Leftist Thought and Social Media in the Information Age

By Zoe Thomas

Republished in modified form from The Michigan Specter.

Fifty years ago, people encountered leftist thought primarily through activism, published works, and educators. In recent years, however, this has changed drastically. Today, for better or worse, the internet is the primary means through which leftism is disseminated and consumed. 

As a vehicle for spreading progressive ideas, the internet has largely been a democratizing force. Ideology is no longer solely the terrain of a relatively educated, elite vanguard. These days, you do not need to enroll in a class or even buy a book to learn about socialism. The information is freely available online and thus far more accessible to the average person.

Of course, more traditional, academic sources are available online, which does increase access to the scholarly writing of Marx and Marxists. However, this kind of literature can be intimidating and largely inaccessible to some people. Theory written centuries ago, or even modern theory written by academics, can even represent another language that enforces a kind of class divide along educational lines. To combat this and reach a broader audience, many modern leftist creators present similar ideas in a more entertaining, comprehensible way. 

Their efforts have gone a long way toward demystifying leftist ideas. This has allowed hisorically-obscured views to filter into the mainstream. But the new brand of leftist content isn’t just more accessible; it is also more relevant to the average person. Rather than just presenting centuries-old ideas, socialist creators are applying them to contemporary issues to foster practical social consciousness.

As leftist creators gain a foothold online, they are counterbalancing the conservative skew of platforms like Twitch and Reddit. And having such content in these spaces matters. It challenges the right-wing media monopoly head-on and obstructs dangerous pipelines that threaten to brainwash vulnerable young people with reactionary and regressive ideology.

But new leftist media is not without its flaws. While simplifying complex issues can be helpful, creators too often oversimplify them for marketing reasons. Moreover, some creators cultivate troubling cults of personality, touting their opinion as fact and punishing intracommunity dissent.

Indeed, many of the new left-wing personalities are of questionable moral character and frequently engage in blatant hypocrisy by clout-chasing. Of course, there are levels to their indiscretions, ranging from the purchase of expensive sports cars to using racial slurs in an attempt to win over the Right.

Perhaps the most worrying trend in new leftist media is that much of it falls prey to debate culture. Progressive commentators frequently engage with the arguments of their mainstream opponents, creating an industry of “responding to the Right.” But this approach mostly fails to win hearts and minds. Instead, it usually redounds to a battle of wits that leads nowhere.

When two career commentators debate online, it can give the appearance of real people having a conversation in which both parties listen and consider one another’s ideas. Yet, in these fabricated interactions, they both always come out on top, profiting off of important political issues that affect people’s lives. This is yet another area of politics where monetary incentives are a thoroughly corrupting force.

Although the benefits of exposing more people to leftist thought with social-media tactics are incredibly valuable and important, the manner in which it is being done leaves a lot to be desired. To be successful and remain true to its cause, online leftism must not just “fight the Right,” but exist independently from it, so as to promote the people and ideas that have given the movement its power.

Zoe Thomas is an undergraduate studying political science at the University of Michigan and a staff writer for The Michigan Specter.

Herstory: The Origins and Continued Relevancy of Black Feminist Thought in the United States

By Cherise Charleswell

Academics, second-wave, and third-wave feminists would likely agree that the Black Feminist movement grew out of, and more importantly, in response to, the Black Liberation Movement (itself an out-growth of the Civil Rights Movement), and the Women's Movement taking place in the United States and the West. The title of the groundbreaking anthology, All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men, But some of us are Brave , published in 1982, and edited by Gloria T. Hull, Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith, perfectly illustrates the sentiments behind the need for the development of the Black Feminist Movement. In short, Black women were being marginalized and openly discriminated against in both movements, and they were finding it difficult or impossible to build solidarity with those who were also acting as their oppressors. All too often, "black" was equated with black men and "woman" was equated with white women; and the end result of this was that black women were an invisible group whose existence and needs were (and many would rightfully argue continues) to be ignored. Frustrations over this led to the formation of the National Black Feminist Organization in New York in 1973. Thus, Black Feminism is merely an effort, coping mechanism, and tool to be utilized by Black women who are racially oppressed within the Women's Movement, and sexually oppressed within the Black Liberation Movement, as well as within the patriarchal system of the Black community, which simply mimics the sexist ideas of the larger society.

Documentary filmmaker Nevline Nnaji's film, Reflections Unheard: Black Women in Civil Rights, released in 2013 along with the Association of Black Women's Historians text, The True worth of a Race: African American Women and the Struggle for Freedom, which was released to commemorate the 150 th Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, both carry out the wonderful mission of giving a voice to the Black women involved in the Civil Rights Movement, Black Liberation Movement, and other liberation struggles. These women include the likes of Mary Church Terrell, Fannie Lou Baker, Ida B. Wells, bell hooks, Audre Loure, Barbara Christian, Angela Davis, and the many other women who have gone on nameless and forgotten by history. These are the women who were told to stand in the back as Black people were collectively fighting to sit at the front of the bus and at the lunch counter. These are the women who were fighting to end racial inequality, while dealing with gender inequality and sexism. These were the women who were expected to just keep on marching, singing, sexing, and birthing "babies for the revolution." This revolution did not include their liberation and was subsequently nothing more than a fallacy. As explained by Michele Wallace in her book, Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman, "There is no revolution if, at the end of it, you ask any group of people to continue their subjugation."[1] Therefore, these women declared the following manifesto:

Black Woman's Manifesto

Racism and capitalism have trampled the potential of black people in this country and thwarted their self-determination. Initially, the physical characteristics of those of African descent were used to fit blacks into the lowest niche in the capitalist hierarchy - that of maintenance. Therefore, black women and men of today do not encourage division by extending physical characteristics to serve as a criterion for a social hierarchy. If the potential of the black woman is seen mainly as a supportive role for the black man, then the black woman becomes an object to be utilized by another human being. Her potential stagnates and she cannot begin to think in terms of self-determination for herself and all black people. It is not right that her existence should be validated only by the existence of the black man.

The black woman is demanding a new set of female definitions and recognition of herself of a citizen, companion and confidant, not a matriarchal villain or a step stool baby-maker. Role integration advocates the complementary recognition of man and woman, not the competitive recognition of same. [2]

Daring to become an activist and join the various Black Liberation struggles meant that a Black woman would have to face constant sexism. Viewing Black women as merely objects to be controlled meant that even their bodies and sexuality would be controlled. The following comment by feminist, author, popular speaker, and social activist bell hooks, explains the nature of this control as well as the underlining hypocrisy: "Black men overemphasize[d] white male sexual exploitation of black womanhood as a way to explain their disapproval of inter-racial relationships." It was, however, no contradiction of their political views to have inter-racial relationships themselves. Again, part of "freedom" and "manhood" was the right of men to have indiscriminate access to and control over any woman's body." [3] In other words, these attitudes, again, only represent a desire to switch or assume the position of the oppressor, and not truly bring about liberation and equality.

Within the Black liberation struggles, there was also a blatant disregard for Black women's humanity, autonomy, and bodies; and so, they were subjected to sexist statements, practices, and even violence. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was guilty of being a male chauvinist. In particular, he resisted allowing women to take on leadership positions within his own organizations. [4] In the article, "Martin Luther King, Jr. Revisited: A Black Power Feminist Pays Homage to the King," Gwendylon Zoharah Simmons, a former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) volunteer, provides an account of her experiences with this widely known chauvinism and rampant sexism within the Civil Rights Movements:

"Sexism was definitely a problem throughout all civil rights organizations. Dr. King, not surprisingly -- like most if not all men in the movement who were products of the Black Church and American culture was sexist. ... The civil rights movement was hardly a model of female inclusion in the area of leadership. Patriarchy plagued the black freedom struggle on all sides. ...All men had difficulty seeing women in leadership roles."

She goes on to say that "King's inability to see movement women as his peers and even mentors prevented him from forging strong connections with radical black women who could have been his greatest allies in the struggle he was about to launch against economic oppression."[5]

Even more appalling were the daily acts of misogyny. Former Black Panther Party member, Elaine Brown, shared the following recollection of those experiences:

During an organizational meeting of the Black Congress in which she and the other women were forced to wait to eat until the men were served food for which they had all contributed money. The "rules" were then explained to her and a friend: "Sisters... did not challenge Brothers. Sisters... stood behind their black men, supported their men, and respected them. In essence... it was not only 'unsisterly' of us to want to eat with our Brothers, it was a sacrilege for which blood could be shed."

Much of this was carried out minus any criticism; and, of course, speaking about it openly would have been, and remains to be, deemed as a form of treason, or "airing out dirty laundry." Nevertheless, when Black liberation leaders would speak, much of the vocabulary they would choose and statements they would make focused on the greatness of the Black man, the needs of the Black man, and the oppression of the Black man; all while rarely mentioning the Black woman.

Consider the following statements that exemplify the disregard of the humanity of Black women:

We have black MEN who have mastered the field of medicine, we have black MEN who have mastered other fields, but very seldom do we have black MEN in America who have mastered the knowledge of the HIStory of the black MAN himself. We have among our people those who are experts in every field, but seldom can you find one among us who is an expert on the HIStory of the black MAN.

- Malcolm X, The Black MAN's History, December 1962

And so this separation [of black men and women] is the cause of our need for self-consciousness, and eventual healing. But we must erase the separateness by providing ourselves with healthy African identities. By embracing a value system that knows of no separation but only of the divine complement the black woman is for her man. For instance, we do not believe in them 'equality' of men and women. We cannot understand what the devils and the devilishly influenced mean when they say equality for women. We could never be equals... Nature has not provided thus."

- Amiri Baraka statements expressing that gender equality between Black women and men are unequal, and that Black women are complements "for" Black men.

I became a rapist. To refine my technique and modus operandi, I started out by PRACTICING on black girls in the ghetto-in the black ghetto where vicious and dark deeds appear NOT as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day-and when I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey.

- Black Panther, misogynist, rapist, and wife beater, Eldrige Cleaver, discussing his predatory pattern. It is telling that he viewed violence committed against black women to be "less serious, less criminal," than that against their white counterparts.

Feminism, White Women, & Hierarchy

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

- Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I A Woman," Delivered in 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio.

The above sentiments delivered by abolitionist and pioneering Black feminist Sojourner Truth speaks to the problem of marginalization and invisibility that plagues Black women. In fact, she repeatedly punctuates her speech with the question, "Ain't I A Woman?" and, in essence, is pointing out that she and other Black women are indeed women, and equals to white women. Therefore, their humanity should also be recognized. Sojourner Truth delivered this speech during a time when women's suffrage and other empowerment movements were beginning to take root; however, these movements almost always focused on solidarity and the rights of white women only. At times, the exclusion or undeniable racism was quite blatant. This difficult dance of sisterhood was continued into the 20th century, particularly during the 1960s, when the feminist movement re-emerged. However, the racism that Black women experienced was more subtle and structural in nature. A number of Black women were invited to engage in the movement and women's studies courses only to discover they were treated as tokens.

Much of these frustrations with inherent racism, classism, etc. in the feminist movement and women's studies exploded, and were explored during the first National Women's Studies Association Conference held in 1979 in Lawrence, Kansas. Barbara Smith, an attendee of that Conference shared the following during her address:

Although my proposed topic is black women's studies, I have decided to focus my remarks in a different way. Given that this is a gathering of predominantly white women and given what has occurred during this conference, it makes much more sense to discuss the issue of racism: racism in women's studies and racism in the women's movement generally." Oh no, "I can hear some of you groaning inwardly. Not that again. That's all we've talked about since we got here." This of course is not true. If it had been all we had all talked about since we got here, we might be at a point of radical transformation on the last day of this Conference that we clearly are not.

For those of you who are tired of hearing about racism, imagine how much more tired we are of constantly experiencing it, second by literal second, how much more exhausted we are to see it constantly in your eyes. The degree to which it is hard or uncomfortable for you to have the issue raised is the degree to which you know inside of yourselves that you aren't dealing with the issue, the degree to which you are hiding from the oppression that undermines Third World women's lives. I want to say right here that this is not a "guilt trip." It's a fact trip. The assessment of what's actually going on. [6]

Barbara's calls for the honest discussion of racism apparently went unheard by many of the majority-white female audience that she spoke to, and feminists as a whole. This disregard became quite apparent during a NWSA's Conference that took place much later, in 1990, in Akron, Ohio. Viewed as a watershed moment, over a hundred women of color and their allies got up and walked out of the Conference in protest to the entrenched and continued racism existing within the movement. Again, the concerns and viewpoints of Black women, and other women of color, were relegated to the margins. The fundamental issue was that the experiences of white, middle class women were viewed as the universal experience of women, without any considerations for race, class, sexuality, and so on. Compounding this problem was/is that many white women operate, often times unknowingly, from this point of privilege. The walk-out signified the frustration of having to educate another group about the privilege they enjoy (in this case, racial privilege), and having to deal with their discomfort and push-back in the process.

Just last year (yes, this is still an issue in 2013), the issue grabbed national headlines during a two-day Twitter campaign on the topic #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen. Writer Mikki Kendall started the hash tag during a discussion about Hugo Schwyzer, who gained notoriety for being an admitted manipulator and antagonizer of women, especially women of color. So, what was the problem? Well, a number of white women rushed in to defend Schwyzer after he claimed he was being bullied and attacked. In other words, so much for sisterhood and solidarity. Women of color watched, and later reacted to, the actions of their "sisters," and these actions once again made it clear that white women's issues and stances continued to be a priority over women of color; and yes, true solidarity was/is for white women. In an article for The Guardian, Mikki explained the following regarding the controversy, "It appeared that these feminists were, once again, dismissing women of color (WOC) in favor of a brand of solidarity that centers on the safety and comfort of white women. For it to be at the expense of people who were doing the same work was exceptionally aggravating." Black women and the issues that directly impacted them (such as racism) were again being shout out, silenced, ignored, and marginalized by white women's positions of privilege in feminism.

The trending topic #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen quickly spread to other media platforms, and women shared the following sentiments on Twitter:

Ayesha A. Siddiqi (@pushinghoops) August 12, 2013

#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen when you idolize Susan B. Anthony & claim her racism didn't matter.

Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia) August 12, 2013

#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen when "sexpositivity" never includes women of color.

SaltedCarmelSouthron (@deluxvivens) August 12, 2013

#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen white feminists get seen as 'heroes' for starting feminist societies, but WOCs are brushed off as 'aggressive'

Angry Black Fangirl (@TheAngryFangirl) August 13, 2013

I know #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen when any critique of white privilege in feminism is written off as "racist" and "divisive."

Cabbage Patch Ninja (@thewayoftheld) August 13, 2013

#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen means criticizing Beyonce for wearing onesies while applauding Lena Dunham for going topless.

Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) August 15, 2013

SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen on display: Alice Walker disinvited from U of Michigan's women center 4 Israel comments.

Ebony in Inwood (@TheRealMsMurphy) February 22, 2014

@TheRealRoseanne supports Tommy Sotomayor's black woman hatred and calls ME a bigot. Isn't that cute? #solidarityisforwhitewomen

Intersectionality

When considering their daily interactions, as well as academic and professional experiences, it became apparent that is difficult, or impossible, for Black women to separate race from class and sex oppression, because they experience them simultaneously. Kimberle Crenshaw coined the term "Intersectionality" to describe this phenomenon. Patricia Hill Collins, in her groundbreaking book, Black Feminist Thought, explains why the theory of Intersectionality is central to Black feminist thought: "Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift in how we think about oppression. By embracing a paradigm of race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression, Black feminist thought re conceptualizes the social relations of domination and resistance."[7] Thus, in considering intersectionality, Black feminist thought makes it clear that Black women do not have the luxury of focusing on issues of gender oppression, in comparison to their white counterparts. Instead, they must be equally, or more so, vigilant on issues of race, class, sexuality, etc. that is tied to separate means of oppression and discrimination.

For instance, consider the following:

26.5% of African American women are poor, compared to 22.3% African American men, 11.6% of white women, and 9.4% of white men. [8] Thus, Black women are twice as likely as white women to be living in poverty, a fact that creates a different set and larger amount of challenges and obstacles in life. Further, white woman are more likely to be tied to white men, those with the greatest degree of social equity and lowest rates of poverty, which allows them to benefit from the higher degree of privilege experienced by their male counterparts. Understandably, the concerns between the two groups of women will be different.

Black women and other women of color have been historically failed and ostracized by the communities which they identify with, whether based on race/ethnicity or gender. The extent of this failure could easily be discerned by simply looking at the nation's health indicators. African American women have much higher rates of disease prevalence and mortality than Caucasian women - differences which are not purely explained by genetic and physiology factors. Instead, the differences are mostly due to socio-economic conditions (again varying intersectional factors) within the built environment. In comparison to Caucasian women, more women of color live in low income and impoverished areas; and this lack of resources and access to health services - especially preventative care, nutritional foods, safe living conditions, and employment opportunities - help to account for the great health inequities. Consequently, the question of whether feminism and women studies have any real benefit to Black women, on the surface, seems valid. However, within their own ethnic and racially-identified communities, Black women and other women of color continue to face abject sexism and cultural norms that reinforce their positions of inferiority; and these circumstances stand as testimony to the need for women of color to be actively involved in feminism/womanism.

What about Our Daughters?

"White girls don't call their men 'brothers' - and that made their struggle enviably simpler than mine. Racism and the will to survive, it creates a sense of intra-racial loyalty that makes it impossible for black women to turn our backs on black men - even in their ugliest and most sexist of moments. I needed a feminism that would allow us to continue loving ourselves and the brothers who hurt us without letting race loyalty buy us early tombstones," [9] shares Joan Morgan in her book, When Chickenheads Come Home To Roost. Joan's statement helps to explain the paradox of loyalty-and-priority that black women face. While racial oppression has forced black women to constantly rally around black men, reciprocity is often not carried out. Due to "loyalty," black women are expected to accept these unfair circumstances, and in fact address those who often act as their oppressor as "brotha." Even in the rhetoric of the Black Liberation movements, race was tremendously sexualized and freedom itself was equated with manhood; and this continues to be the case. When there was talk about "The Man," it was primarily due to frustrations of Black men who wanted to switch places with that oppressor so that he could be as dominant; which, again, leaves Black women in a position of subjugation. These sentiments continue today, where Black men continue to view the loss of manhood as the real tragedy of racism, and openly accuse Black women of assisting in the emasculation of Black men. For Black women are expected to "hold a brotha down," even when there is no reciprocity for her actions. Black feminism provides the means to point out these double-standards and hypocrisies.

Pioneering Black feminists and women's suffragists, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, expressed this cautionary statement about the need for Black women to be empowered and guaranteed the same rights of men, particularly Black men, whose liberation is not tied to Black women's:

There is a great stir bout colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights and not colored women theirs, the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So, I am keeping the thing going while things are stirring; because if we wait till it is still, it will take a great while to get it going again.

- Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, 1867 AERA Meeting

Her warnings essentially foreshadowed exactly what would begin to manifest in the later Black liberation movements, within the Black church, and within the Black community; the accepted subjugation and disrespect of Black women. As of recent, there have finally been honest discussions about Black men failing to "Show Up" for Black women.

In her article, On Black Men Showing Up for Black Women at the Scene of the Crime , a Crunk Feminist Collective contributor recounted her experience on a panel that included a white woman and Black man, where her questions and prodding of this man to provide a deeper analysis of gender dynamics, instead of his repeated statement about "what he had done for us [women]," resulted in her being cut off, yelled at, publicly humiliated, frightened (by his towering frame), and with her face and clothing soaking wet by the cup of water the man threw at her during his abrupt departure. The most interesting or worrisome and sad part about her ordeal is that no one, not even the other Black women in the room (who of course have been programmed to accept this behavior and only rally for Black men in need) readily stepped in or stood up to defend her. In considering her ordeal, one has to ask whether those who witnessed the exchange truly believe she deserved this treatment due to her audacity to question a Black man's authority, to challenge him to admit there is rampant sexism in our communities, and for not remaining silent.

Yet, similar scenes are played out on street corners and other areas every day; and, again, no one, particularly no Black man Shows Up in defense of Black women. Just consider the historical epidemic of Street harassment, where for generations Black girls and women have to cope with cat-calling, uninvited conversations, being stared at, taunted, and touched by random Black men as they attempt to navigate city streets. Regardless of how offensive the act, or whether or not they are actually interested in these men who cross their paths, they are expected to accept the behavior, to feign some sort of appreciation for the unsolicited compliments, and, above all, smile through the ordeal and refrain from challenging these men, unless they want to be victimized - whether verbally or physically. These situations are played out daily - and often, when a Black girl or woman finds herself in this predicament, she quickly realizes that the other Black men who are witnessing the behavior will not Show Up in her defense. Proving that #SolidarityIsAlsoForBlackMen.

While Black women have traditionally taken to the streets to rally against forces of oppression that harm Black men and boys, the same amount of fervor is not given to them in return. The focus continues to be on Black men and boys - leaving many to ask, What About Our Daughters? A website with this name launched in April 2007 in response to the Oprah Winfrey Show episode entitled, "After Imus: Now What?," which focused on the infamous "nappy headed hoes" remark made by radio commentator Don Imus. Adding fuel to the fire were the distasteful comments, under the guise of comedy, made by comedian-actor DL Hugley. The mission of the website is as such, "Unapologetic, uncompromising, and unbowed in defense of Black women and girls." In other words, the website steps forward to fill a gap - to uplift and protect Black women and girls from the constant waves of oppression, discrimination, and prevalence of destructive images of Black womanhood.

Further, those who have assisted in creating and disseminating much of these negative images of Black womanhood have unfortunately been Black men. It is Black men who have helped to make the terminology and images of the "sassy, lazy, over-sexed, ratchet, Black vixen…ho, slut, bitch" popular and ubiquitous globally, which, contrary to misconceptions, started before the hip hop generation. During the Blaxploitation era, Black women were still portrayed as hyper-sexual caricatures and prostitutes, while pimps were celebrated as pop culture figures.

It is not difficult to trace the continuation of pimp/misogynistic culture from the 1970s to the present, particularly when looking at hip hop. Jay Z boastfully rapped about Big Pimpin', Bishop Don Juan, dressed in his stereotypical pimp attire, became part of Snoop Dog's entourage, Snoop's mannerisms and speech have always been reminiscent of the celebrated pimps, and Three 6 Mafia's "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp," part of the Hustle & Flow soundtrack, even won an Oscar for best original song. Indeed, the pimp culture has ingrained itself in Black culture, and this is problematic because it represents the celebration of a figure whose "job description" is controlling, using, and often abusing women. Therefore, pimp culture is nothing more than a means to protect and celebrate the "Black Macho." It is for this reason why, despite wanting to address the issue of cultural appropriation, Black women, and particularly Black feminists, found it difficult to stand in solidarity with Black men who were angered over Seattle, Washington born-and-bred, Caucasian rapper, Macklemore, winning "best rap album" at the 2014 Grammy Awards. Instead, they were forced to be honest with themselves and admit they could appreciate a rap/hip hop album that wasn't filled with misogynistic lyrics that caused them to flinch each time their favorite rapper called women "bitches" and "hoes" - or described them as nothing more than conquests. As pointed out in the viral article, " Why Macklemore Beat Your Favorite Rapper ," Macklemore actually presented music that was void of hyper-consumerism and the glorification of luxury and material items, and instead touched on topics of social justice.

The Numbers - #BlackPowerIsForBlackMen

The fact that Black women have been taught, or arguably programmed, to constantly protect and Show Up for Black men results in them having to be silent about their own abuse and oppression. It has to do with the push-pull historical factors of prioritizing race or gender. Essentially, Black women are typically unwilling to "offer up" yet another Black man to a system they know to be corrupt and unjust, even when they are victimized by the same Black man. This is one of the many ways that Black women Show Up for Black men.

The Truth - across the board, Black women have the highest rates of victimization of rape, intimate partner violence (or domestic violence) and homicide, and their attackers are usually Black men - not surprising, since most cases of violence are intra-racial:

• Black females experience intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. [10]

• African-American women experience significantly more domestic violence than White women in the age group of 20-24. [11]

• Approximately 40% of Black women report coercive contact of a sexual nature by age 18. [12]

• The number one killer of African-American women ages 15 to 34 is homicide at the hands of a current or former intimate partner. [12]

• Black females made up 35% (or 1,200) of the nearly 3,500 female homicide victims. [13]

• In 2005, most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intra-racial. [13]

• In a study of African-American sexual assault survivors, only 17% reported the assault to police. [12]

• For every white woman that reports her rape, at least 5 white women do not report theirs; and yet, for every African-American woman that reports her rape, at least 15 African-American women do not report theirs. [13]

It is on these issues - harassment, abuse, and violence - that Black feminists and Black women in general truly need the support of male allies. When looking at these statistics, the relevancy and need for Black feminism cannot be denied or dismissed. In her article, Why #BlackPowerIsforBlackMen: Exploring Intragroup Domestic Violence , Bea Hilton, intersectional activist and founder of the Freedom Project, eloquently shares the following sentiments: "It is imperative that Black men unpack their privilege and begin to accept these truisms not as betrayal, personal attacks or attempts at emasculation, but as acts of self-love, as steps toward a more equal and peaceful reality."

In an attempt to address this hypocrisy and inequality, the hashtag #BlackPowerisforBlackMen was created, and the posted comments provided concrete examples as to why this continues to be the case:

FilthyFreedom @Filthy Freedom August 14, 2013

#BlackPowerisforBlackMen because reporting domestic abuse also means serving up another black man to an unjust system - & - u don't get that

Zellie @Zelliemani August 14, 2013

#BlackPowerisforBlackMen because black on black violence never includes sexual violence against women

KayJacks RT @ RobinDGKelley February 25, 2014

#BlackPowerIsForBlackMen When we can name Emmett Till but can't name Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson…

GRSurvivingRape : RT @ BlackCanseco I got nuthin. Thx @ UncleRush RT @ LurieDFavors #blackpowerisforblackmen when female slave rape parodies are mass marketed.…

Posted in regards to Russell Simmons' endorsement

GRSurvivingRape : RT @ nealcarter : Another "black america" panel, without one black women's voice http://t.co/cY25ytPnaD #blackpowerisforblackmen

Posted in regards to this:

Auset93 : RT @ thembithembi: #blackpowerisforblackmen when we agreed that Trayvon was no thug but divided on whether Rachel Jeantel had an "attitude" …

@_theELLE_ # blackpowerisforblackmen when a Black man's way of uplifting Black women is writing a book telling her what she needs to change to get a man

Demetria Lucas @abelleinbk RT @ GradientLair: # blackpowerisforblackmen When Stop & Frisk is deemed wrong, yet BM street harass me 10-75 a week for TWENTY YEARS

Essentially, Black feminism, which advocates for the removal of all systems of oppression, is a means to truly bring about solidarity within the Black community - a solidarity that does not depend upon the subjugation of one group in order to uplift and coddle another.

Conclusive Statements

Black feminism continues to remain relevant for a plethora of factors, including the fact that Black women are often asked to choose a side or are shamed into putting race and ethnicity over their gender; and, for this reason, many of them shy away from the title, feminist, instead accepting the more appropriate title, Womanist. From the beginning, the Black women who took part in the Black liberation movements (Civil Rights, Black Power), the Suffrage movement, and Women's movement, were often discriminated against sexually and racially. Anna Julia Cooper, a Black woman who was also a staunch suffragists, is best known for the statement, "Only the BLACK WOMAN can say when and where I enter in the quiet undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without violence or special patronage; then and there the whole Negro race enters with me." Rightfully, Cooper believed and was particularly effective in emphasizing to Black women the fact that their access to the ballot and right to vote was important for their own determination, and crucial to ensure their needs were addressed; instead of the erroneous belief that Black men's experiences and needs were the same as theirs.

Nevertheless, Black feminists continue to be reminded by men of color, and to some extent White feminists, that the Feminist movement is also a place of inequality and privilege. White women were and continue to be the greatest beneficiaries of the Feminist movement - a fact that cannot be ignored, as it is often thrown in the face of Black women and other women of color who attempt to assert themselves as being women who are also interested in gender equality. Ultimately, white feminists are not burdened by the additional barriers of racism and prejudice; such as the anxiety African American female job seekers face when it comes to how they wear their hair, particularly if it is natural, and whether or not their hairstyle will disqualify them as a job candidate.

Black women have to cope with a multitude of these intersecting factors, as well as the intra-racial issues with sexism, misogyny, abuse, and violence. For this reason, True solidarity and Black liberation will not be brought about by mimicking the patriarchal system of the broader society and replacing one oppressor (white male) with another (black male). Instead, it depends on the removal of all forms of oppression, particularly gender oppression, which Black feminism works towards.

The following sentiments of Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, speaks to the fact that continued support and acceptance of oppression and discrimination cannot be viewed as revolutionary, or as any part of a revolutionary values system:

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women's right to be free. [14]

Thus, the purpose of Black feminism is the development of theory which can adequately address the way race, gender, and class are interconnected in our lives, in order to take action to stop racist, sexist, and classist discrimination. In the end, Black women's strength does not equal the emasculation of Black men; and Black women's subjugation is not a requirement for Black men to be men.

References

Wallace, M. Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman. Verso Books: New York; 1999.

La Rue, L. The Black Movement and Women's Liberation, Black Women's Manifesto. The Black Scholar, Vol. I. May, 1970. p.42 http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/wlm/blkmanif/

But Some of Us Are Brave: A History of Black Feminism in the United States. Retrieved from: http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.01/6blackf.html

Dyson, Michael Eric. I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr. Free Press: New York, 2000.

Zoharah-Simmons, G. Martin Luther King Jr. Revisited a black power feminist pays homage to the king. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. 2008; 24(2):189-213

Smith, Barbara. Racism and Women's Studies. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 1980; National Women's Studies Association: Selected Conference Proceedings. 5(1):48-49.

Collins P. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge: New York 1990.

Cawthorne, A. The straight facts on women in poverty. American Progress. 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2008/10/pdf/women_poverty.pdf Sterling D. We are your sisters: Black women in the nineteenth century. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1984.

Morgan, J. When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip-Hop Feminist Breaks It Down. Simon & Schuster: NY, 1999.

Callie Marie Rennison. and Sarah Welchans, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 178247, Intimate Partner Violence (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt

Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 187635, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999, at 4, (2001), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm

Africana Voices Against Violence, Tufts University, Statistics, 2002, www.ase.tufts.edu/womenscenter/peace/africana/newsite/statistics.htm

Harrell, E. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Black Victims of Violent Crime. US Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. 2007, NCJ 214258. Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Newton HP. A Black Panther's view in 1970. Retrieved at http://www.workers.org/2012/us/huey_p_newton_0524/

Standardization as a Tool of Oppression: How the Education System Controls Thought and Serves as a Gatekeeper to the Ruling Elite

By Kali Ma

The "ruling elite" is a tiny minority roughly comprised of the nation's top 1% income earners who own more wealth than the bottom 95% of the population combined.[1] Those who make up this ruling elite are wealthy, mostly white, individuals. They are overwhelmingly educated at the most prestigious elite institutions and are the leaders in all major fields within society.

In order for this tiny minority to rule over the majority, it needs mechanisms in place to keep the majority from overtaking its power. Our standardized education system serves as a vital gatekeeper to the ruling class and legitimizes their power and authority. Standardization - or the use of pre-determined measures to judge individuals - is essential to controlling thought and promoting a particular ideology to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Ideology in this context means a set of values, beliefs and ideas shared by a group of individuals that reflects their economic, political, and social interests. For an ideology to become dominant, it must be accepted by the majority and serve as a lens through which most individuals view society. The more people interpret the world through a particular perspective, the more power those who benefit from that perspective gain.

Standardization is vital to perpetuating the elite's ideology and serves to: 1) legitimize the rule of those in power; 2) train individuals to obey and defer to authority, as opposed to teaching them critical thinking skills; and 3) exclude competing perspectives and people that threaten the interests of the ruling class. The education system is particularly effective in meeting these objectives because it presents itself as a system of merit where students are rewarded in proportion to their efforts. However, when we examine the education system more closely, it becomes clear that its structure heavily favors affluent individuals and those most likely to further the elite's ideology.

Legitimizing the Ruling Elite - The Myth of Meritocracy

Central to the legitimization of those in power is the myth of meritocracy, which consists of two main assumptions: 1) that individuals succeed in proportion to their abilities, and 2) that those in leadership occupy their positions because they are the most intelligent and talented individuals in society. It also asserts that anyone can attain this elite status if they possess superior abilities and talents.

As a result of these assumptions, meritocracy advances the philosophy that certain individuals are "superior," which legitimizes the rule by the "superior" few over those perceived as "inferior." This separation into "inferiors" and "superiors" takes place in our education system, which constantly ranks students based on standardized criteria. "Inferior" are those who, through inherent or self-created deficiencies, do not meet the "standard" and are, therefore, deemed unqualified or unintelligent. In other words, their voices and perspectives are silenced in favor of those who meet or exceed the standard. Persons deemed "inferior" simply become the subjects of power and thereby outsource their decision-making to a tiny privileged elite.

The most talented and intellectually "superior" individuals usually go on to attend our nation's elite universities. Contrary to the claims of meritocracy, however, students who attend these elite institutions are not necessarily more intelligent or talented, but rather enjoy the advantages of their socio-economic privilege.

Meritocracy Myth Debunked: Elite Schools and the "Intergenerational Reproduction of Privilege"

Elite universities play an essential role in generating new members for the ruling class and legitimizing their governance over the majority. Analyzing the process that produces this ruling elite is key to revealing how an affluent, mostly white, minority still remains in power today.

Instead of public schools, upper-class children attend exclusive private schools, expensive prep or boarding schools, and eventually enroll at our nation's elite universities. Throughout their lives, they are groomed to be society's leaders and are constantly reminded of their "superior destiny." As a result, they are confident about their abilities and view lower classes as subjects to be led, ruled, and guided.

The dichotomy between the upper class and everyone else becomes obvious when we examine elite institutions. According to a study, only 6.5% of Harvard students received federal financial aid in the form of Pell Grants, which are generally given to students in the bottom half of the income distribution. [2] This means that only about 6.5% of students from the bottom half of the income bracket were enrolled at Harvard during the 2008-2009 school year. Nearly three quarters of all students at elite colleges come from the top income quartile, while only 3 percent come from households in the bottom quartile. [3] The top 25% in terms of income are 25 times more likely to attend a "top tier" college than are those in the bottom 25%.[4]

Most high-achieving, low-income students outside of urban areas do not even apply to selective universities because of geographic and social barriers. [5] Many lack the basic information about "top-tier" institutions while others simply do not know anyone who attended a selective university, and likely, sense that they do not belong in these schools.[6]

Admission into elite universities heavily favors the privileged in several ways, including: preference given to family legacy students, those who can afford to pay full tuition, and students who receive high scores on standardized exams for which tutoring is essentially required and usually quite expensive.[7] "Legacy applicants" who had at least one parent graduate from an elite institution are up to 45% more likely to be admitted to that school.[8] On the other hand, a study revealed that during the admissions process, elite schools awarded zero points to low-income individuals for their socio-economic status, thus failing to acknowledge the obvious economic and social disadvantages those students had to overcome in order to achieve academic success. [9]

Clearly, privileged individuals have significant advantages when it comes to enrollment at our nation's "top tier" institutions. This, however, is not entirely the result of their own efforts as the myth of meritocracy would have us believe, but rather the socio-economic advantages tied to their affluent status. Notably, even members of the elite establishment have admitted that the system favors the wealthy: according to Anthony Carnevale - former Clinton administration appointee and current director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce -"The education system is an increasingly powerful mechanism for the intergenerational reproduction of privilege."[10]

Standardization Teaches Unquestioning Obedience

Meritocracy also assumes that all individuals are equally situated and can therefore be properly judged by the same measures. Merit is determined by extensive use of standardized exams that evaluate students' aptitude and rank them based on criteria established by the power structure.

Most schools today do not encourage children to think critically or express themselves in their own way; instead, they teach students how to best restate what they have learned. Individuals who memorize well and are able to repeat certain facts most closely to the expected standard are considered intelligent and reward with good grades and high scores on exams. Creativity, thinking outside the box, raising questions that challenge the status quo, and engaging with the learning material in a lively manner is simply not tolerated. Very rarely are students rewarded for their own critical thinking and creativity. A system that expects students to memorize and copy a pre-determined standard does not teach critical thinking or the sharing of different ideas and perspectives - it teaches obedience.

Proponents of standardized testing claim that the exams have the ability to assess students' abilities and predict future success. Standardization teaches us early on that there is a prevailing, dominant measure by which all people can be legitimately judged. As a result, it effectively promotes only one type of assessment based on the values of the dominant ideology to the exclusion of all other measures and perspectives. In other words, students are taught to believe that only one particular set of skills is valuable and that there is only one type of "intelligence" worth expressing. Standardization is, in effect, an authoritarian mechanism that measures a student's compliance to a set of criteria or answers deemed "correct" by those in authority. There is no independent critical or analytical thinking involved, which is exactly the type of intelligence the ruling elite - who depend on an obedient and unquestioning populace - counts on.

The values the dominant ideology promotes directly and indirectly through standardization are: unquestioning obedience to authority; the importance of such obedience; the belief that only certain skills and types of intelligence are "superior"; and that those in authority are the most qualified to occupy positions of power. These values and beliefs provide great deference to authority and obviously benefit the ruling elite.

Standardized exam performance also has a considerable impact on one's future educational and life opportunities; thus, it is a highly effective mechanism for separating individuals into their respective socio-economic ranks. The fact that standardized exams produce results that disproportionately disenfranchise minorities and lower classes is key to eliminating competition and securing the power of the ruling elite.

Standardized Testing: A Mechanism for Exclusion

Keeping the ranks of power homogeneous is essential to promoting a particular ideology that benefits the ruling class. Different perspectives and "outsiders" are a direct threat unless, of course, they can be assimilated into the system and used to promote its agenda. The mechanisms by which individuals are excluded are mostly covert and appear under the cloak of meritocracy which asserts that the "best and the brightest" naturally succeed.

Exclusion Based on Economic Status, Race, and Ideology

Racial and economic inequalities are ongoing problems that have never been properly addressed. In fact, economic inequality, which disproportionately affects women and minorities, is worse today than it was during the Great Depression.[11] In addition to pure racism, sexism and classism, systemic exclusion of most minorities, women, and the poor also serves to eliminate competing political interests and exclude different perspectives that threaten the interests of the ruling class.

1. Socio-Economic Exclusion

Most universities, including elite institutions, still use standardized testing as an important factor in admissions. Test scores from the SAT show white, wealthy students consistently outperforming minorities and the economically disadvantaged by a wide margin. [12] The results imply that the most intelligent and successful individuals within our society are wealthy whites.

Based on these results we can either believe that: a) the tests are legitimate and that minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals areinherently inferior to white, wealthy students OR, b) that minorities and economically disadvantaged students are not inherently inferior, and that the tests are illegitimate as assessors of intelligence and predictors of future success. If we believe that the tests are legitimate and that students perform poorly because of financial disadvantages, then we must still reject this unfair assessment that disproportionally affects economically disadvantaged students.

According to Edwin Black, author of the War Against the Weak, standardized exams such as the SAT serve as "vehicles for cultural exclusion." [13] Research linking test performance to family income suggests that what these exams really measure are an individual's access to certain resources like test preparation classes, tutoring, and private school education. [14] A study recently found that a student's socio-economic background has a "considerable" impact on his or her secondary educational achievements, particularly in the United States.[15] Standardized testing exploits this disadvantage and efficiently keeps people in their respective socio-economic ranks.

With so much emphasis placed on standardized testing, it is the perfect tool to prevent individuals from rising above their economic statuses in a seemingly legitimate way. Generally speaking, unless a person is well-connected - which often comes with wealth and social status - they are unlikely to do much better economically than their parents.

By continuing to legitimize standardized exams, it seems that we as a society have accepted the belief - consciously or not - that wealthy (mostly white) individuals are inherently superior. Interestingly, the origins of standardized testing are grounded in this exact racist and classist belief.

2. Racial Exclusion

Standardized exams and I.Q. tests emerged in the early 1900s and were extensively promoted by the eugenics movement. [16] The premise of eugenics was that Nordic, upper class whites were inherently superior and more intelligent than other races.[17] In the 1920s, Carl Brigham, a psychologist and figure in the eugenics movement, developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or what is now referred to as the SAT.[18] Brigham believed that whites born in America were inherently superior and more intelligent than other races, including southern and eastern European immigrants, whom he deemed equally inferior.[19] Eugenics was widely accepted throughout America's leadership class and heavily financed by influential organizations like the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation.[20] Over a period of about 60 years, eugenics led to the forcible sterilization of 60,000 Americans who were deemed "unfit" due to race, social status or other "defective" traits.[21]

Is it a coincidence, then, that privileged white students disproportionately outperform minorities and economically disadvantaged students on an exam created by a man who firmly believed in the superiority of white, upper class individuals? Do we honestly believe that privileged whites are inherently superior to everyone else? And what does it say about the ideology of our ruling elite when some of its most influential members like the Carnegie and Rockefeller families financed an overtly racist and classist movement that led to the forcible sterilization of 60,000 people?

It is no coincidence that standardized testing promotes a certain type of intelligence that happens to benefit white, upper class individuals. The classist and racist implications of standardized testing are evident in their origins and results. By shaping the perception that certain groups are naturally unintelligent, the system dehumanizes whole classes of people and effectively silences their voices. The results provide seemingly legitimate "proof" that minorities and the poor are inherently inferior and that they deserve to occupy a lower rank in society. In truth, however, our education system is a convenient excuse to justify the position of those in power while giving the appearance, through seemingly legitimate means, that this power was attained in a fair and just manner.

3. Ideological Exclusion

Discrimination based on race and class is an intersection of several issues: pure racism and classism as well as the elimination of competing ideologies and political interests that would - at the very least - significantly weaken the dominant ideology. The inclusion of diversity is a direct threat to the homogeneous make-up of the ruling elite, which depends on its ideology to sustain its power. Being part of the ruling elite is not just about wealth, race, and social status: it is just as much - if not more - about sharing particular ideological perspectives that advance the interests of the privileged class as a whole.

For instance, while affirmative action programs have been instrumental in providing educational opportunities for racial minorities, they have mostly helped upper class minority students.[22] The fact that these programs assist mostly privileged students further suggests that the system favors the wealthy. One reason for this is that upper class individuals share similar social and economic interests with those in power and are more likely to advance the dominant ideology because they themselves have benefited from the status quo. As a result, they are less likely to challenge existing conditions in any significant way and are not viewed as a direct threat to the system.

It is important to note that simply placing women, racial minorities, or economically disadvantaged people into positions of power does not guarantee a diversity of ideas or that our system will become any more just. We only need to look at our current leaders in various areas who, despite their minority statuses, dutifully serve the power structure. It is not about who embodies the dominant ideology, but rather what values and beliefs an individual actually represents. That is why standardization of education is such an effective tool - by imposing its own standards and values, the system shuts out all alternative perspectives that do not advance the interests of the ruling class.

"Success" within society most often reflects the extent to which a person obeys or furthers the interests of the power structure. This is true for individuals of all backgrounds and social classes. While some people from modest or minority backgrounds move up to the ranks of the privileged elite, they are few and far between and heavily underrepresented compared to their numbers within the population. Because success depends on obedience to the dominant ideology, there is a strong incentive to disregard one's own viewpoints and assimilate to the system's ideology. Obviously, not all individuals within society have identical perspectives; yet the system, nevertheless, compels most of us to suppress our unique experiences, observations, and impressions in order to prevent us from utilizing those perspectives to meaningfully challenge the status quo.

This repression is a direct consequence of standardization, which rewards obedience to authority and promotes a one-sided perspective to which all people are expected to assimilate. This is why the status quo is incredibly difficult to change: because we are induced and indoctrinated into a mindset that only benefits those in power and severely restricts our self-expression. Any perspectives or ideas that fall outside of the artificial norm are disregarded, and the people who express them often alienated or even punished.

The standardized education system is particularly effective in procuring conformity because it makes "success" dependant on obedience to the dominant ideology that represents the interests of the ruling elite.

Alternatives to Standardization

According to educators who support systemic reform, a student-centered approach to education would produce much more equitable results. [23] A more holistic model for educating students would, for instance: teach children leadership skills and social responsibility, encourage them to cooperate with their peers, challenge students to critically analyze current events, and teach them to construct well-reasoned arguments to defend their ideas.[24] This type of teaching style would actively engage students with each other and foster critical thinking that encourages various viewpoints to enter into awareness. Such lively engagement would undoubtedly reveal talents, strengths, and abilities that standardized tests are designed to disregard.

Eventually, assessment of students would become much more equitable, because each individual would express different skills and talents as opposed to being judged by a fixed, homogeneous standard. There would be no preference for one type of intelligence, which would make standardized testing irrelevant. Without standardization, the system would find it much more difficult to promote its homogeneous ideology, legitimize the rule by a tiny elite, and justify its obvious discrimination against the poor, minorities, and alternative perspectives that challenge its power.

The essential feature of standardization is that it presents information from the perspective of those in power. For instance, corporate textbooks bury important historical facts and recount events from the one-sided point of view of the ruling class - presidents, businessmen, diplomats, and generals - thereby silencing the voices of ordinary people.[25] Recognizing this disparity, the Zinn Education Project offers teaching materials to educators based on Howard Zinn's bestselling book A People's History of the United States. [26] The materials introduce students to a more a comprehensive and honest version of history viewed from the perspective of ordinary people. The lesson plans focus on the history of women, working class people, Native Americans, people of color, as well as historical figures who are often mischaracterized or ignored in traditional textbooks.

One teaching strategy promoted by the Zinn Education Project focuses on role-playing during which students imagine themselves as various individuals throughout history and contemplate the circumstances and realities those people faced.[27] This creative technique encourages students to directly engage with traditionally ignored viewpoints and offers an alternative to the homogeneous (and often misleading) version of history promoted by the power structure.

As these few examples illustrate, standardized education is not the only option. There are many practical alternatives that bring education to life and teach students the necessary analytical skills essential to understanding the world and viewing it in a more complex, accurate light.

Current Education System Is About Indoctrination

Conformity to a standard severely limits our possibilities and is a devastating waste of human potential that only benefits those in power. The eugenics roots of standardized testing reveal that these exams are not harmless assessment tools, but rather instruments of oppression.

When we analyze the outcomes our current system has produced, it becomes clear that its goals are not about educating students. The education system: disenfranchises the lower classes and racial minorities; makes academic success dependent on financial resources and obedience to the dominant ideology; imposes the same standards on all individuals, as opposed to cultivating their unique talents and abilities; silences different perspectives and expressions of intelligence; imposes standards that disproportionally benefit the privileged few; and teaches students what to think instead of how to critically analyze their environment.

These poor results are not a coincidence or even a result of widespread incompetence - the system is simply designed to fail. This failure only benefits the ruling elite who continuously remains in power, is never disenfranchised, never too poor to afford education, never "inferior" enough to occupy low-ranking positions in society, and whose perspectives are never excluded or silenced from the mainstream. The actual purpose of our education system is to indoctrinate individuals into the dominant ideology and eliminate perspectives and people that challenge it in any way. This exclusion is reflected in the homogeneous ranks of power, which overwhelmingly include wealthy, mostly white individuals who share similar political, social, and economic interests.

When power is concentrated in the hands of the few, it becomes easy to maneuver and manipulate. Mechanisms such as standardized testing are introduced by those in authority and are, therefore, effortlessly implemented into the system. We rarely, if ever, question the decisions of people in power because we have been taught to obey authority and defer to its "superior" judgment.

This is how a tiny 1% elite is able to rule over the majority without overt tyranny: by controlling thought, and in turn, behavior. The standardized education system is critical to achieving this objective and thus serves as a protector and gatekeeper to those in power.

Notes

[1] Andrew Gavin Marshall, "The Shocking Amount of Wealth and Power Held by 0.001% of the World Population," AlterNet, June 12, 2013, http://www.alternet.org/economy/global-power-elite-exposed

[2] David Leonhardt, "How Elite Colleges Still Aren't Diverse," The New York Times, March 29, 2011, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/how-elite-colleges-still-arent-diverse/?smid=tw-nytimeseconomix&seid=auto

[3] Thomas B. Edsall. "The Reproduction of Privilege", The New York Times, March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/

[4] Jerome Karabel, "The New College Try," The New York Times, September 24, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24karabel.html

[5] Josh Freedman, "Why American Colleges Are Becoming a Force for Inequality," The Atlantic, May 16, 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/why-american-colleges-are-becoming-a-force-for-inequality/275923/

[6] Marisa Treviño, Study: Low-income, high-achieving students think prominent universities are out of their league," NBCLatino, March 20, 2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/20/study-low-income-high-achieving-students-think-prominent-universities-are-out-of-their-league/

[7] Kristin Rawls, "4 Ways College Admissions Committees Stack the Deck in Favor of Already Privileged Applicants," AlterNet, November 12, 2012, http://www.alternet.org/education/4-ways-college-admissions-committees-stack-deck-favor-already-privileged-applicants ,

[8] Elyse Ashburn, "Legacy's Advantage May Be Greater Than Was Thought," The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5, 2011, https://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-Be/125812/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

[9] David Leonhardt, "How Elite Colleges Still Aren't Diverse," The New York Times, March 29, 2011, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/how-elite-colleges-still-arent-diverse/?smid=tw-nytimeseconomix&seid=auto ,

[10] Thomas B. Edsall, "The Reproduction of Privilege," The New York Times, March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/

[11] Annie Lowrey, "Income Inequality May Take Toll on Growth," The New York Times, October 18, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?_r=0

[12] Scott Jaschik, "New Evidence of Racial Bias on SAT," Inside Higher Ed, June 21, 2010, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat

[13] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows 2003), p. 85

[14] Sean F. Reardon, "No Rich Child Left Behind," The New York Times, April 27, 2013, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/

[15] Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Economic Policy Reports: Going for Growth (2010), p. 187 http://www.oecd.org/tax/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf ; see also Dan Froomkin, "Social Immobility: Climbing the Economic Ladder is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries," September 21, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

[16] Black, 78-83

[17] Black, xv

[18] Black, 78-83

[19] Black, 78-83

[20] Black, 40, 93-99

[21] Black, xv

[22] Richard D. Kahlenberg, "Why not an income-based affirmative action?" The Washington Post, November 8, 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-08/opinions/35503696_1_racial-preferences-race-neutral-methods-grutter

[23] Jesse Hagopian, "'Occupy Education' Debates the Gates Foundation (and Wins)," March 13, 2012, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/13-4

[24] Jesse Hagopian, "'Occupy Education' Debates the Gates Foundation (and Wins)," March 13, 2012, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/13-4

[25] Teaching A People's History: Zinn Education Project, "About the Zinn Education Project," https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/, Accessed June 18, 2013

[26] Teaching A People's History: Zinn Education Project, "About the Zinn Education Project," https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/, Accessed June 18, 2013

[27] Bill Bigelow, "A People's History, A People's Pedagogy," Zinn Education Project, https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/a-peoples-history-a-peoples-pedagogy/, Accessed June 18, 2013