Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

To advance racial equity, policy makers must move away from the "Black and Brown" discourse

Opinion

To advance racial equity, policy makers must move away from the "Black and Brown" discourse
Getty Images

Alicea's research focuses on race and ethnicity, organizations, education, and urban issues. Alicea has also written publicly, with words in the Christian Science Monitor, the Imprint, EdSource, and the Conversation. Alicea is a former public school teacher, trained policy analyst, and former nonprofit board member. He is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In common parlance, scholars, practitioners, and policy makers regularly discuss the needs of “Black and Brown” communities. The intentions here are mostly positive: to call attention to the accumulation of disadvantages that people of Black and Latinx descent face in the U.S. context. This disadvantage crosses many avenues of policy, including education, criminal legal, housing, and health. By compiling this information, there have been many meaningful efforts to attend to these inequalities via research, professional practice, and policy making. The implications of the widespread use of the phrase, however, can be less positive. The use of the “and” too often serves the effort of obscuring the differences between groups of people who are racialized as Black and/or Latinx.


A narrative of Black and Brown inequality often combines the numbers of the two groups in a way that rhetorically links their lived experiences together. If those numbers are disaggregated, one is likely to find at least one additional layer of inequality that exists between Black and Latinx groups. Too infrequently does the policy discourse take this approach, instead seeking to situate Black and Brown populations on one side with White populations on the other and, at times, also including a monolithic representation of Asian Americans.

As part of a research team that examined the compounded inequality faced by Black youth in Los Angeles County and included data about other racialized groups as well, we were able to interrogate the different experiences of Black and Latinx youth. For example, if read from a comparative (rather than conflating) point of view, one could learn that when compared to Latinx students, Black students were ten percentage points more likely to fail standardized tests in math and English, six percentage points less likely to graduate high school, and seven percentage points less likely to qualify for admission to multiple state university systems in California. This data along with comparative insights in criminal legal, housing, and health policy reveal what is missed when we consider “Black and Brown” as one group in policy discourse.

Criminal Legal Policy and Mass Incarceration

Mass incarceration has significantly impacted the lives of Black, White, and Latinx Americans, albeit in distinct ways. Addressing these disparities requires recognizing the unique challenges faced by each group. In 2021, the Sentencing Project released a report entitled, “The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons.” Among its key findings were that Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rates of White Americans while Latinx Americans were incarcerated at 1.3 times the rate of White Americans. Yes, it is true here that both of these figures are indicative of disparities when compared to Whites, but an overlooked story here is that Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly 3.6 times the rate of Latinxs! This is a classic example of the vastly different experiences Black and Latinx Americans have with the criminal legal system.

Housing Policy and Houselessness

When we turn our attention to examine the perils of houselessness, it would not be inaccurate to read this research article and write that Black and Latinx Americans make up 62% of all unhoused people in the United States. Such a statistic should alarm policy makers everywhere. Once again, however, disaggregating the data tells a different story. Looking more closely, we find that Black Americans make up 40% of the unhoused (compared to being 13% of the overall population) and Latinx Americans make up 22% of the unhoused (compared to being 18% of the overall population). Now we can see that Black Americans face much greater risk of becoming unhoused compared to Latinx Americans. Both populations need assistance with houselessness, but there is a significant disparity in the magnitude of need between the two groups.

Health Policy and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Another policy area to consider when disaggregating the data includes health policy. The COVID-19 pandemic was devastating to Americans across the country and continues its impact to this day. The latest numbers, as of a June 2023 report, suggest that approximately 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID. When we examine the crude mortality rate (calculated as the number of deaths per 100,000), the data reveals that Black Americans have one of the highest rates (1 in 265 have died) and Latinx Americans are among the lowest (1 in 358 have died).

The large disparity here between Black and Latinx Americans suggests a need to dig deeper into the different challenges that each community continues to face during this ongoing public health crisis. At the same time, Latinx Americans are the most likely of any racialized group to report experiencing long COVID. Researchers have observed a kind of domino effect with long COVID, noting associations with greater financial and food insecurity, as well as increased suffering of mental health hardship. Thus, there is a need for a multifaceted policy response to prevent the premature death of Black COVID patients and to mitigate the onset of long COVID among the Latinx patient population.

Next Steps for Scholars, Practitioners, and Policy Makers

The objective of this research brief is not to weaken relations between Black and Latinx populations, but rather to advocate for more thoughtful policy efforts around the needs of each community. Below are key policy takeaways for stakeholders to take into consideration.

  1. Adopt a “thick solidarity” mindset: Cross-racial solidarity is and has been an important element for furthering the project of racial justice in the United States. There are ways to do this work well and ways to do it not so well. In their article, scholars Roseann Liu and Savannah Shange offer the distinction between thin and thick solidarity. They note that the latter recognizes the difference in experiences and strives for complicated nuance over simplified conflations of experience. This mindset creates a foundation for coalition building and more targeted policy responses.
  2. Always disaggregate the data: Separating the data by different social indicators is a way to derive deeper and more actionable meaning. While it might feel more efficient or compelling to talk about Black and Latinx communities together, the end result will be messy policy options at best and misinterpreted diagnoses of the problem at worst. This includes finding ways to understand and address the needs of Afro-Latinx Americans, who experience greater poverty than non-Black Latinx Americans.
  3. Narrow the Focus to Deepen the Impact: Policies focusing on one particular racialized group will increase the likelihood of problem and solution clarity, leading to deeper impact. In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, the Los Angeles Unified School District partially defunded the district police department and created the Black Student Achievement Plan, a comprehensive plan to invest in Black student needs and supports. And even though not all of the funds have been used, significant impacts have been observed in key indicators like graduation rates and completion of courses required for admission to the state university systems.

Moving forward, scholars, practitioners, and policy makers must take note of how the framing of a policy problem foreclose avenues of greater understanding and deeper impact. While it is true that people of color continue to face myriad social inequities, those inequities must be examined carefully to discern what works, what doesn’t, and where disparities (new and old) persist, and the need to more critically consider the differences of experience within groups of color. In my forthcoming book project, I examine the origins of racial inequality between Black and Latinx students in a Latinx-serving high school with a social justice mission. Despite good intentions, a shared Black and Brown discourse got in the way, time and again, of more difficult conversations regarding the inequality (rather than the similarity) between the two groups. Attention to these kinds of disparities open up new avenues for policy intervention, especially in spaces where Whites do not make up a significant portion of the population.

This piece was originally published on the Scholars Strategy Network.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less
Team Trump had to start a war to learn how the global economy works

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on Monday, March 23, 2026, in West Palm Beach, Fla.

(Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images/TNS)

Team Trump had to start a war to learn how the global economy works

Early Monday morning of March 23, financial markets surged when President Donald Trump claimed there had been productive talks with Iran about ending the war. Therefore he backed off a vow to bomb Iranian power plants if the Strait of Hormuz wasn’t reopened by Monday evening. Iran denies any such talks actually took place.

This is a rare moment in which reasonable people can be torn about which government is more believable.

Keep ReadingShow less