“Bad Boys” is the made-for-lay-person summary of Ann Ferguson’s ethnographic study of institutional racism in public schools. The work recounts the disheartening school experiences of several black boys attending Rosa Parks Elementary School in Arcadia, California, and seeks to demonstrate how the school’s (often unconsciously) racist attitudes contribute to the perpetuation of black disadvantage and the criminalization of young black men. According to her thesis, in that schools approach black boys with attitudes that anticipate “likely” future life failure (including joblessness, criminality and violence) they create the means by which that very outcome is achieved. Low institutional expectations combined with a strongly disciplinary, zero-tolerance ethos that punishes rather than accommodates different black cultural norms contribute to “sap the life and hope” out of young black male victims who enter elementary school eager to learn, but by the fourth grade, have been transformed into cynical and embittered “underperformers” who stand clearly on a path to life failure.
The work suffers from its failure to consider alternative hypotheses to explain the behaviors Ferguson describes. She starts out looking for institutional racism and so, not surprisingly, institutional racism is precisely what she finds. In ignoring alternative theories of class - the parenting strategies of poor and working class parents being at odds with schools that are organized to accommodate parenting strategies more commonly favored by middle-class parents – and focusing exclusively on race, her work loses credibility. This is particularly so in that the text of the book gives several tantalizing clues to the possibility of class-based explanations. In her description of the neighborhoods that feed the school, for example, she explains that most of her “bad boys” come from the poor (predominantly black) neighborhoods surrounding the campus as opposed to the namby-pamby monolith of white students who are bussed in from outlying middle-class neighborhoods. That she should disagree with these class-based theories is fine, but in that she simply ignores them in a rush to demonstrate racial bias taints the book with the odor of race-theory favoring confirmation bias.
This is truly a shame as there are likely valuable insights to be garnered from the observations she presents; however, these are obscured by her tendency to rationalize behavior in her young black subjects that, by any objective evaluation, should not and cannot be tolerated in a productive school environment. While she goes to great lengths to offer an explanation for why her subjects act out in class or engage in fights on the playground, she tends to ignore as irrelevant the fact that, regardless of the cause, disruptive children are…..well…..disruptive and, in being disruptive, are less likely to be successful in school. Frankly, the kids she highlights in her book sound like every teacher’s nightmare and if I was the parent of a “well-behaved” student sufficiently engaged to want to learn stuff, I would resent the monopoly these disruptive kids would try to place on the teacher’s time. While I can certainly see that if the cultural norms imparted in the homes of poor and working class black children that encourage, for example, fighting as an acceptable means of resolving conflicts that the child who is sent to an institution that punishes fighting is going to have problems; yet one cannot help but ask what alternative responses to children who do get into fights are expected from the institution. Further, her celebration of this supposed racial “cultural” difference completely ignores the fact that the same norm exists for children in white poor and working class families, with, presumably (one is left to presume as she doesn’t address it), the same resulting unfavorable consequence on the white students who then fight.
If anything, this book highlights the paradoxes and hypocrisies inherent in the contemporary black intellectual ideology that holds race to be the fundamental, irreducible unit of appropriate sociological inquiry. That any student, regardless of their race, who is inculcated in a body of cultural norms at odds with the expectation of the institution is not going to do well seems not even to have occurred to her. If race is somehow a factor in institutional disadvantage (and I am certainly willing to be convinced that it is) her failure to control for the effects of socioeconomic class in her study renders the insights she shares questionable.