Unpacking the Conversations that Matter: “There Just Aren’t Any ‘Qualified’ Black People” and “Those Children Just Don’t Care About Their Education”

“Those children just don’t care about their education.”  “There just aren’t any qualified ‘diverse candidates’ in the pipeline.” “Parents in urban areas tend to be unmotivated and disengaged in our school processes.”  “We hire people of color, but they just don’t stay long.”  

Whether you’ve worked in a corporate environment, education system, or have simply perused articles that seek to address persistent inequities in employment or educational outcomes, you’ve probably come across one of the aforementioned statements. In most cases, these sentiments are in direct response to calls for ‘greater diversity’ in traditionally homogenous industries/environments and calls for greater accountability in ensuring Black and Brown children receive the same education experiences and outcomes as white children. For example, a predominant narrative used to justify the lack of diversity in STEM fields or Silicon Valley is the “pipeline.” Common rationale used for gaps in behavioral or ‘achievement’ outcomes in education are parental engagement (or lack thereof) and student performance on standardized testing. Inasmuch as these statements are common, they can also be harmful. Let’s explore how and some ways we can do and be better. 

The problem with deficit thinking…  

When I was in grad-school, I took a course on theories of diversity, equity, and inclusion. One of the biggest takeaways from the course that I carry with me today is the importance of our words and the language we use around this work. When I was introduced to the concept of identity, and terminology used to describe dominant (commonly, but incorrectly referred to as majority) and subordinated groups (commonly, but incorrectly referred to as minorities), my professor underscored the significance of the “—ed” on subordinated. Something that could be perceived as ‘slip up,’ or a matter of semantics, represented a powerful distinction. Whereas subordinate suggests one or a group” may be inherently “less than” in comparison to others, “subordinated” suggests there’s an external influence that has subjugated one or a group to a lesser state or position. Subordinate assigns value to the subject—subordinated acknowledges the role of the system.  

Such is the case with deficit thinking or mindsets. From my perspective, deficit mindsets prioritize negative attributes, displace accountability, assume inherent deficiency, and essentially, assign judgement. And unfortunately, when we only understand complex issues from a deficit mindset, we miss the opportunity to address those issues critically and systematically. Let’s revisit Silicon Valley’s widely held and overly used excuse for its ongoing ‘diversity issue:’ “There just aren’t enough ‘qualified’ diverse talent in the pipeline.” Prioritizing the pipeline as the opportunity can communicate a sentiment (or one similar) that “we don’t hire black people because black people aren’t qualified.” This sentiment is rooted in and can perpetuate biases that suggest, Black candidates may be inherently less qualified than their peers; that a focus on diversity could be ‘compromising’ quality of talent; that the industry is already doing all it can to address the issue—none of which is true.  

So, if a deficit mindset or explanation addressing the lack of diversity in STEM sounds like: “There just aren’t enough ‘qualified’ diverse talent in the pipeline,” alternatives that prioritize ownership, accountability, and cultural competence might sound like:  

• There are processes or policies that exist within our organization/industry that exclude Black candidates and employees.  
• As an organization, we have not been effective or intentional in understanding the experiences of our current Black employees.  
• There is some misalignment or gaps in our espoused culture and enacted culture that disproportionately impact Black employees within the organization and those in our talent pool.  
• Our current efforts to recruit or retain talent are a mismatch to this community’s needs and expectations. 
• People with power within our organization and industry lack the skills and awareness to actively address the systemic racism perpetuated in our industry.  
• We must actively address flaws and cultural biases that exist in how we interpret factors like “fit,” and “qualified.”  

See the difference? Each of these statements would require intentional reflection and action on the part of organization if they are to be addressed—which is a lot more difficult than waiting on a “pipeline” to change. 

Perpetuating the savior complex…  

Likewise, a deficit mindset, can unintentionally perpetuate a savior complex. A common narrative in education, the savior complex  gives mostly white teachers in urban areas and communities or color a false sense of “saving kids.” This complex, again, is rooted in deficit thinking: “The kids come from broken homes” or “The parents of these kids don’t care, they don’t have support at home” or “These children lack motivation and need a ‘push.’” While, perhaps, well-intentioned, these statements prioritize assumptions and stereotypes over opportunity for inquiry and self-reflection. For example, assuming that “students don’t have support at home,” might elicit a different response and course of action than reflecting on “In what ways might our school (or I) not be engaging parents as partners in their children’s education?” Likewise, believing children to be inherently “unmotivated” is very different than rethinking one’s approach to curriculum or considering how instruction can be more culturally relevant to their experiences. 

In both these examples, the former thinking explains why, according to Dr. Chris Emdin, associate director of the Institute for Urban and Minority Education, “Too many [white people] are teaching in the hood for 2 or 3 years, having bad experiences teaching students of color, leaving, then ending up being a lawyer or policy maker who inherently has these biases against young people of color.” Essentially, deficit thinking perpetuates this savior complex, and further perpetuates systems of inequity.  

The reality is, part of dismantling these systems involves challenging and unpacking these conversations. So, perhaps it’s not just their “lack of parental involvement,” it’s your biases or lack of cultural competence to effectively engage with parents. Perhaps, it’s not just the “pipeline of talent,” it’s the processes and structures that your organization refuses to challenge that continue to exclude people of color. We must shift our thinking and shift these conversations if we are truly going to shift the system.