top of page

laura quade

The Education Sham: Capitalism and 248 Years of Racial Injustice

Here's a paper I recently wrote for my Social Work: Human Behavior and the Social Environment I class:




The Education Sham: Capitalism and 248 Years of Racial Injustice

“A system cannot fail those it was not designed to protect” (Du Bois, as cited in Zinn, 2003). The lewd and irredeemable relationship between capitalism and education was intentionally designed to sustain white elitism. Often mischaracterized as the great equalizer, education has instead become a mechanism to perpetuate social stratification (Robbins, 2019, p. 92). Not accidentally, this relationship is a deliberate construct rooted in exploitation and profit.

The U.S. education system, modeled after European traditions, adapted to the demands of industrial capitalism, favors the white elite majority while systematically marginalizing poor and minority groups. Today, this legacy is evident in the student debt crisis, unequal access, and persistent racial disparities. Through the lenses of Systems Theory and Social Capital Theory, this paper will analyze the structural and ideological mechanisms that uphold these inequities and explore potential pathways for reform.

Theoretical Frameworks

Systems Theory

“Human social systems are analogous to biological systems in some respects” (Robbins et al., 2019, p. 28), illustrating the inevitability of social pressures to drive social change. Rather than out of necessity, it is an inherently human trait to create and exist within well-defined and reliable systems. Consequently, when individuals are excluded—or systematically marginalized—by the dominant political system, they will inevitably construct alternative structures to achieve a sustainable equilibrium (Tennant et al., 2022; Robbins et al., 2019, p. 30). Just as children, infants, and babies rely on structure and consistency to develop autonomy, marginalized groups within a dominant majority culture similarly rely on constructing systems of support. Moreover, just as children rebel under oppressive guardianship, marginalized people may revolt under systems of oppression (Wheldon, 2020; Robbins et al., 2019, pp. 104–105).

By examining the interconnectedness of societal, cultural, and individual systems, Systems Theory reveals how the education system perpetuates inequalities through tuition increases, discriminatory policies, and underdeveloped moral considerations. Jeffrey Jensen Arnett (2015) noted in his TED Talk, Why Does It Take So Long to Grow Up Today? “It takes longer to prepare yourself for [today’s] knowledge economy than [it did] for the manufacturing economy.” This shift reflects the convergence of increased costs of higher education and the introduction of financial aid, both rooted in capitalistic ideals. A 1987 critique by President Reagan’s Education Secretary William J. Bennett (as cited in Boaz, 2021) asserted that federal financial aid programs “enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” This came 27 years after President Reagan’s (1964) speech A Time For Choosing, in which he sarcastically suggested a Harvard education as a viable alternative for juvenile rehabilitation. Even with the rising costs of higher education, these programs have consistently—and perhaps paradoxically—exceeded the cost of a Harvard education (Harvard University, 2024; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020).

Pattern 83: Master and Apprentices in Christopher Alexander et al.’s (1979, p. 413) A Pattern Language states that doing is “the simplest way of acquiring knowledge." Despite distinctions between systems of learning and teaching, the historical prioritization of teaching over learning reflects a flawed reliance on lecture-based education. This approach undermines the transformative potential of education to foster genuine understanding and societal progress (Gray, 2013).

Systems Theory emphasizes causality and identifies leverage points for systemic change, making it critical to prioritize educational access and mobility for historically marginalized groups. Addressing cascading inequities demands a systemic approach, including solutions for barriers beyond tuition, such as housing, childcare, and access to technology (Dodson, 2017). These challenges illustrate the interconnected nature of systemic inequities, where educational disparities ripple across broader societal structures.

Given the improbability of stable employment in fields like environmental and social sciences, it’s unsurprising that countries offering universal education—unburdened by debt—often prioritize careers that don’t directly align with capitalist goals. This stark contrast with the profit-driven U.S. education system may be a key into understanding the mechanisms connecting U.S. higher education and systemic racism. Not only is the practicality of pursuing careers in these disciplines diminished by the lack of guaranteed financial stability, but their absence from collegiate discourse further perpetuates systemic undervaluation. 

As a result, workforce development remains narrowly tailored to capitalist demands, leaving little room for holistic societal progress. Systems Theory underscores the importance of addressing these disparities to cultivate a more inclusive and adaptable educational system that serves both societal and individual needs.

Social Capital Theory

The greatest sham in the United States may be the notion that a fair hierarchical structure exists, upheld by capitalist ideals that paradoxically undermine hard work and honesty. As Claridge (2018) observes, “Social capital arises from the human capacity to consider others, to think and act generously and cooperatively” (p. 5). Founded on the positive ideals of necessary and organic collaboration, Claridge asserts that “without [social capital,] human beings could not work together,” while Robbins et al. (2019, p. 104) acknowledge “negative consequences of social capital.” 

“The central proposition of Social Capital is that ‘relationships matter’ and that social networks are a valuable asset” (2018, p. 5). This understanding reinforces Hellman’s (2018) argument that the time spent together is the primary marker of friendship—and thus the foundation of social capital. It highlights that fair access to intellectually stimulating environments is fundamental to elevating and equalizing marginalized and historically underserved groups.

Research by Richard V. Reeves and Beyong Deng (2021) highlights that “strong family [engagement] reduces child delinquency and school dropout rates[, social capital] can extend from families [to] neighbors, classmates, teachers, mentors and so on” (pp. 3, 6). They further note the distinction between “bonding social capital (within existing groups or communities) and bridging social capital (across groups)” (p. 2). This distinction underscores the importance of considering social capital to “promote social activism” (Robbins, 2019, p. 91).

While social capital may sometimes be converted into economic and cultural capital, the rate and likelihood of these conversions are far from guaranteed. As Robbins (2019) notes, “social capital may be available in communities with low socioeconomic status, ‘but the assets obtainable through it seldom allow participants to rise above their poverty’” (p. 104).

Theory Comparison: Systems Theory and Social Capital Theory

Systems Theory recognizes that marginalized groups—those systematically excluded from shaping societal structures—will create systems of their own to establish equilibrium. Similarly, Putnam’s perspective within Social Capital Theory underscores its vital role in democracy, describing social capital as “creating harmony, establishing expectations for behavior, and increasing cooperation” (Robbins, 2019, p. 105).

Systems Theory and Social Capital Theory provide complementary frameworks for understanding the inequities embedded within the U.S. education system. While Systems Theory focuses on the structural and systemic causes of inequality, Social Capital Theory examines the role of relationships and networks in navigating these systems. Systems Theory identifies the interconnectedness of societal structures and the cascading effects of inequities, making it critical to address foundational disparities. Social Capital Theory posits that access to resources, information, and opportunities is mediated through social connections. In education, this translates to advantages for well-connected students rather than the false claim of fair access to admissions and attendance. 

Students from underprivileged backgrounds face barriers to these same resources, compounding systemic inequities. While Systems Theory exposes the structural injustices that perpetuate these disparities, Social Capital Theory highlights the lived experiences of inequity, showing how these imbalances are navigated and reinforced on an individual level. Together, these theories offer a comprehensive lens to understand how systemic and relational factors intersect to shape educational outcomes.

Reflection

The commodification of education exemplifies the interplay between these structural and relational inequities. Marketed as investments in future success, these financial systems obscure the disproportionate burdens placed on students from low-income and minority backgrounds. Intersecting with cultural and economic structures, they perpetuate cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement, further stratifying access to educational opportunities.

The U.S. education system exemplifies the interplay between capitalism and systemic inequity, sustaining hierarchies that consistently disadvantage marginalized groups. Systems Theory and Social Capital Theory provide complementary frameworks for analyzing these dynamics, offering insights into the structural and relational factors that shape educational outcomes. Addressing these inequities is essential to reimagining education as a tool for empowerment and social change.

  “Research shows that a diverse campus benefits students not only socially but also in their future careers and earnings” (Nam, 2024). Additionally, supporting student parents and caregivers—both on and off campus—remains critical to fostering equity in educational environments (Portland State University, n.d.).



References


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page