Student Surveillance, Racial Inequalities, and Implicit Racial Bias

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Publication year: 2017
• Citation: Vol. 66 No. 4

Student Surveillance, Racial Inequalities, and Implicit Racial Bias

Jason P. Nance

STUDENT SURVEILLANCE, RACIAL INEQUALITIES, AND IMPLICIT RACIAL BIAS

Jason P. Nance^*

Abstract

In the wake of high-profile incidents of school violence, school officials have increased their reliance on a host of surveillance measures to maintain order and control in their schools. Paradoxically, such practices can foster hostile environments that may lead to even more disorder and dysfunction. These practices may also contribute to the so-called "school-to-prison pipeline " by pushing more students out of school and into the juvenile justice system. However, not all students experience the same level of surveillance. This Article presents data on school surveillance practices, including an original empirical analysis of restricted data recently released by the U.S. Department of Education after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Paralleling other disturbing trends of inequality in our public school system, these results and other empirical analyses reveal that schools serving primarily students of color are more likely to rely on more intense surveillance measures than other schools. Further, the empirical evidence suggests that these racial disparities may not be justified by legitimate safety concerns. This Article then turns to a discussion of the role that implicit racial bias may have in school officials' decisions to rely on intense surveillance methods. Finally, it proposes legislation and strategies that federal lawmakers, state lawmakers, and school officials should adopt to counteract the effect of implicit racial bias on school officials' decisions to implement strict security measures (and other decisions school officials make). Implementing these recommendations will help create better learning environments that benefit students of all races.

[Page 766]

Introduction..............................................................................................767

I. The Movement Toward Increased Reliance on Strict Security Measures.........................................................................773

A. The U.S. Supreme Court Has Weakened Students' Fourth Amendment Rights ..................................................................... 774
B. A Response to High-Profile Acts of School Violence .................778
C. The Movement Toward Criminalizing School Discipline.......... 780
D. High-Stakes Testing Laws ......................................................... 781
E. Schools Lack Resources to Appropriately Address Students' Needs ......................................................................................... 783

II. Educational and Sociological Harms of Strict Security Measures..........................................................................................784

A. Over-Reliance on Strict Security Measures May Harm Students' Interests ..................................................................... 785
B. The Effectiveness of Strict Security Measures in Creating Safe Learning Climates Is Far from Clear........................................ 792
C. The Disproportionate Use of Strict Security Measures on Students of Color Is Particularly Harmful ................................ 797

III. Empirical Evidence Demonstrating Racial Disparities in the Application of Strict Security Measures..........................800

A. 2009-2010 SSOCS Study........................................................... 801
B. 2013-2014 SSOCS Study........................................................... 805

1. Data and Sample ................................................................. 805
2. Dependent and Independent Variables................................ 806
3. Methodology ........................................................................ 808
4. Results ................................................................................. 809

C. Other Empirical Studies ............................................................ 811

IV. The Role of Implicit Racial Bias.................................................816

A. The Science of Implicit Bias ...................................................... 817
B. The Implicit Association Test .................................................... 820
C. Empirical Studies Implicating the Existence of Implicit Racial Bias ............................................................................................ 823
D. Evidence of Implicit Racial Bias in School Settings and Its Effects ........................................................................................ 826
E. Implicit Racial Bias and Racial Spaces ..................................... 829

V. Proposals for Reform...................................................................831

A. Increased Support from the Federal Government and State Governments to Address Educators' Implicit Racial Biases ..... 832
B. Require Schools to Publicly Report Their Security Practices ... 835

[Page 767]

Conclusion..................................................................................................836

Introduction¹

More than sixty years after the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education,² stark racial inequalities persist in our public education system. The disparate treatment of minority students has been documented repeatedly in almost all areas of public education. For example, it is more common for students of color, especially low-income students of color, to be in overcrowded classrooms, attend schools in deplorable physical condition, and be taught by educators who are less experienced, less credentialed, and lower paid.³ They are more likely to be suspended, expelled, referred to law

[Page 768]

enforcement, or subject to a school-based arrest than similarly situated white students.⁴ They have less access to counselors, gifted and talented programs, music and art curricula, project-based science classes, extra-curricular activities, and higher-level science and mathematics courses.⁵ Further, they are more likely to learn in segregated environments that have lower levels of peer group competition and support.⁶

Another racial inequality that has received much less attention, but still deserves our consideration, is the disparate use of strict security measures in schools serving primarily students of color. Strict security measures, for purposes of this Article, include practices such as relying on law enforcement officers to monitor and discipline students; using metal detectors (either hand-held or walk-through); performing random searches of students' personal belongings, lockers, or persons; controlling access to school campuses by locking or monitoring gates; and using surveillance cameras. All school officials monitor (and should monitor) their students to some degree. Indeed, among school officials' most important responsibilities are keeping students safe and promoting an orderly climate conducive to learning. However, there comes a point where monitoring students no longer enhances the learning

[Page 769]

environment, but impedes it, especially when school officials rely on a combination of the strict security measures listed above, which can create an intense surveillance environment.

In fact, for many students, particularly students attending schools where the majority of students are students of color, school too often resembles a prison. For example, Minerva Dickson, a New York high school student, recently described her everyday school experience in this fashion.⁷ Every morning when Minerva arrived at school, she waited in a long line to swipe her identification card through a machine.⁸ If the machine recognized the card, it beeped and flashed a green light.⁹ If it did not, the machine made a loud buzzing sound and flashed a red light.¹⁰ Once she cleared the machine, she was funneled toward fully-uniformed police officers who had handcuffs dangling from their belts.¹¹ Each day, while the school safety agents watched her, she had to remove her shoes, jewelry, and hairpins.¹² She would place her purse and backpack on a conveyer belt and wait for an agent to signal her to come forward.¹³ She then would spread her arms and legs as another agent ran a metal detector wand around her frame.¹⁴ Finally, she would be permitted to put on her shoes, collect her belongings, and hurry to her first class.¹⁵ When asked how she felt about this security process, she replied, "[t]hey treated us like criminals. It made me hate school. When you cage up students like that it doesn't make us safe, it makes things worse."¹⁶

Another example of this phenomenon comes from Edward Ward, an honor roll student at DePaul University, who also described the conditions of his high school as prison-like in his testimony to a U.S. Senate Committee.¹⁷ Edward attended high school on the west side of chicago, where 90% of the students

[Page 770]

were low-income, and all of the students were students of color.¹⁸ He stated that

[f]rom the moment we stepped through the doors in the morning, we were faced with metal detectors, x-ray machines and uniformed security. Upon entering the school, it was like we stepped into a prison. . . . [T]he halls were full with school security officers whose only purpose seemed to be to serve students with detentions or suspensions.¹⁹

Because of this tense surveillance environment and the way the school police officers treated him and his fellow students, he testified that he "could slowly see the determination to get an education fade from the faces of [his] peers because they were convinced that they no longer mattered . . . . [T]he last thing that would work is to place them in institutions of confinement and control."²⁰

Similarly, at a New Orleans high school, students each morning passed through metal detectors monitored by a police officer and several security guards.²¹ Those guards scanned each student individually with a...