Restrictive and Expansive Views of Equality: A Grounded Theory Study that Explores the Influence of Racial Consciousness on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom

Attempts to address the ever increasing achievement gap among students have failed to explain how and why educational traditions and teaching practices perpetuate the devaluing of some and the overvaluing of others. This predicament, which plagues our educational system, has been of increased concern, given the growing racial diversity among college students and the saturation of White faculty in the academy. White faculty make up the majority, 79%, of all faculty in the academy. White faculty, whether consciously or unconsciously, are less likely to interrogate how race and racism both privilege them within the academy and influence their faculty behaviors. The result of this cyclical, highly cemented process suggests that there is a relationship between racial consciousness and White faculty members' ability to employ behaviors in their classroom that promote equitable educational outcomes for racially minoritized students. An investigation of the literature revealed that racial consciousness and the behaviors of White faculty in the classroom appeared to be inextricably linked. A conceptual framework, Racial Consciousness and Its Influence on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom was developed by the author and tested in this study. Constructivist grounded theory was used to explore the role White faculty believe they play in the dismantling of the white supremacy embedded in their classrooms through their faculty behaviors. A substantive theory subsequently emerged. Findings indicate that White faculty with a higher level of racial consciousness employ behaviors in their classroom reflective of a more expansive view of equality in their pursuit of social justice, which they consider synonymous with excellence in teaching. This research bears great significance to higher education research and practice, as it is the first of its kind to utilize critical legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw's (1988) restrictive and expansive views of equality framework to empirically measure and describe excellence in college teaching. Implications for faculty preparation and continued education are also discussed.

BigLaw Identity Capital: Pink and Blue, Black and White

This Article advances a new capital framework for understanding the bargain between large law firms and their lawyers, depicting BigLaw relationships not as basic labor-salary exchanges but rather as complex transactions in which large law firms and their lawyers exchange labor and various forms of capital — social, cultural, and identity. First, it builds on the work of Pierre Bourdieu regarding economic, cultural, symbolic, and social capital by examining the concepts of positive and negative capital, exploring the meaning of capital ownership by entities, and developing the notion of identity capital — the value individuals and institutions derive from their identities. Then, the Article advances a capital theory of BigLaw, in which large law firms and their lawyers engage in complex transactions trading labor, social, cultural, and identity capital for economic, social, cultural, and identity capital. Capital analysis sheds new light on the well-documented and troubling underrepresentation of diverse lawyers at BigLaw. It shows that the underrepresentation of women and minority lawyers is not solely the result of exogenous forces outside the control of large law firms such as implicit bias, but rather the outcome of the very exchanges in which BigLaw and its lawyers engage. Specifically, large law firms take into account the capital endowments of their lawyers in making hiring, retention and promotion decisions, and derive value from their lawyers’ capital, for example, by trading on the identity of women and minority lawyers in marketing themselves as being diverse and inclusive to clients and potential recruits. Yet, while BigLaw trades for the identity capital of women and minority lawyers, it fails to offer them opportunities in return to acquire the social and cultural capital necessary for attaining positions of power, resulting in underrepresentation. Moreover, these labor-capital exchanges are often implicit and made by uninformed participants, and therefore unjust. Exactly because the capital framework describes the underrepresentation of diverse lawyers at BigLaw as an endogenous outcome within the control of BigLaw and its lawyers, however, it is a cautiously optimistic model that offers hope for greater representation of diverse lawyers in positions of power and influence. The Article suggests policies and procedures BigLaw can and should adopt to improve the quality of the exchanges it offers to women and minority attorneys and to reduce the underrepresentation of diverse lawyers within its ranks. Employing the concepts of capital transparency, capital boundary, and capital infrastructure, it demonstrates how BigLaw can (1) explicitly recognize the roles social, cultural, and identity capital play in its hiring, retention and promotion apparatuses and (2) revise its policies and procedures to ensure that all of its lawyers have equal opportunities to develop the requisite capital and compete on equal and fair terms for positions of power and influence.

A Fair Day's Wages: Liberty, Legality, and Liability Among Denver's Day Laborers

Day laborers occupy an essential position in Denver’s booming construction industry. Day laborers make up a highly flexible, highly effective workforce able to respond to market changes. For day laborers, informal day-labor gathering points provide increased control over working hours and employee-employer relationships when compared to traditional wage labor. Still, recent legislation and policies around irregular migration has forced large numbers of workers who may have benefited from the stability of full-time regular employment into the informal sector. The day laborers’ flexibility also exposes them to employers constantly inventing ways to deny them the wages and benefits they are owed. Despite changes in Colorado law in attempts to strengthen workers’ recourse against their employers, and despite social and individual tactics day laborers employ to mitigate their vulnerability, systematic structural, symbolic, and everyday violence continue to advantage employers.