Beginning with his January 2014 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama has repeatedly praised apprenticeships and vocational education when discussing the jobs crisis. It is curious that the nation’s first black president is advocating for a policy that has been historically exclusive and harmful to African Americans.
In his autobiography, Malcolm X recounts telling his middle school English teacher of his aspirations to be a lawyer and the teacher advised him to instead become a carpenter. The astute Malcolm noted the stark contrast between the advice he received and the overwhelmingly affirming advice he gave to less-promising white students. Malcolm X’s story is not an aberration, but rather reflects a general trend of structural and systemic discrimination that operates through vocational education programs, where African Americans were tracked into lower-paying jobs. It’s also true of apprenticeship programs. The history of vocational education and apprenticeship programs is one that depends upon reifying and reinforcing class divisions along racial lines. Intended to be ladders out of poverty, apprenticeship programs can, in reality, be problematic. Instead of offering equal opportunity to all who apply, apprenticeships are often awarded to relatives or friends who share the same racial background as the master technician. There is a lot of research that confirms this: white social networks often function to exclude African Americans from potential jobs.
Exclusive policies designed to maintain white male privilege remain a problem in American workplaces some fifty years after legislation barring racial discrimination in employment. In many ways, typical apprenticeship programs are illustrations of Bonilla-Silva’s theory of colorblind racism. While it a program may appear to be a colorblind program on the surface, it can also serve to reproduce the existing racial hierarchy by keeping white jobs white and excluding people-of-color from good jobs that pay a living wage. In fact, as this recent study finds the real problem is less overt discrimination and more a kind of hoarding. In other words, whites help other whites (exclusively) and thus hoard resources and opportunities while at the same time expressing colorblind ideology. This is why apprenticeships must take systemic racism into account or risk reinforcing it.
If apprenticeship programs could be such a nefarious means of excluding women and minorities from high-skill jobs, why would President Obama pursue such policies?
There is substantial political pressure on the president to address the “jobs” situation in the U.S. These proposed efforts by President Obama seek to address the problem of heightened unemployment rates in recent years, which has led some to speculate that a structural shift in the labor market has occurred. Often the term “structural unemployment” is treated as synonymous with “skill mismatch”. I co-authored a new book with Thomas Janoski and Christopher Oliver titled The Causes of Structural Unemployment: Four Factors That Keep People From the Jobs They Deserve. Our book complicates this structural unemployment story by introducing three additional factors in the discussion of structural unemployment, but skill mismatch continues to be a factor. The basic problem is not that the labor force is untrained, but that the labor force is trained in areas where there is not substantial economic need; on the other hand, the labor force lacks training in areas of great need. So the skills possessed by laborers do not match the needs of the economy or the needs of employers.
We explore the responsibility of the employer, the employee, and the state in dealing with skill mismatch. Solutions to the problem of skill mismatch often surround education reform. We propose a change in the education system that is highly influenced by the German system, which generates skilled laborers at the age of 18 who are eligible for good jobs and are needed in their economy. President Obama’s proposals, in some ways, fit with some of the educational reform recommendations we propose in our book.
The education reform we propose will allow students who may be less “college-oriented” at the age of 16 to pursue an alternate career path which involves hard skill training during the final two years of high school. This training will position a young man or woman to be able to earn a good, living wage upon high school graduation. While current high school graduates have no discernible skill set, these individuals will have specific marketable skills that meet the needs of the economy.
These policies, we argue, would promote job growth. Additionally, the nature of manufacturing jobs is changing, and the training provided in the new educational system will empower workers with the skills needed to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. This, in turn, would have a positive impact on the balance of trade, which has declined dramatically along with the shift from manufacturing to services in the U.S. Service exports do provide a positive balance of trade, but they are not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of manufactured goods imports as shown in the graph below; the U.S. needs to do some manufacturing to bring that balance to a positive, which will ultimately reduce the national debt as well.
On an individual level, for those who may not be oriented toward college, they will graduate with much higher potential earnings than they currently have. Additionally, these earnings could be used to help fund higher education endeavors in the future and minimize (to the extent possible) the amount of student loan debt required, should they decide to seek a new career path or additional training. This type of retraining, some have argued, could be part of a “new career contract” in the future. By providing a higher earnings potential for high school graduates and making higher education more financially feasible, our proposed education reform increases social mobility for many people of lower socioeconomic-statuses, and is intentionally designed in this way to be advantageous for economically disadvantaged African Americans, contrary to prior apprenticeship programs.
Apprenticeship programs could still be a valuable and useful tool, but President Obama must be mindful of the history, understand these past failures, and actively work to prevent similar outcomes. A recent study has shown whites now believe anti-white bias to be a larger problem than anti-black bias. We also know that the majority of the American public has opposed the most popular race-based social policy (affirmative action).
This puts President Obama in a challenging political situation. When viewing the outcomes of affirmative action, it is notable that diversity gains generally ceased during the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan’s administration dutifully weakened enforcement provisions of civil rights laws and lessened the funding for agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For President Obama, these proposed apprenticeship programs are very promising, but in light of the history of these types of programs, significant oversight is necessary to prevent systemic racial bias.
~ This post was written by guest blogger David J. Luke, Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky. An earlier version of this post originally appeared at the Work in Progress blog.
This is a great post and look forward to reading this book.
My immediate thoughts in addition to apprenticeships and creating higher labor demands here in the U.S. is putting caps on incomes and maximized profits. We need a different economic system with a more equal distribution of wealth, opportunities, and access to resources. We need different ideologies. We need to redistribute the wasted resources poured into the criminal justice system and military into the poor and social systems, education, welfare, etc.
Hopefully some sort of more positive and egalitarian oriented changes can be made in our more near futures…or at least by the futures of our upcoming next generations….
While the book’s main concern is structural unemployment, I absolutely agree with your contention that we should be pursuing income equality. With recent critiques of unfettered markets and protests drawing attention to income inequality, perhaps we’re moving in that direction.