. Yet, our authors cite her tiny sampling (no more than 60 student responses in total) and proclaim her 40 years ago wonderings as categorical truths of knowledge construction in primary schools of every socioeconomic spectra across the United States. If this is the state of their evidence and their reasonings, I guess this simply is the state of their evidence and their reasonings.
So our authors’ conclusions remain. I left the book thinking confirmation bias ruled their minds and that (what is worse) language did not matter much to them, but their text is a platform to foist ideas upon young people -- not to convince them through evidence and argument, but simply to wash them over with a mass of messy language. Even the nice idea at each chapter's end -- the common retorts -- are drunk uncle critiques. What a missed opportunity, for here could be real and intense academic critiques of the Critical Theoretical positions, and their reasoned responses. Instead it is dull repetition. That many reviews here mention the book is taught in masters programmes means this chapter ending tactic is appalling: If not in a masters programme, when should the bumps of theory be discussed? The author's retorts are pandering, in a word, and that so so many reviews here give five stars leaves this reader a touch forlorn: just how can so many superficial and flawed arguments hoodwink so many? Textbooks must be devoted to 'how' as much as 'what', and this text performs their hows in the ways of Fox News, I'm sad to say.
I can compliment them twice, however. They were able to outfox their editors. That much they are experts at. And, they have cast doubt on my decades ago university years: what garbage did I ingest in those young days, dazzled by big words? I wonder.
I say nothing of the truth or falsity of their claims, but only that so many of their arguments do not prove what they claim them to. This is a terrible error, and thus "Is Everyone Really Equal" is a terrible text.
However, this book is very poor at what it should do well, proving its conclusions with cogent, solid arguments. It is filled with equivocal definitions and statements, it strawmans its opponents, the rare instances of quantitative data are misused, and it relies often on arguments from power. All in all, its arguments are so weak it commits one of the worst writing tricks, assuming your readers will never see beneath the baloney. That its audience is young and eager students makes this all the worse, for many won't have the time the concern or the capacity (yet) to ferret out these fallacious arguments. I cannot fathom the authors are not aware of these troubles, for if an ordinary but careful reader as I am sees them bouncing off the pages, and if that same quiet reader is bound (for the first time) to enter the fray of a book reviewing, then certainly the authors, their editors, or the (threateningly mentioned) peer reviewers would see them all the more readily.
One quick example: the data they use to demonstrate (in the end) white supremacy is, at best, flawed. Life expectancy, household income and poverty rates do not do the job for them. Yes, they do if one but skims their numbers, but household income is a terrible measure of wealth. It incorporates just so many variables. For example, Indo-american household income was a staggering 135,000 in 2018, twice Asian Households and more than twice white households. Per capita income would have been the honest choice, and its numbers would show less difference. But when The US population is examined only a touch more carefully, median American age (white = 44, bipoc = 31) reveals the rather odd fact that white America is heavy with folks in their 50's and 60's, the highest earning age, while BIPOC Americans are younger and thus in their early working years. Because people earn more the older they get (once 44, Americans earn 25% more than 30 year olds) we can see that income variance between racial groups largely falls aside. Again the point: our authors are presenting superficial and slippery evidence, very slippery indeed. Their other choices, life expectancy and poverty, are similarly fraught and slight digging harms again their conclusion of white supremacy: their poverty numbers do not control for recent immigrant and refugee populations, populations whose poverty rates are much higher than native born citizens. Refugees and recent immigrants controlled for, poverty rates between racial groups narrow considerably, and some groups equalize. Most odd is that Latino and Asian populations are not included when speaking of life expectancy: both these groups are longer lived than white Americans, Asian women and men both by 10%. White supremacy? Certainly there's an argument for this, but our authors do not make it, not at all. The complete elision of Indigenous groups when speaking of life expectancy and wealth is simply baffling, for including Indigenous communities would have bolstered their conclusions, but are ignored.
I lied: one more on their rare use of quantitative data: a study they cite as lynchpin evidence in two chapters, and to which which they devote a page to its findings and give the grand title "seminal" is a 1980 study concerned with grades 2 and 5 schoolchildren, and their notions of knowledge. This seminal study was a sampling of 5 schools in New Jersey, and undertaken in such an anecdotal way that "study" is too strong a term. The researcher herself, first chronicling her findings, reports that conclusions should not be drawn from her slight sampling of data: she leaves her work as a hypothesis worthy of more discussion. Yet, our authors cite her tiny sampling (no more than 60 student responses in total) and proclaim her 40 years ago wonderings as categorical truths of knowledge construction in primary schools of every socioeconomic spectra across the United States. If this is the state of their evidence and their reasonings, I guess this simply is the state of their evidence and their reasonings.
So our authors’ conclusions remain. I left the book thinking confirmation bias ruled their minds and that (what is worse) language did not matter much to them, but their text is a platform to foist ideas upon young people -- not to convince them through evidence and argument, but simply to wash them over with a mass of messy language. Even the nice idea at each chapter's end -- the common retorts -- are drunk uncle critiques. What a missed opportunity, for here could be real and intense academic critiques of the Critical Theoretical positions, and their reasoned responses. Instead it is dull repetition. That many reviews here mention the book is taught in masters programmes means this chapter ending tactic is appalling: If not in a masters programme, when should the bumps of theory be discussed? The author's retorts are pandering, in a word, and that so so many reviews here give five stars leaves this reader a touch forlorn: just how can so many superficial and flawed arguments hoodwink so many? Textbooks must be devoted to 'how' as much as 'what', and this text performs their hows in the ways of Fox News, I'm sad to say.
I can compliment them twice, however. They were able to outfox their editors. That much they are experts at. And, they have cast doubt on my decades ago university years: what garbage did I ingest in those young days, dazzled by big words? I wonder.
I say nothing of the truth or falsity of their claims, but only that so many of their arguments do not prove what they claim them to. This is a terrible error, and thus "Is Everyone Really Equal" is a terrible text.
August 9, 2020
One of my main takeaways is that many people simply miscommunicate on definitions. Words/phrases like "racism, reverse racism, oppression, white supremacy, and Whiteness" are often misinterpreted. If we come to an understanding together of what these phrases mean, and understand that not everyone uses the same words to say the same thing, I think we will find that there is more agreement in these discussions than disagreement.
Overall, I feel much more qualified, yet at the same time much less qualified, to talk about subjects surrounding social justice.
Summary: a great primer on social justice.
I won't say that I agreed with everything the authors wrote, which, according to them means I 'simply don't understand', but for the most part I found this book enlightening and I recommend it.
Overall, I feel much more qualified, yet at the same time much less qualified, to talk about subjects surrounding social justice.
Summary: a great primer on social justice.
I won't say that I agreed with everything the authors wrote, which, according to them means I 'simply don't understand', but for the most part I found this book enlightening and I recommend it.
Read
October 20, 2017It's weird, because this is at once remedial and a bit dull, because it's stuff I engage with all the time and know pretty well, but also really engaging and wonderful, because it's stuff I engage with all the time and know so well that it's hard to break stuff down into the basics when I need to. A great choice for a textbook, and also a good choice for pulling excerpts if you're teaching a course on anything at all and you realize your students need some perspective on whatever it is you're discussing, whether explicitly or implicitly (for example, I will probably pull some things for my pre-service teachers to read so that they can understand how power and oppression work when they are the [primarily white] teachers of minority students). Good stuff!
May 10, 2023
Written to enhance the instruction in university level Social Justice classes, this book is very comprehensive. Reading it as part of a book club, I found it a rather heavy read. It deftly covered intersectionality, ableism, classism, colonialism and provided a discussion on recent activism such as Black Lives Matter. A great read to enhance your foundational knowledge in the above listed areas.
May 21, 2019
I read a small portion of this book for my Understanding Multicultural Behavior class taught by Professor Geraldine Riley. I found it to be clear and well-written. I especially appreciated the section on Critical Theory.
January 5, 2025
This was one I started a while ago as part of a workshop that ended up being interrupted and though I had skimmed it, I knew I wanted to come back to it. An important read that will give people a lot to think about. Like the questions at the end of the chapters for people to think about, work on and process.
March 28, 2024
I enjoyed this critical theory very much, just got very repetitive at times! I would definitely recommend for an pre-education or education major!
Read
June 29, 2019I can't rate this with any stars. I have very mixed feelings about this book and frankly I'm disappointed with Robin DiAngelo for being associated with it. This book needs some serious editing the next go round for the third edition and also some additional chapters on religious oppression and anti-gay sentiment.
My first impression was that it was a great overview of what the book terms "critical social justice" and "critical social justice theory". Perhaps it is still that for the very beginner learning about social justice. I would like to see something similar to this book be used in all schools starting at a pre-K level, and continuing age/developmentally-appropriately throughout college. It seems like most of us white folx have never touched anything like social justice education until we take a class in college that isn't even a requirement (which it should be!). That is dead wrong. We are never going to change anything unless we start teaching social justice early, starting at home really and continuing in schools. I am getting a better sense why a lot of folx choose to homeschool their kids . . . Anyways, I digress. I thought the questions and exercises at the end were both thought provoking by engaging in critical thinking and often challenging. I can definitely see this book being used in high schools; maybe not college level though . . . It seems too simplistic for college level.
So with that out of the way, let's talk about the problems with this book and they are glaring.
I don't know if this was an editorial mistake or what but this whole shorthand for oppression is wrong: they have Prejudice > Discrimination on page 62 . . . No, if you're arguing that everyone has prejudices (which they do) it's ACTING on those prejudices (discrimination) that creates the societal problem at an institutional level of oppression. So the formula should be Discrimination > Prejudice. So the second formula should be Prejudice + Discrimination + Power = Oppression. If it was just Prejudice > Discrimination then "reverse racism" would be true, which it very much isn't. So . . . I dunno what to say about this. Maybe they confused > for < ? First is "greater than" and second is "less than". I learned that in 1st grade: which side is the alligator's mouth open to?
There were also some glaring omissions. There is no chapter about religious oppression (anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc.) nor heterosexism/homophobia/anti-LGBTQIA2+ sentiment, really. Both deserve their own chapter. I also felt it was too much centered on sexism and not enough centered on racism. Granted, it was written by two white women so . . . perhaps that's why. Classism has only been tacked on since the second edition, but I was at least glad that was there!
Also, on more than one occasion, this book used "Bl****" and "J***" . . . hello, really? So it lost a lot of credibility to me for using two obvious offensive terms to describe Black folx and Jewish folx. Frankly, I'm surprised Robin DiAngelo put her name to this book. Maybe with some extensive editing it will be more worthwhile. But yeah . . . I can't rate the second edition because frankly I'm baffled by it.
My first impression was that it was a great overview of what the book terms "critical social justice" and "critical social justice theory". Perhaps it is still that for the very beginner learning about social justice. I would like to see something similar to this book be used in all schools starting at a pre-K level, and continuing age/developmentally-appropriately throughout college. It seems like most of us white folx have never touched anything like social justice education until we take a class in college that isn't even a requirement (which it should be!). That is dead wrong. We are never going to change anything unless we start teaching social justice early, starting at home really and continuing in schools. I am getting a better sense why a lot of folx choose to homeschool their kids . . . Anyways, I digress. I thought the questions and exercises at the end were both thought provoking by engaging in critical thinking and often challenging. I can definitely see this book being used in high schools; maybe not college level though . . . It seems too simplistic for college level.
So with that out of the way, let's talk about the problems with this book and they are glaring.
I don't know if this was an editorial mistake or what but this whole shorthand for oppression is wrong: they have Prejudice > Discrimination on page 62 . . . No, if you're arguing that everyone has prejudices (which they do) it's ACTING on those prejudices (discrimination) that creates the societal problem at an institutional level of oppression. So the formula should be Discrimination > Prejudice. So the second formula should be Prejudice + Discrimination + Power = Oppression. If it was just Prejudice > Discrimination then "reverse racism" would be true, which it very much isn't. So . . . I dunno what to say about this. Maybe they confused > for < ? First is "greater than" and second is "less than". I learned that in 1st grade: which side is the alligator's mouth open to?
There were also some glaring omissions. There is no chapter about religious oppression (anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc.) nor heterosexism/homophobia/anti-LGBTQIA2+ sentiment, really. Both deserve their own chapter. I also felt it was too much centered on sexism and not enough centered on racism. Granted, it was written by two white women so . . . perhaps that's why. Classism has only been tacked on since the second edition, but I was at least glad that was there!
Also, on more than one occasion, this book used "Bl****" and "J***" . . . hello, really? So it lost a lot of credibility to me for using two obvious offensive terms to describe Black folx and Jewish folx. Frankly, I'm surprised Robin DiAngelo put her name to this book. Maybe with some extensive editing it will be more worthwhile. But yeah . . . I can't rate the second edition because frankly I'm baffled by it.
September 4, 2021
I was assigned to read this book as part of a deep-dive DEI training this summer, and found it to be one of the most succinct and accessible pieces I have read on social justice. Written for educators, Is Everyone Really Equal? attempts to provide an understanding of key concepts in social justice education and some basic tools for introducing these to classrooms. Some of the topics Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo cover include the social construction of knowledge; the importance of positionality; bias vs. prejudice; and critical theory. Later chapters cover topics like "Understanding Privilege through Ableism" and "Understanding Intersectionality through Classism." Although this is a textbook, with a significant bibliography in the back, I did not find the writing overly dry or arcane. You don't have to be a social scientist to understand the arguments or research here. It's very readable.
This book will not be for everyone. Skimming through the reviews here on Goodreads, you can see how polarizing both the content and the presentation are to other readers. There aren't a lot of three star reviews on this. You either love it or hate it, I guess.
For my part, I think this could be a helpful text for anyone looking to cut through the noise surrounding CRT and social justice education more broadly. I wish I could force a lot of my belligerent anti-social justice acquaintances to read it. On the other hand, for someone who has decided that racism is NOT systemic, or that sexism no longer exists, a book like this may just make them angry, and drive them deeper into their deeply ingrained beliefs and values. So perhaps that's not a great idea. You need to start this with a somewhat open mind.
The final section offers some suggestions for dealing with common rebuttals. Again, this is a toolkit for educators. Will a teacher who has read this book be able to win over all the hearts and minds in their classroom? Probably not. But they'll be much better equipped to lay out the basic arguments for social justice, and navigate the highly charged atmosphere that often accompanies discussions of privilege and power.
This book will not be for everyone. Skimming through the reviews here on Goodreads, you can see how polarizing both the content and the presentation are to other readers. There aren't a lot of three star reviews on this. You either love it or hate it, I guess.
For my part, I think this could be a helpful text for anyone looking to cut through the noise surrounding CRT and social justice education more broadly. I wish I could force a lot of my belligerent anti-social justice acquaintances to read it. On the other hand, for someone who has decided that racism is NOT systemic, or that sexism no longer exists, a book like this may just make them angry, and drive them deeper into their deeply ingrained beliefs and values. So perhaps that's not a great idea. You need to start this with a somewhat open mind.
The final section offers some suggestions for dealing with common rebuttals. Again, this is a toolkit for educators. Will a teacher who has read this book be able to win over all the hearts and minds in their classroom? Probably not. But they'll be much better equipped to lay out the basic arguments for social justice, and navigate the highly charged atmosphere that often accompanies discussions of privilege and power.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews