College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx

College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60
ISSN 0888-210X
Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights
of reproduction in any form reserved.
SELF, COLLEGE EXPERIENCES, AND SOCIETY
Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Student
Development Theory
Rachelle Winkle-Wagner
University of Wisconsin-Madison
This article examines the psychological theoretical foundations
of college student development theory and the
theoretical assumptions of this framework. A complimentary,
sociological perspective and the theoretical
assumptions of this approach are offered. The potential
limitations of the overuse of each perspective are con-
sidered. The conclusion is drawn that the use of both theoretical
frameworks could lead to more holistically
serving college students.
Scholars and practitioners in student affairs

often assert the importance of a holistic
approach to understanding and serving stu-
dents, combining students’ social, emotional,
physical, and mental growth (American Coun-
cil on Education, 1937; Baxter Magolda, 1999;
Brown, 1972; Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh,
2002). This consideration of the “whole stu-
dent” often does not seem to translate into col-
lege student development theory which
includes numerous categorizations of student
characteristics such as ethnic/racial identity
(Renn, 2003; Torres & Hernandez, 2007), sex-
ual orientation identity (Renn, 2007), cognitive
and moral development (King, 2009, Baxter
Magolda, 2009a) and personality type (Evans,
Forney, Guido, Renn, & Patton, 2010).
Recent advances have offered some alter-
natives to traditional ways of approaching stu-

dent development. These advances have
initiated from scholars (Baxter Magolda, 1999;
Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009) and from student
affairs practitioners who have noticed that
some student development theories do not
work for all students. Newer theories assert
students’ multiple dimensions/categories of
identity, or the importance of the environment
for students’ development (Abes, Jones &
McEwen, 2007; Baxter Magolda, 2009b;
King, 2009; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Tor-
res, Jones, & Renn, 2009; Taylor, 2008). More
holistic work is needed because even recent
work often focuses on particular aspects of stu-
dents (race, gender, cognitive development,
Please direct inquiries about this manuscript to: Rachelle
Winkle-Wagner, [email protected]
46 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

etc.) rather than on more holistic notions of
development that intersect race/class/gender/
spirituality, emotional, or cognitive develop-
ment. This could be due to the theoretical
underpinnings of college student development
theory. Just as the mineral content of soil
changes the colors of the flowers that bloom,
1
the theoretical assumptions of student develop-
ment theories shape the research, findings, and
practices with students in higher education.
Yet, examining how the implications of these
theoretical underpinnings affect the questions,
data, and findings of college student develop-
ment is extraordinarily rare.
This project is a critical examination of the
underlying theoretical assumptions of college
student development theory (Winkle-Wagner,

2009a). While student development theory is
overwhelmingly guided by the psychological
approach to development (Torres et al., 2009),
in the larger discipline of social psychology,
there is a wide understanding that there are two
perspectives on identity: psychological and
sociological. The sociological approach con-
siders identity in terms of the meanings indi-
viduals construct amidst their location in social
interactions and social structures, while psy-
chological approaches focus on the cognitions
(processes in one’s mind) of individuals
(Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995).
2
Sociologists
have long argued that approaches to college
student development theory have not ade-
quately considered the nuances of people’s
relationship with the college environment,

diversity within the environment, or the role of
socialization in development (Feldman &
Newcombe, 1969/1994). Some higher educa-
tion scholars have attempted to continue this
conversation, calling for more nuanced and
holistic approaches to developmental theory
(Baxter Magolda, 2009b; King, 2009; Taylor,
2008; Torres et al., 2009). Yet the psychologi-
cal canon of college student development the-
ories continues to dominate the field perhaps
because there remains little emphasis on com-
plimentary theoretical perspectives in much of
the higher education scholarship.
The theoretical foundations of the sociolog-
ical and psychological perspectives are differ-
ent and lead to distinct understandings of
college student identity. These differences
affect knowledge about students, what policies

get recommended and implemented, and thus,
affect college student experiences and out-
comes. It is important to understand these
underpinnings so that scholars and practitioners
have a clearer sense of what a particular per-
spective is likely to shed light on and what it is
not. This project asks: What are the underlying
theoretical assumptions of sociological and
psychological frameworks of identity/develop-
ment and how might these frameworks influ-
ence the creation of theories of student
development?
The dominance of the psychological frame-
work within student development theory has
resulted in huge advances in understanding
college students, but, also major criticisms rel-
ative to unanswered questions, particularly for
underrepresented groups (Torres, Howard-

Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). For example, why
do some students not seem to fit the general-
izations made by many student development
theories? Why are some students such good
fits for these theories? The inclusion of more
work rooted in the sociological perspective
may help to answer some of these questions,
but, so too would more psychologically rooted
papers. This article is not an attempt to disre-
gard decades of research in college student
development that has been rooted in psychol-
ogy. Nor is this project an exploration as to
whether psychologically or sociologically
rooted scholarship has necessarily aligned with
their theoretical foundations (some have cer-
tainly challenged these foundations; e.g., Tor-
res et al., 2003). Additionally, this is not an
indictment of student affairs practitioners,

many of whom have applied existing student
development theories, but who also see the
nuances for which the theories might not
allow. Rather, this article examines the under-
lying theoretical assumptions of these two
frameworks in order to reveal the way that
contemporary perspectives on student devel-
Self, College Experiences, and Society 47
opment have been/could be influenced by
these theoretical underpinnings. Subsequently,
it is important that scholars and practitioners
begin to explicitly state the ways in which their
theories of student development either align or
part ways with these theoretical frameworks in
order to fully explicate the approach that is
taken. Ultimately, I suggest possibilities for
the use of both perspectives, not combined but

as compliments to one another, to inform a
more holistic approach to college student
development theory.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE AND COLLEGE
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY
The foundational theories of college student
development are rooted in psychology, partic-
ularly that of Erikson, Piaget, and Jung
(Evans et al., 2010; Torres et al., 2003).
Aimed at understanding the unique process of
personal development that college students
undergo, these theories are helpful in offer-
ing ways to successfully facilitate students’
college success. These theories, categorized
into four branches, influence practice, policy,
and scholarship in higher education (Evans et
al., 2010):

• Psychosocial theories: Based on Erik Erik-
son’s (1959/1980) clinical observations of
development from adolescence through
early adulthood, these theories examine
individuals’ personal and interpersonal
lives (e.g., Chickering & Reisser, 1993;
Marcia, 1966) and often provide a method-
ologically generalizeable description of
observable behavior and insight into the
challenges of students, implying that one
must accomplish particular tasks to
develop. Applied to college students who
are moving through adolescence into adult-
hood (for traditional-aged students), psy-
chosocial theories and the resulting
practices focus on facilitating particular
areas of students’ various areas of develop-
ment (i.e., vectors for Chickering &

Reisser, 1993) or the fostering of identity
crises (Erikson, 1959/1980; Marcia, 1966)
that encourage students to progress toward
a different stage in their identity develop-
ment.
• Cognitive-structural theories: Rooted in
the psychology of Piaget (1952) who exam-
ined people’s life stages, these theories
address the way people think, linking
heredity and the environment (e.g., King &
Kitchener, 1994; Kohlberg, 1969; Perry,
1981). Cognitive-structural theories imply
that college students’ development and the
practice associated with it is often facili-
tated through cognitive dissonance, when
current ways of thinking no longer explain
situations in which a person finds oneself to
be involved (King, 2009). Later work

examined gender differences in cognitive
growth (Gilligan, 1982/1993); and offered
more nuanced models for cognitive devel-
opment (e.g., King & Kitchener’s 1994,
reflective judgment model and Baxter
Magolda’s 2001, 2009a theory of self-
authorship in college students and beyond).
• Typological theories: Based on Jungian
psychology, these theories examine differ-
ences in how people view and relate to the
world. These are nonevaluative appraisals
of mental processing (e.g., Kolb’s, 1984,
theory of learning styles, Myers-Briggs
personality type, Myers, 1980). These theo-
ries are used to help advice college students
on their interests, styles of learning that
could facilitate their success, and potential
career goals. While these theories are gen-

erally not stage-oriented, they remain con-
nected to a model-making tradition of
separating individuals into a series of gen-
eralizable categories in order to understand
individual types.
• Person-environment interaction theories:
Rooted in the psychology of Kurt Lewin
(1935), and adapted for practical applica-
tion by Karl Rodgers (1990), these theories
explore the interaction of a student with the
college environment (e.g., Holland, 1992).
Lewin’s initial theory asserted that a value
is placed on one’s interaction with the envi-
ronment and this became the basis of Bron-
fenbrenner’s (1979; Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006) ecological systems theory.

This line of student development theory is
more amenable to some of the nuances sug-
gested by a sociological approach as
explained below.
There is a growing critique of the founda-
tional theories of college student develop-
ment for focusing too much on students from
majority groups (e.g., White, male, hetero-
sexual) to the exclusion of underrepresented
students (Torres et al., 2009). More recent
work on student development strives for the
inclusion of racially underrepresented stu-
dents, women, and students of various sex-
ual orientations (Cass, 1984; Cross, 1995;
Josselson, 1987) and some are less focused
on students’ progression through stages (e.g.,
Renn, 2000; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton,
1994). These advances extend the founda-

tional theories through the consideration of
diverse groups.
Recent studies are shifting toward new
theoretical frameworks (e.g., Renn’s, 2003,
use of an ecological approach), multiple com-
ponents, dimensions, or categories of iden-
tity (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2009a;
Jones & McEwen, 2000; Reynolds & Pope,
1991; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Torres et
al., 2009) or use multiple theoretical frame-
works (e.g., Abes et al., 2007; Taylor, 2008).
These studies suggest a singular/core iden-
tity with the possibility of multiple compo-
nents or factors which influence identity
processes. The underlying theoretical
assumptions of even these studies still need
to be explored in order to reveal implica-
tions of these theoretical foundations for

research and practice with college students.
Student affairs practitioners often use stu-
dent development theory as a way to predict
better ways of serving students or to help
understand students’ behavior. There is often
minimal focus on the theoretical foundations
or roots of these theories.
Assumptions of the Psychological
Approach
Within the social psychology literature, the
discussion centers on the concept of identity
(Stryker, 1997) and thus, a discussion of “iden-
tity” is warranted. The psychological perspec-
tive of identity, social identity theory,
maintains a few assumptions (Hogg et al.
1995; Stryker, 1997):
• A theoretical priority of the individual (self
before society): This perspective begins

with the individual. While some theories
may consider the environment (e.g., per-
son-environment theories; recent cogni-
tive-structural theories) and student affairs
practitioners are often concerned with envi-
ronments even if theories are not, the indi-
vidual self exists before the environment in
this theoretical perspective, implying that
one has a core identity regardless of experi-
ences.
• A singular self: The assumption is of a sin-
gular self, a core identity that would not
necessarily change in different contexts.
• An emphasis on the processes within an
individual’s mind (cognitions): The theo-
retical focus of many studies is on cogni-
tions. Identity theoretically arises out of
cognitions rather than out of socialization.

• Cognitions arise out of one’s experiences:
The environment shapes the minds’ pro-
cesses, but, the self and cognitions exist
before the environment. Cognitions would
then effectively create the social environ-
ment.
• A discussion of concepts such as traits,
characteristics, and personality: Research
often focuses on these concepts. There is
not often a discussion of an individual’s
ability to choose these characteristics/traits,
differing from the sociological framework
(see below).
• Studies often examine perceptions of mem-
bership within groups: Group characteris-
tics influence behavior and self-concept

within one’s mental processes/cognitions
serving as either a catalyst or a barrier to a
person’s self-discovery (Tajfel, 1982).
Despite noteworthy findings using the psy-
chological approach, there are substantive and
theoretical limitations, particularly to the pre-
ponderance of this approach in the absence of
other perspectives. There are two substantive
limitations: instrumentality and the tendency
toward pathology. Many theories of college
student development claim that students
develop through a linear set of stages (e.g.,
most psychosocial theories). Other theories
maintain that one must experience a particular
event or phenomena such as cognitive disso-
nance (e.g., cognitive-structural theories).
While there may be a great deal of “variabil-
ity” in the way that students may develop, the

“implicit metaphors” of these models often
portray a sequential, linear process rather than
one that is “continuous, recursive” (King,
2009, pp. 610-611).
These approaches assert an instrumental
approach to identity, a series of tasks or expe-
riences a person must achieve. This instrumen-
tality can become value-laden, meaning that
some students would be labeled as more
advanced (i.e., achieved) in their identity than
others. Many theories assume an end-point
where a student is more advanced in his/her
thinking, fully developed or more functional. It
is as if one can have a more achieved identity
if she/he can accomplish more tasks or facili-
tate particular experiences. One who is in early
stages or an earlier part of the model may be
considered less developed. For example,

Cross’ (1995) initial racial identity theory of
Nigrescence (process of becoming Black)
maintained that a person may “regress,” or be
“fixated” in particular stage, or some may
“drop out” of the stages altogether. It seemed
that moving linearly through the stages is bet-
ter than going backward through them, or than
choosing not to go through them at all. Addi-
tionally, some stages could be considered to be
very problematic, leaving one to be considered
stuck in a particular stage if he/she did not
move out of it. While revisions to Cross’s
model allowed for more diversity in identities
between Black students and more fluidity
(Cross & Vandiver, 2001), the idea of stages
through which a student does or does not prog-
ress continues.
Closely related to the instrumentality often

underlying a psychological approach is a ten-
dency toward pathologizing people as failures
of human development (Lesko, 2001). While
college student development theory and the
majority of those employing it typically take a
much more positive stance geared toward try-
ing to help students develop, there remains an
implicit assumption that not developing in a
typical manner is pathological. The downside
of the generalization prevalent in the psycho-
logical approach is a risk of denying people the
chance to determine their own identity pro-
cesses and criticizing those who do not fit well
with the generalization.
Theoretically, the psychological perspec-
tive has limitations such as a lack of centrality
of social structure, the assumption of a single
self, and the root in cognitions. Theoretically,

the psychological perspective begins with the
individual single self (self before society)
ignoring the way that a person’s location in the
social structure may influence identities.
While there are certainly student development
theories that consider the way that students are
influenced by their environment (e.g., person-
environment theories in particular), the theo-
retical focus is still primarily on the individual
rather than the social structure. This is not to
say that environments cannot be included in
psychological theories or in student affairs
practice that stems from psychologically based
theories. Rather, it is to explain the theoretical
primacy of the individual before the environ-
ment which may mean that scholars focus on
implications for individuals rather than cam-
puses (environments).

The process of the identity development
may differ markedly depending on one’s loca-
tion in the social structure (Taub & McEwen,
1992). In the psychological perspective, the self
is theoretically primary to the social structure.
The theoretical assumption is that a person
would have a self even if she/he never inter-
acted with others. Thus, within these theories,
the social structure and its effect on the self is
continually secondary to the individual. Theo-
ries implicitly maintain that students would
progress through developmental stages/sta-
tuses regardless of the student’s initial location
in the social structure (i.e., development would
be the same for a racially underrepresented stu-
dent as it would for a student who was not

racially underrepresented). The assumption of
a singular identity does not centrally allow for
the sense that an individual is different in vari-
ous contexts. However, many students, partic-
ularly underrepresented students, describe a
sense of multiple, fluid identities in college
(Winkle-Wagner, 2009a).
Finally, the centrality of cognitions in the
psychological perspective makes less likely
complete considerations of the self: emotion,
the impact of interaction on the self, roles, or
social structure’s impact on self because of the
central claim that the self arises out of cogni-
tions. While cognitions are likely influenced
by the social structure, this perspective does
not readily allow for a meaningful theoretical
consideration that the environment may alter
cognitions (Stryker, 1997). The limitations I

described here become limiting when the psy-
chological perspective is used in absence of
another perspective, as the only way of view-
ing college student development. Research,
thought, and dialogue within the field of higher
education should be expanded to include a
complimentary sociological perspective.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO
IDENTITY
The sociological perspective of identity, called
identity theory, is rooted in the work of prag-
matist thinkers such as William James, Charles
Cooley, and George Herbert Mead. Mead
(1934/1967) argued that the source of the mind
and self were ongoing processes entirely
linked to others. This perspective differs from
the psychologically-based theoretical perspec-
tives in higher education in that it maintains

that both individuals and society are continu-
ally created in and through social processes,
through interaction. Rather than focusing on a
particular stage-based endpoint, the sociologi-
cal perspective emphasizes the ongoing pro-
cess and interaction between the individual
(self), the larger society, and the college cam-
pus.
Symbolic Interactionism
The sociological perspective shifted from
the behaviorist psychological perspective
which studied only the observable self, to the
self as a product of one’s reflection and inter-
action (Mead, 1934/1967). Mead’s theoretical
inquiry was labeled the symbolic interactionist
approach because interaction involves both the
self and society in this view. The self, initiated
within social interaction, is dependent on soci-

ety, making the social structure explicit within
identity.
3
Mead (1934/1967) considered two parts of
self: the “I” and the “Me.” The “I” part of self
is linked to what some call a “core identity” –
the part of a person’s self that can never be
fully known, even to oneself. Given the elusive
nature of the “I,” it is difficult to empirically
study it. The “Me” aspect of self, on the other
hand, is the socialized part of self, it: (a) initi-
ates in the social structure; (b) is dependent on
cultural forms such as language, norms, and
culture; (c) is the objectified sense of self; and
(d) assumes one has multiple “Mes,” multiple
selves. The “Me” is dependent on what Mead
referred to as a “generalized other” for recog-
nition, a compilation of cultural norms, values,

and attitudes that an individual takes into one-
self as he/she develops a “Me.”
Sheldon Stryker (1980), the father of
structural symbolic interactionism, from
whom the sociological perspective in social
psychology largely grew, adapted the frame-
work developed by Mead to empirically test
ideas relating to social structures, selves in
the form of multiple identities, and social
behavior. Stryker (1980) began by conceptu-
alizing society as a set of social relation-
ships and the self as a hierarchical structure
of multiple identities (Mes). The strength of
one’s commitments to her/his social net-
works is affected by the relative salience of
one’s identities (how prominent a particular

identity is in a particular setting).This links
to the roles an individual plays in social set-
tings. Salient means that one’s identity as a
student, for example, might be more relevant
in a classroom than it would at the students’
dinner table with family (where being a
daughter/son might be more salient). In turn,
the relative salience/dominance of a person’s
identities in a particular context influences
the probability of opting, in choice situa-
tions, for behaviors consistent with those
identities (Stryker, 1980). This allowed for a
way to empirically test Mead’s theoretical
arguments: interrelating commitment, iden-
tity salience, and role choice. For example, if
a student feels committed to being smart, he/
she will more likely have a salient intellec-
tual identity in the classroom and he/she is

more likely to accept a role as a “good stu-
dent.” At home with family, the student may
feel committed to the role of a “good daugh-
ter/son” and act quite differently than when
on campus.
Many scholars in sociology use Stryker’s
(2000) notions of identity to examine the
way in which college experiences influence
students’ identity (Burke & Reitzes, 1991;
Thoits, 2003; Winkle-Wagner, 2009a,
2009b). This sociological perspective may be
useful for better understanding the perspec-
tives and identity-related challenges of under-
represented students, facilitating better ways
of supporting these students. Evidence from
studies using this approach suggests that stu-
dents of color often report multiple identi-
ties; whereby, they act one way with their

ethnic group and another way when they are
the minority (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995), the
pressure of which can result in academic dis-
engagement, influencing academic achieve-
ment (Brewer & Silver, 2000; Oyserman et
al., 2003).
Assumptions of the Sociological
Approach
Similar to the psychological perspective,
the sociological perspective (called identity
theory), also has underlying assumptions that
should be considered (Stryker, 1997):
• Identities develop out of interaction: The
theoretical assumption is that identities
develop out of interactions between one’s
self, others, and the larger social structure.
4
This is an ongoing, continual interaction,
rather than something that has an endpoint

or goal (the theoretical underpinning of
psychological work), lending this perspec-
tive to a fluid notion of identities; a person
is simultaneously interacting with one’s
self (reflecting on one’s identity), those
around him/her (e.g., peers, professors,
family) and the larger society (e.g., media
earlier experiences).
• A theoretical primacy to the social struc-
ture (society before self): The ordering of
self and society is reversed from the psy-
chological perspective. Society develops
first and then one’s self initiates in society.
The self is entirely linked to and initially
located within the existing social structure
(Stryker, 1997). Society’s influence on
identities is highlighted.
• Multiple identities: There are “identities”

associated with different aspects of the
society and the roles one plays within social
groups (psychology emphasizes a single
identity). For example, an individual could
have identities associated with being a col-
lege student, a family member, or a friend
and these identities may overlap. While one
identity may have salience over another in a
particular social setting, a person always
has multiple identities at one time. Accord-
ingly, race, gender, class, spirituality,
morality, and cognitive development would
be referenced simultaneously.
• The self works to organize social life: Once
the identities have developed out of the
social structure, identities organize social

groupings, the roles that are available, and
the rules of membership within particular
groups. A person may associate with partic-
ular groups of people based on the way that
her/his identities or roles (and the commit-
ment one has to those roles) have developed.
• Reflection is central to identity develop-
ment: An individual can hypothetically
accept or reject the socially constructed
identity through self-reflection/reflexivity,
emphasizing agency or the ability to choose
one’s identity. A college student would the-
oretically have the agency to self-reflect
and identify her/his own identities and
descriptions of them. Alternatively, with
the psychological perspective, there is an
implicit assumption that others can locate
and describe at least in part, a person’s

identity as being in a particular stage/phase/
trait/cognition level.
• An emphasis on roles, commitment to roles
and identity salience: Empirical work often
focuses on roles, commitment to roles, and
identity salience (psychology primarily
studies traits/cognitions/personality). The
use of the sociological perspective in the
field of college student development could
provide insight into group membership, the
roles one plays within that group versus
those played outside of the group, what this
says about one’s commitment to particular
groups, and the salience of particular iden-
tities within each social group. Stryker’s
(1980) work initiating this sociological per-
spective was largely quantitative. Yet the
adaptation of this perspective has been

more qualitative, perhaps because the fluid,
dynamic spirit of the sociological perspec-
tive may lend itself to qualitative traditions
that are typically associated with interpreta-
tion and meaning-making.
The sociological perspective of identity
would provide the field of higher education an
opportunity to more centrally locate issues of
social justice and equality within discussions
about student development because of the
emphasis on the social structure (Stryker,
2000). The inequalities inherent in the social
structure as it relates to postsecondary student
access and retention become more explicit with
this perspective because of the primacy of the
social structure. Due to the theoretical primacy
of society before the self (i.e., identity is depen-
dent on the existing social structure), one’s

identities initiate in the already stratified social
structure (e.g., unequal by race, class, gender).
This implies that social stratification and gen-
eral inequality can critically influence a per-
son’s development of identities (Winkle-
Wagner, 2009a, 2009b). The primacy of soci-
ety before self assumes that all identities are
not created equal. Some individuals will
develop identities and roles that are considered
“normal” and others would develop identities
that would be deemed “abnormal” or less
acceptable. Identity in essence would mirror
existing social stratification and the study of
identity could enlighten the reasons for this
stratification and perhaps ways to ameliorate it.
If one is only able to develop a socially
acceptable or recognizable identity based on
her/his location in the existing social structure,

this will influence how groups of people
develop. This is what is implied by the premise
that identities work to organize social life.
Based on the roles that an individual takes and
one’s commitment to those roles, one will
associate with particular groups of people and
will act in particular ways. For instance a grad-
uate student would accept this as a role and
would become friends and colleagues with
other graduate students. The role and identity
of being a graduate student helps to organize
the social grouping of graduate students in this
way. Additionally, the focus on reflection or
agency (one’s ability to choose identities, at
least in part) may offer insight into why some
students do not fit into some psychologically
rooted development theories.

There are limitations to the sociological
approach just as there are with the psychologi-
cal framework. Theoretically, the primacy of
the social structure, the assumption that iden-
tity would not exist without interaction or a
social structure (assumed by Mead’s “me” part
of self), is not only difficult to empirically test,
it may be inaccurate to students’ experiences.
It is difficult to test whether one could develop
an identity if he/she were removed from all
social interactions because these tests would
be unethical and rarely occur in modern soci-
ety. Additionally, while there are certainly
identities that seem completely linked to
socialized roles (e.g., student, son/daughter,
girl/boy, community member) many people
often sense that there is a part of self that

remains outside of this socialization. The inter-
play between what could potentially be called
a “core” part of self, to use psychological
terms, and the socialized part of self has not
been well studied. Building on this connection
between the “me” and “I” could be a way to
link psychological and sociological notions of
identity.
Another potential theoretical limitation is
the emphasis on roles, commitment to roles,
and identity salience. While this focus is
largely because of Stryker’s (1980) adaptation
of Mead’s (1934/1967) theory, the emphasis
on roles may not allow enough attention to
other aspects of identity that remain outside of
roles such as emotions or the ways that people
perceive roles not to fit them.
A substantive limitation of sociological

frameworks is the emphasis on reflection
which assumes that one has the opportunity/
ability to reflect. There may well be instances
where a person may not feel empowered to
accept or reject the roles that seem available.
Some work indicates that students of color
might be disallowed from fully reflecting on
their own sense of self on White college cam-
puses, meaning that they feel compelled to
accept prescribed roles or identities (Winkle-
Wagner, 2009a). It may not be that students
cannot reflect in such situations, but, they may
not have the opportunity to act on this reflec-
tion. More work is certainly needed on the
reflective process itself within the sociological
framework to examine such nuances.
A second substantive limitation of socio-
logical frameworks is the challenge of general-

izability. Because identity is posed as fluid and
dynamic, this would imply an individualized
approach to the study and practice associated
with students’ identity. Yet if used as the sole
foundation for student development this very
individualized approach may not be practical,
given that most student affairs practitioners
interact with many students at once.
Taken together, both the sociological and
psychological frameworks offer opportunities
and limitations for understanding the ways that
students develop on college campuses. Below,
I call for a more holistic approach to college
student development that allows for these
frameworks to work in tandem.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WHOLE
STUDENT: COMPLIMENTARY
APPROACHES

Both the psychological and sociological per-
spectives have the potential to provide impor-
tant foundations for college student
development theories but, the dominance of
one theoretical perspective over the other lim-
its the possibilities for holistically understand-
ing students. If the psychological perspective
provides the foundation to nearly all student
development theories, the theoretical focus is
on singular identity, giving primacy to the
individual self and cognitions. The sociologi-
cal perspective is needed for a full theoretical
development of multiple identities and the role
of the social structure as potentially constrain-
ing, determining, or at least effecting identity
development. Yet the sociological perspective
would be limited if used in absence the psy-
chological perspective too.

While it is tempting to recommend that
future work combines aspects of sociological
and psychological theories, scholars focused
on the explicit theoretical underpinnings of
each of the two perspectives do not generally
advocate a blending of the two perspectives
because of the fundamental, intractable differ-
ences in underlying assumptions (Hogg et al.,
1995; Stryker, 1997). It would be difficult to
marry the psychological focus on individual
cognitions before the environment/social
structure (self before society) with the socio-
logical notion that one’s identity cannot
develop without interaction within a existing
society (society before self). It is also difficult
to reconcile the psychological framework’s

theoretical assumption of a singular identity
with the sociological framework’s assumption
of multiple identities. To try to merge these
theoretical foundations would mean losing the
theoretical focus of one frame over another.
Those advances in student development theory
that offer good examples of attempting to
somehow overlap multiple/singular identities
and the way an individual interacts with a
larger environment/other people are firmly
rooted theoretically in either psychological or
sociological foundations.
I argue for one perspective to inform the
other as visually depicted in Figure 1, to allow
for each of the theoretical underpinnings to
guide student development work (i.e., to
develop theories rooted in both psychology
and sociology), and then for scholars and prac-

titioners to take into account the strengths and
weaknesses of each. The field is primed for
this movement. For instance, there is an
emphasis on meaning-making in college stu-
dent development theory (e.g., Baxter
Magolda, 2001), a shift toward focusing more
on social interactions. Laudably, Torres and
Hernandez (2007) contemplate cognitive and
affective (emotional) aspects of multiple
dimensions of identity and this helps to rem-
edy some of the limitations of both psycholog-
ical and sociological frames (see also, Abes et
al., 2007; Torres & Hernandez, 2007). The
studies that allow for multiple components of
identity (e.g., Abes et al., 2007) also offer
insight into ways to begin connecting the
divide between singular (psychological) and
multiple (sociological) identity frameworks.

If these perspectives were used to inform
each other, overlapping in some ways, this may
lead to a more holistic and thorough notion of
the way that students develop during college,
informing policy and practice, particularly with
regards to issues of equality in higher education
(Figure 1). The use of both perspectives to
guide student development theory, not neces-
sarily in combination but in their own right as
compliments to each other, would allow for: (1)
multiple and singular notions of identity; (2) the
study of individual and group development pro-
cesses; (3) the influence of the social structure
and cognitive processes on the self; (4) the
study of roles, commitment, and identity
salience alongside inquiry into traits and per-
sonality; and (5) the exploration of reflection
and cognition. The use of both approaches

would allow for the generalizable, macro-level
methodologies (well suited for psychological
frameworks) alongside more interpretative,
micro-level research methods (connecting
nicely to the sociological framework).
Implications for Theory, Research, and
Practice
In many ways, the field of student affairs is
primed for the use of a sociological approach
to identity as a compliment to existing psycho-
logical approaches. Some of the more recent
theories and research have started to bridge the
divide between sociological and psychological
approaches. Student affairs practitioners have
often intuitively considered the nuances of stu-
dents’ identities, even if the theories have not
represented this. During their graduate pro-
grams, these practitioners often take a course

that directly connects students and environ-
ments. But, these courses and perspectives are
generally not directly connected with student
development theory or the psychological foun-
dations of college student development.
Many of the recent advances in college
student development theory, have initiated a
trend toward considerations of nuances or the
“intersectionality” of identities, highlighting
the intersections between racialized, class-
p
Psychological Perspective
x Singular identity
x Self comes before society
x Self is rooted in cognitions
x Discussion of traits,
personality
x Studies often examine

perceptions of membership
within groups
Sociological Perspective
x Multiple identities
x Society comes before self,
identity stems from socialized
roles
x The self develops out of
interaction
x The self is located in social
structures
x Self works to organize social
life
x Reflexivity, reflection, is a
central aspect of the self
x Studies emphasize roles,
commitment to roles, and
identity salience
x
O
verlap in Perspectives
Holistic College Student Development Theory

x Multiple AND Singular Notions of Identity,
x Individual AND Group Processes,
x Social structure influences AND Cognitive
processes
x Roles, Commitment, Identity Salience AND Traits,
personality characteristics
x Reflection AND Cognition
x Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies
Policy and Practice Aimed at the Whole Student
based, and gendered experiences (Torres et al.,
2009). For example, theories aimed at
understanding underrepresented groups are less
stage-oriented and have moved the field of
higher education and student affairs in a new
direction (e.g., Robinson & Howard-
Hamilton’s (1994) Afrocentric resistance
paradigm; Renn’s (2000) situational identity
for multiracial students).
Other research suggests that college stu-
dents may experience multiple components or
categories of identity (Abes et al., 2007; Reyn-

olds & Pope, 1991; Taylor, 2008; Zaytoun,
2006). Jones’ (1997) work with college
women identified multiple categories or
dimensions (Jones & McEwen, 2000) of iden-
tity, all related to a core identity category that
is differentiated through meaning-making
FIGURE 1
The overlap between psychological and sociological
perspectives
(Abes et al., 2007). Additionally, there are
advances that attempt to blend multiple com-
ponents of development (Abes et al., 1997;
Kegan, 1994; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Tor-
res et al., 2009). Belenky et al.’s (1986) work,
blended identity/self, relationships with others,
and knowledge/cognitive development. Simi-

larly, Marcia Baxter Magolda’s (2001, 2009a)
scholarship integrates cognitive, intrapersonal,
and nterpersonal development.
There has also been a growing focus on
meaning-making in college student develop-
ment theory. Baxter Magolda’s (2001) self-
authorship theory, rooted in the psychological
work of Kegan (1994), has been increasingly
utilized as a way of understanding how stu-
dents learn and develop cognitively in college
and her theory includes students interpersonal
and intrapersonal dimensions of development.
As another example, Torres and Hernandez
(2007) contemplate cognitive and affective
aspects of multiple dimensions of identity (see
also, Abes et al., 2007; Torres & Hernandez,
2007).
These studies all advance the field, suggest-

ing the possibility of multiple components of
identity or multiple identity characteristics,
contexts, and factors which influence identity
processes. This shift in research and the resul-
tant theory opens the door of student affairs to
a complimentary sociological approach that is
more attentive to “structural and relational
constraints placed on identity” (Deutsch, 2008,
p. 7). Future work should examine whether the
psychological approach or the sociological
approach is best suited for the population or
the topic of study. Perhaps there is a need for
an entirely different perspective on which the
theoretical and empirical work remains to be
conducted. Regardless, the student affairs field
should remain open to shifting approaches to
student development that might help to
advance knowledge and understanding of new

student populations. In addition, college stu-
dent development theory should be grounded
in the experiences and wisdom of practitioners
and faculty who work with students on a con-
tinual basis.
The methodological implications of adding
the sociological approach to the existing psy-
chological approaches might be summarized
as a call for diversification of methods and for
an end of the quantitative-qualitative divide.
This may mean a need for mixed methods
studies, or, it may simply be the necessity of
reading and understanding across qualitative
and quantitative scholarship; however, the
focus or outcome of the research will be differ-
ent for sociologically- or psychologically-
based studies. Studies using the sociological
approach highlight the explanation of interac-

tions between one’s sense of self, roles, com-
mitments, and the social or institutional
structure. This implies that qualitative methods
that emphasize individual meaning-making
might be well-suited to this theoretical
approach. Outcomes of these studies may help
to explain the structural or institutional con-
straints that students experience relative to the
development of their identity during college
(e.g., Winkle-Wagner, 2009a, 2009b). This
may help scholars and practitioners alike to
better structure programs and policies that help
students navigate these constraints. Addition-
ally, these findings may help scholars and
practitioners examine campuses to remove
identity-related constraints within the environ-
ment when possible. Psychologically rooted
studies often focus on cognitive processes, the

way one processes the college experience, trait
or personality characteristics, and membership
in groups (i.e., exclusion, inclusion). Findings
may lead to models, theories, or ways of iden-
tifying the developmental progression students
may undergo during their time in college.
These results may help to structure programs
that facilitate students’ development.
Student affairs practitioners are well aware
of the importance of the interaction between
students and their college environment. There
are programs that are specifically geared
toward helping students navigate campus envi-
ronments. It is important to consider students’
cognitions relative to their experiences on
campus and the psychological approach allows
for that. The generalizations that often stem

from college student development theories that
are rooted in the psychological approach are
helpful for practitioners to predict how partic-
ular groups of students might behave or react
to their experiences. These generalizations
also help practitioners to predict how to best
serve students.
Alternatively, the sociological approach
calls for a holistic, fluid tactic toward viewing
students’ development in college suggesting
that students be viewed individually relative to
their stated roles and commitments. The pri-
mary focus is not on generalizing students but
is on finding ways in which college may influ-
ence students’ roles, commitments and the
identity salience that results from this interac-
tion. Practice would be refocused toward iden-

tifying students’ multiple, at times conflicting
or contradictory, roles and commitments, and
then initiating programs that allow students to
navigate these roles and commitments. These
programs should be especially effective for
those who do not fit the expectations of the
most widely accepted psychological theories
of college student development. Programs and
policies would be aimed at allowing space
both figuratively and literally for students to
express their important identities. This implies
a bottom-up approach to serving marginalized
students, giving them the room to identify for
themselves the roles and commitments they
feel are important to make salient in college,
rather than being told that they must display
those identities that are salient for the majority
groups on campus.

This sociological approach could be cou-
pled with the existing knowledge gained from
theories of college student development that
create models, theories, or measures that can
be used to prescribe particular campus experi-
ences. Psychologically based college student
development theories may recommend oppor-
tunities and experiences that facilitate
advancement through stages/phases/statuses in
psycho-social theories or that cause cognitive
dissonance in cognitive-structural theories.
These prescriptions, the deliberate structuring
of student experiences for development, may
be even more useful when used in concert with
the sociological approach: this implies both
allowing students to identify roles and com-
mitments for themselves while also challeng-
ing students to continue to develop.

CONCLUSION
The psychological and sociological perspec-
tives on identity can, at best, provide a system
of checks and balances for college student
development theory. Conversely, they could
provide conflicting, contrary perspectives
competing for the “right” way of considering
college student development. I advocate the
former—allowing both the psychological per-
spective and the sociological perspective to
inform what is known about the identity devel-
opment processes of college students. In the
past few decades of college student develop-
ment theory work, there has been a preponder-
ance of the psychological perspective, leading
to many sequential, metaphorically (if not
explicitly) linear theories of students’ develop-
mental processes. While these theories have

provided numerous important insights into
ways to better understand college students,
they ultimately make difficult a full consider-
ation of multiple identities, a meaningful
inclusion of the effect of the social structure on
students’ identity processes, and the influence
of interaction between one’s self, the larger
society, and the college campus in the way that
the sociological perspective does. Future
empirical work in college student development
could expand the field and what is known
about serving students in college, by using the
sociological perspective as a guiding founda-
tional framework.
Ultimately, both the psychological and
sociological perspectives are necessary for a
deeper understanding of college students. In
absence of the other, the psychological

approach could be overly reductionist, catego-
rizing and classifying students’ into particular
stages, phases, or models while the sociologi-
cal approach could be too individualistic, not
allowing enough generalization to how student
groups may differ in the aggregate. The psy-
chological perspective provides scholars and
practitioners with insight into intergroup and
sociocognitive processes (Hogg et al., 1995),
emphasizing group-level behavior and cogni-
tions. The sociological perspective is primarily
a “microsociological” (p. 255) approach,
allowing for an opportunity to better under-
stand identity processes in a fluid and contin-
ual manner, the way that the social structure
influences students before, during, and after

they enter higher education. This perspective
provides insight into who students might
become as they interact with others, the larger
social structure, and the college campus.
Together, the sociological and psychological
perspective could revolutionize the way that
students are served in higher education, mov-
ing ever closer to a more holistic approach.
NOTES
1. For example, the aluminum content and acidity
of soil can affect the color of the hydrangea
flower.
2. This is not to say that psychologically based
theories do not allow room for considerations
of environments. Rather, the point is that psy-
chological foundations often place a greater
emphasis on cognitions while sociological
approaches highlight environments.

3. While few scholars theorizing sociological
identity perspectives use this term, the idea that
one’s identity is entirely dependent on society
and interaction for development relates to the
idea of a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) that was
originally developed by John Locke (Milton &
Milton, 2006). The notion of a tabula rasa
assumes that people’s mental content (cogni-
tions) would be reliant on experiences, primar-
ily gathered through the senses.
4. This both dovetails and separates from Kurt
Lewin’s (1935) assertion that behavior is a func-
tion of the interaction of the person and the envi-
ronment. For Lewin the interaction of self and
environment led to an outcome of behavior.
Sociological approaches to identity consider the
outcome of the interactions between the self,
others, and the environment to be an identity

that may or may not influence behavior.
REFERENCES
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M.K. (2007).
Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimen-
sions of identity: The role of meaning-making
capacity in the construction of multiple identi-
ties. Journal of College Student Development,
48(1), 1-22
American Council on Education. (1937). The stu-
dent personnel point of view. In A.L. Rentz
(Ed.), Student affairs a profession’s heritage
(2nd ed., pp. 66-71). Washington, DC: American
College Personnel Association.
Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity,
academic achievement, and the psychological
well-being of economically disadvantaged ado-
lescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 69(5), 903-914.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Constructing adult
identities. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 40(6) 629-644.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own
way: Narratives for transforming higher educa-
tion to promote self-development. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009a). Authoring your
life: Developing an internal voice to meet life’s
challenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009b). The activity of
meaning making: A holistic perspective on col-
lege student development. Journal of College
Student Development, 50(6), 621-639.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R.,
& Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of know-
ing: The development of self, voice, and mind.
New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D. (2000). Group dis-
tinctiveness, social identification, and collective
mobilization. In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R.
White (Eds.), Self, identity and social move-
ments. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-
sota Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (2006). The
bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology (6th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
793-828.
Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in
tomorrow’s higher education: A return to the

academy. Alexandria, VA: American College
Personnel Association.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. (1991). An identity the-
ory approach to commitment. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 239-251.
Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation:
Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex
Research, 20, 143-167.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education
and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigres-
cence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Pon-
terotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B.J. (2001). Nigrescence

theory and measurement: Introducing the cross
racial identity scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto,
J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling
(pp. 371-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Deutsch, N. (2008). Pride in the projects: Teens
building identities in urban contexts. New York,
NY: New York University Press.
Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New
York, NY: Norton. (Original work published in
1959).
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Renn,
K.A., & Patton, L.D. (2010). Student develop-
ment in college: Theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1994). The impact of
college on students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass. (Original work published 1969)

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psycholog-
ical theory and women’s development. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original
work published in 1982).
Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002).
Foundations of student affairs practice: How
philosophy, theory and research strengthen edu-
cational outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A
tale of two theories: A critical comparison of
identity theory with social identity theory. Social
psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269.
Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A
theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psycholog-
ical Assessment Resources.
Jones, S. R. (1997). Voices of identity and differ-

ence: A qualitative explore of the multiple
dimensions of identity development in women
college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 38(4), 376-386.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). Conceptual
model of multiple dimensions of identity. Jour-
nal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-
414.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to
identity development in women. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental
demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
King, P. M. (2009). Principles of development and
developmental change underlying theories of
cognitive and moral development. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(6), 597-620.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing
reflective judgment: Understanding and promot-
ing intellectual growth and critical thinking in
adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cogni-
tive developmental approach to socialization. In
D. A. Gosling (Ed.), Handbook of socialization
theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experi-
ence as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construc-
tion of adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge-
Falmer.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of
ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3, 551-588.
Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society: From
the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W.
Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press. (Original was published 1934)
Milton, J. R., & Milton, P. (2006). John Locke: An
essay concerning toleration and other writings
on law and politics, 1667-1683. Oxford, Eng-
land: Oxford University Press.
Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:
Counseling Psychologists Press.
Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S.,
Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial-
ethnic self schemas. Social Psychology Quar-

terly, 66(4), 333-347.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in chil-
dren. New York, NY: International Universities
Press.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical
growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chick-
ering and Associates, The modern American col-
lege: Responding to the new realities of diverse
students and a changing society (pp. 76-116).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity
among biracial and multiracial college students.
The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 399-
420.
Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of
mixed-race college students through a develop-
ment ecology lens. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(3), 383-403.

Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and
queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, transgender, and queer identified college
student leaders and activitists. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 48(3), 311-330.
Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The com-
plexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppres-
sions. Journal of Counseling & Development,
70, 174-180.
Robinson, T. L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1994).
An Afrocentric paradigm: Foundation for a
health self-image and health interpersonal rela-
tionships. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
16(3), 327-340.
Rodgers, R. F. (1990). An integration of campus
ecology and student development: The Olen-
tangy project. In D. G. Creamer & Associates
Eds.), College student development: Theory and

practice for the 1990s (pp. 27-79). Alexandria,
VA: American College Personnel Association.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A
social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Ben-
jamin/Cummings.
Stryker, S. (1997). In the beginning there is society:
Lessons from a sociological social psychology.
In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), Message
from social psychology: Perspective on Mind in
Society. London, England: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup
relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1),
1-39.
Taylor, K. B. (2008). Mapping the intricacies of
young adults’ developmental journey from
socially prescribed to internally defined identi-
ties, relationships, and beliefs. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 49(3), 215-234.

Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (1992). The relation-
ship of racial identity attitudes to autonomy and
mature interpersonal relationships in black and
white undergraduate women. Journal of College
Student Development, 33(5), 439-446.
Thoits, P. (2003). Personal agency in the accumula-
tion of multiple role-identities. In P. J. Burke, T.
J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, & P. Thoits, Advances in
identity theory and research (pp. 179-194). New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2007). The influence
of ethnic identity on self-authorship: A longitu-
dinal study of Latino/a college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 48(5), 558-
573.
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D.
L. (Eds.). (2003). Identity development of
diverse populations: Implications for teaching

and administration in higher education. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(6). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Iden-
tity development theories in student affairs: Ori-
gins, current status, and new approaches.
Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),
577-593.
Winkle-Wagner, R. (2009a). The Unchosen Me:
Race, gender and identity among Black women
in college. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Winkle-Wagner, R. (2009b). The perpetual home-
lessness of college experiences: The tensions
between home and campus for African Ameri-
can women. The Review of Higher Educa-
tion¸33(1), 1-36.
Zaytoun, K. (2006). Theorizing at the boarders:

Considering social location in rethinking self
and psychological development. NWSA Journal,
18(2), 52-72.
Author Biographical Data 93
in counseling, marriage and family therapy,
and qualitative research. Practicing as a
national certified counselor (NCC) and a Mar-
riage and family therapist (MFT), Dr. Tse is
also an ordained minister and former pastor.
His research interests have revolved around
multicultural issues and relationships.
Krista M. Soria is a doctoral candidate in edu-
cational policy and administration (higher edu-
cation) and an analyst in institutional research
at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.
She has prior experience working in student
affairs in several areas including admissions,

college advising, and academic advising.
Krista also serves as an adjunct faculty in the
leadership minor at the University of Minne-
sota-Twin Cities. Her research interests
include social class in higher education, com-
munity engagement, student leadership, and
academic advising.
Terrell L. Strayhorn is an associate professor
of higher education at The Ohio State Univer-
sity where he also serves as senior research
associate in the Kirwan Institute for the study
of race and ethnicity, and holds joint appoint-
ments in Africana studies, engineering educa-
tion, and sociology. Author of 5 books, over
100 articles and book chapters, Strayhorn is
associate editor of the NASAP Journal and
Editor of Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men.
Rachelle Winkle-Wagner is an assistant pro-

fessor in the Department of Educational Lead-
ership and Policy Analysis at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. She uses sociological
approach to investigate how race and gender
are manifested in gaining access to and persist-
ing through college for students of color in par-
ticular. She is the author of The Unchosen Me:
Race, Gender, and Identity among Black
Women in College (Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2009).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Discussion Topic - Race Laws, Whiteness, and Citizenship
How are race laws, whiteness, and citizenship connected and
how have these categories impacted people both positively and
negatively?

Readings and References for this Assignment Module 3: Race
and the Law
This module examines race law, which includes the laws and
legal theories that deal with race. In this module, race law also
refers to the effects of laws—for example, laws that are not
explicitly designed to differentiate between races but that
disadvantage certain racial groups while privileging others. Our
discussion of race law also will move outside the legal system
to look at the intersection of race, law, and culture. Racial ideas
are constructed from views in the culture; these ideas become
codified into laws, or, sometimes, dismantled by laws
constructed to change racial ideas.
We begin topic I from a perspective in the nineteenth century,
when ideas about race operated to privilege white people and to
exclude nonwhite racial groups from the benefits of American
life. We focus on the concept of culture proposed by
anthropologist Franz Boas. We discuss how his ideas were taken
up by social scientists and legal scholars and how social science
work began to be used as evidence in legal cases.
Topic II explores how ideas of whiteness were constructed and
then used to deny or permit the attainment of citizenship for
individuals in the United States.
Topic III concerns the antecedents, events, and consequences of
the landmark legal case of Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka in 1954. That case mandated racial integration in
American public school classrooms.
In topic IV, we will discuss three contemporary topics: racial
colorblindness, critical race theory, and white privilege. These
distinct ways of viewing racial matters in society today suggest
strategies for moving toward a more equitable society in the
United States.
In 1853, legal scholar William Goodell observed, "No people
were ever yet found to be better than their laws, though many
have been known to be worse" (cited in Higginbotham, 2001, p.
3). This statement reflects the facts we will explore in this
module—that our ideas of race and, in fact, our entire legal

system have developed and grown from our culture and reflect
the whole of American life.Module 3: Race and the Law
After completing this module, you should be able to:
· define race law
· compare and contrast the effects the laws of our nation have
had upon white and nonwhite racial groups
· use an intersectional analysis to understand the relationships
among race, law, and culture
· explain the relationship between race and American
citizenship
· evaluate the importance of Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka
· describe the benefits of mixed-race classrooms for all students
· explain white privilege and its relevance to our studies
· compare and contrast racial colorblindness and critical race
theory
Module 3: Race and the LawTopics
I. Race, Law, and Culture
II. The Legal Construction of Race
III. The Landmark Case of Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka
IV. Race in the Legal System Today
V. Summary
I. Race, Law, and Culture
Laws are not developed in a vacuum. They are influenced by
findings from social science, by religious beliefs, by economic
and political interests, and by the values and beliefs of a culture
at a given time. For example, laws supporting racial purity and
laws banning interracial marriages were enacted as early as the
17th century in colonial America, reflecting views in that era
that African Americans were inferior to white people and any
mixture of the races would taint the white race.
Though the Declaration of Independence speaks of equality, the
document was drafted and signed by some individuals who were

slaveholders. Slaves were not considered citizens and thus
would not enjoy the rights promised to others. The reality of
slavery was very different from the prose about equality.
Historian Edmund S. Morgan reminds us, "The fundamental
ideas upon which the United States was founded were created
under conditions of African chattel slavery, and the nation has
been grappling ever since with the consequences of that original
sin" (Morgan, as cited by Weiner, 2006, p. 7).
Read the Declaration of Independence and reflect on the
conditions of the slaves and Native Americans in the United
States when the Declaration of Independence was written, in
1787.
In the past, different laws were in place for nonwhite racial
groups than for white racial groups. Laws, like race and like
culture, are socially constructed, meaning they are built based
on what people in a society believe at the time. Laws change
over time, as society changes. We believe that laws enforce
what is right and deter or punish what is wrong, but this view of
the legal system is not complex enough to explain how race
functions in our society. We need to excavate beneath the
surface of laws and across time to discover how our legal
system views race.Intersectional Analysis
Some social scientists use an intersectional analysis to
understand laws of race. To help visualize the intersectional
approach, imagine a busy traffic intersection where ideas come
zooming in from different disciplines to support, question,
reject, or clash head-on with long-held beliefs. Some issues run
straight through the intersection; others enter the intersection
and become involved in the gridlock. An intersection is a
positive thing if it helps you get exactly where you want to go.
It can also become a headache of gridlocked vehicles driven by
people with very different destinations in mind.
In mathematics, intersection has a precise meaning; it describes
an area where different sets overlap. In the overlapped areas,
sets share common ideas. Figure 3.1 illustrates three sets of

ideas—race, law, and culture—with overlapping areas where
those concepts share common ideas. In the center of the diagram
is an area where all three intersect.
Figure 3.1
Graphical Representation of Intersectional Analysis
In the social sciences, intersectional analysis is a recently
developed way to examine multiple causes for social
phenomena.
In the past, social scientists most often studied white males and
believed that whatever they discovered about white males could
be extended to all Americans. In recent years, however,
researchers have come to understand that the United States is a
multicultural place and that culture, gender, and race make a
difference with respect to societal treatment, perceptions, and
behavior.
To correct the inaccurate and incomplete views of our past,
scholars have proposed intersectional analysis as a framework
for telling much more complicated stories (especially those that
include women and minorities) than social scientists told in the
past. Intersectional analyses address complex issues that were
formerly studied in overly simplistic ways.
For example, sociologists using intersectional analyses suggest
that race and ethnicity could be studied by "examining how race
and ethnicity operate with and through gender, class, nation,
sexuality, and other systems of social inequality" (Rojek et al.,
2006, p. 214). Another researcher defines intersectional analysis
as a way to see "the complex linkages among racial, gender-
based, and class-oriented forms of domination and exploitation"
(Winant, 2007, p. 567).
Intersectional analyses are not yet accompanied by research
methods, but they have already brought about rich
interdisciplinary investigations, including studies of the legal
system and how it serves different racial groups.Native
Americans and Their Land
We continue our discussion of the intersection of race, law, and

culture with an example of laws imposed on Native Americans
in the nineteenth century. Recall the racial hierarchy we studied
in module 1, wherein social scientists placed the highest value
on white culture and believed that nonwhite groups were
primitive and greatly inferior to white groups.The Indian
Removal Act
A series of solutions were developed by the United States
government to deal with the "Indian problem," as it was known.
In 1830, the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Removal
Act (1830) to seize lands historically occupied by Native
Americans for government use and for private farming by white
settlers. Native Americans were forced to move west of the
Mississippi River.
Who benefited from the Indian Removal Act? To answer this
question, and to learn more about how this legislation affected
groups of people in different ways, read the Trail of
Tears article at the National Park Service Web site.
Following the Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant developed
a policy of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream,
white American culture. Assimilation is the integration of one
group of people into the mainstream or dominant group of
society (Marger, 2007, p. 574). When assimilation takes place,
members of groups being assimilated give up their language,
culture, and customs to conform with and be accepted by the
dominant group.
In this case, two very different groups wished the Native
Americans to be assimilated to white, mainstream, American
life: religious reformers who intended to redeem primitive
people, and individuals who were interested in selling land in
the west. This latter group of people wanted to free more land
for white settlement and for the railroads, and they wanted to
make money by selling the land originally held by Native
Americans.
The interests of these two groups—reformers and speculators—
coincided and helped bring about an end to the Native American

culture (Weiner, 2006, p. 24). Native American children were
sent to so-called "Indian boarding schools," where they learned
English, converted to Christianity, and were forbidden to speak
their native languages or to celebrate their own culture. Tribal
customs and culture were extinguished in an effort to make
"individuals" out of members of collective Native American
groups.
Until Grant's assimilationist policy was instituted, Indians had
had their own laws and had been responsible for their own civil
and criminal matters. Under U.S. rule, tribal law was replaced
by American law "to assimilate native peoples socially by
altering their law" (Weiner, 2006, p. 26).
What does this 1909 photograph reveal about Native
Americans? Have they been able to continue their native
customs and culture?
Source: Library of Congress, "American Indians of the Pacific
Northwest"The Dawes Severalty Act
In 1887, the U.S. Congress approved the Dawes Severalty Act,
which mandated cutting up Native American communal lands
into plots that would be individually owned, or held
in severalty. Native Americans had long hunted and gathered
from vast communal lands, so severalty was an idea foreign to
their culture.
Read the opening statement of the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887.
What impact would you expect this act to have on Native
Americans?
Model Answer
According to a PBS documentary on Native Americans,
Congressman Henry Dawes, author of the act, "once expressed
his faith in the civilizing power of private property with the
claim that to be civilized was to 'wear civilized
clothes…cultivate the ground, live in houses, ride in Studebaker
[horse-drawn] wagons, send children to school, drink whiskey

[and] own property'" (Dawes Act, 1996).
After reservation lands had been broken into individually owned
plots, the "excess" land—that is, the land that remained after
each Native American received his or her allotment—was given
to white settlers. The plots given to white settlers were
purposefully checkerboarded throughout the reservation so that
white people could provide a good example to the Indians. The
Dawes Act became a way to continue the wars with Indians
"with the weapons of the rule of law" (Weiner, 2006, p. 37).
There were complicated regulations about claiming land:
waiting periods, age requirements, and other restrictions.
Because Native Americans tended to keep poor birth records or
none at all, many did not or could not ever claim their land.
According to historian and legal scholar Mark Weiner, "Over
the next ten years, Indians lost 75 percent of their lands, over
90 million acres (40 percent of the land remaining [to them] was
desert), and they began to suffer even more than before the
scourges of poverty, despondency, and spiritual death" (Weiner,
2006, p. 37).
The power of Congress to allocate communal lands to
individuals and to destroy a collective economy and culture
was, in this case, absolute. At the time, "the act was viewed as a
legitimate, unproblematic exercise of Congressional authority
under the terms of what became known as the plenary power
doctrine of Indian affairs" (Weiner, p. 37).Executive Order
9066: The Japanese Internment
The U.S. government's authority to exercise control over racial
groups continued throughout and beyond turn of the twentieth
century. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941,
many Americans developed strong feelings against Japanese
Americans and believed that the Japanese Americans were a
danger to the security of the nation. In 1942, in another exercise
of plenary power, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed
Executive Order 9066, which mandated the immediate removal
of Japanese American individuals from coastal areas in
Washington, Oregon, and California (Saito, 2007).

Virtually all Japanese Americans in this region were asked to
leave the universities where they studied and ordered to
abandon their businesses, homes, and farms. About 10,000
Japanese Americans were able to relocate to other parts of the
United States in time to avoid the internment, but over 110,000
were evacuated to hastily built relocation centers (Saito, 2007).
With so little time to prepare for relocation, most lost their
entire businesses, farms, and all personal possessions.
In many cases, exiled families included older Japanese
immigrants, to whom American citizenship was denied, and
their children and grandchildren, who were American citizens
by birth. The families were collected at centers, tagged, and put
onto trains, accompanied by armed guards. Many trains had
their windows covered, presumably to prevent the internees
from being able to retrace the route to coastal areas. For the
next three years, the exiled Japanese American families were
housed in these relocation centers (figure 3.2), policed by armed
guards and surrounded by tall fences topped with barbed wire.
Housing consisted of uninsulated wooden shacks vulnerable to
100-degree-plus temperatures in summer and frigid conditions
in winter. Each family was given one room, so privacy was
nonexistent. Internees had "poor and often insufficient food"
(Saito, 2007, p. 54). All adults were forced to sign oaths
pledging loyalty to the U.S. government. At the camps, officials
"cultivated informers and deliberately fomented discord as a
means of keeping internees divided and resultantly
disempowered. Families broke apart and the community
splintered" (Saito, 2007, pp. 54–55). The prisoners who found
work in the camps were paid about one-tenth of the wages paid
outside the camp.
Figure 3.2
Manzanar Relocation Center in California, 1943
Source: Library of Congress, "Ansel Adams's Photographs"
Health conditions inside the camps were abhorrent. According
to one resident:

We had five doctors to take care of 10,000 people in one camp.
There were open sewers; the barracks had no water, no stoves.
And we had young families, many with new babies and no
vaccines…or sanitary conditions for making baby formula.…
There were in fact outbreaks of malaria in the Arkansas camps,
epidemics of dysentery at Topaz, Minidoka, and Jerome; a
typhoid epidemic at Minidoka; widespread polio at Granada;
and tuberculosis at Poston. In addition, many evacuees reported
deaths, particularly among the very young and elderly, which
might have been avoided with adequate medical facilities.
(quoted in Saito, 2007, p. 61)
Recall that although the immigrant Japanese had been denied
citizenship, the younger generations were, for the most part,
U.S. citizens. Many of these younger individuals worked to
redeem themselves in the eyes of the government (and to escape
the camps) by volunteering to join the armed services. In 1944,
President Roosevelt openly discussed the fact that, "on his
order, American citizens of Japanese descent were, as a group,
being 'kept locked up in concentration camps'" (Saito, 2007, p.
59).
Was the U.S. government justified in carrying out this
internment? Why or why not? Compare and contrast the
Japanese American internment in the 1940s to the treatment
some American Muslims have experienced following 9/11.
Discover the efforts made by the U.S. Congress and Executive
Orders issued by U.S. presidents in efforts to right the wrongs
of the Japanese American internment. These efforts took place
between 1948 and 1988. Use the UMUC databases and the
Internet to research the reparations effort.
What was done to make amends for the Japanese American
internment? Do you believe enough was done?
In 1983, nearly four decades after the end of WWII, Fred
Korematsu, who had been imprisoned for attempting to avoid
internment, had his wartime conviction cancelled in a federal
district court. Here are his words at his successful hearing on

the coram nobis petition:
According to the Supreme Court decision regarding my case,
being an American citizen was not enough. They say you have
to look like one, otherwise they say you can't tell a difference
between a loyal and a disloyal American. I thought that this
decision was wrong and I still feel that way. As long as my
record stands in federal court, any American citizen can be held
in prison or concentration camps without a trial or a hearing.
That is if they look like the enemy of our country. (Korematsu,
as cited by Ancheta, 2006, p. 62)
Legal scholar Angelo Ancheta has found the racial experiences
of Americans who are neither black nor white—specifically
Asian, Latino, and Arab Americans—to be different from the
racial experiences of black Americans. "The axis is not white
versus black, but American versus foreigner," he observes
(2006, p. 63).Separating Culture from Race
Scientific racism, the belief in the racial hierarchy, began to
fade around the beginning of the twentieth century. The racial
hierarchy, as we discussed module 2, embodied two beliefs: that
nonwhite groups were inferior to white groups, and that
nonwhite groups occupied lower places on the continuum
toward civilization. The end of scientific racism came about
with the development of anthropology as a professional
discipline, with careful and unbiased observation by
ethnographers, and with the entrance of social scientific data
into legal cases. Ethnographers, who study individual cultural
groups, made it evident that there were no such things as fixed
and stable racial designations. As these more open-minded
scientists—now with women and minorities among them—
produced factual research findings, the racial hierarchy, with its
negative views of nonwhite populations, began to disintegrate.
As this occurred, an interesting change took place. "The
denigration of…[racial groups] began to look less like a rational
scientific conclusion and more like a pathology" (Jackson &
Weidman, 2004, p. 129), and racists, as well as racism itself,
became subjects of investigation by sociologists and

psychologists.
Two last blows to scientific racism came during WWII, when
refugee scientists from Germany encountered racism upon
arriving in the United States. They argued vociferously to end
it. Also, as the war came to an end, Americans came to realize
the role American eugenicists played in providing ideas the
Nazis used in creating their "final solution" for the Jews. At
that point, the ideas that racial types existed, that one race was
in any way superior to others, and that racial groups could be
ranked from superior to inferior became very unappealing
(Jackson & Weidman, 2004).Boas's Work to Establish Culture
"No one did more to defeat scientific racism," say authors John
P. Jackson, Jr., and Nadine Weidman, than American
anthropologist Franz Boas. A German and a Jew, Boas studied
the Inuit people of Baffinland (Northwest Territories, Canada),
finding "the idea of a cultured individual was a relative one:
while the Inuit were not cultured according to the Europeans,
the Europeans were not cultured according to the Inuit"
(Jackson & Weidman, 2004, p. 131).
Read how Boas changed the scientific view of race. Born and
educated in Germany but working in the United States, he
rejected the eugenics agendas of the Nazis, and his writings
were banned in Nazi Germany. Read a brief description of his
work and his life.
After immigrating to the United States in 1887, Boas studied a
number of issues, among them, the changes in head
measurement and height and body type (anthropometric
measurements) of immigrants and their descendents. His work
refuted the idea of "racial types" because he found groups
became taller and even skull development changed with length
of residence (and adequate nutrition) in the United States.
By dismissing the concept of racial types, Boas at the same time
criticized the longstanding racial hierarchy. Boas found,
"Cultural variation among distinct peoples could not be ranked
hierarchically or classified along a scale that ran from

civilization to savagery" (cited in Winant, 2007, p. 550).
Culture, then, could be defined as "humankind's entire stock of
material objects, skills, customs, beliefs, and attitudes, as well
as the whole realm of economic, political, legal, religious, and
familial institutions" (Camic, 2007, p. 230).
Boas and his students reoriented the field of anthropology—and
by extension, sociology—away from the racial hierarchy and
from racial types, "toward culture, which was a concept that
could not be reduced to biology" (Camic, 2007, p. 230). His was
a "social constructionist view of race" that he shared with W. E.
B. Du Bois, a friend and professional colleague (Morris, p. 514,
Jackson & Weidman, 2004). He shared with Du Bois the idea
that "many of the differences between so-called primitive and
civilized men were in fact not racial but environmental and
cultural" (Jackson & Weidman, 2004, p. 134).Including Culture
in Law
The new view of culture and the new social science findings
that came from this perspective entered the legal system through
the efforts of Louis D. Brandeis, who later became a justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1908, Brandeis was the first to urge
judges to take "the actual social impact of their decisions into
consideration when deciding what might constitute a just result
in a particular case" (Weiner, 2006, p. 176).
Weiner describes this as the beginning of a time when
information from the professional social sciences first began to
be used. Brandeis once successfully argued a legal case by
basing his argument on more than 90 pages of social scientific
research. The "Brandeis brief," as it came to be known, became
a term for a trial argument that relied upon social scientific
evidence (Weiner, 2006). The use of such evidence has
continued; extensive psychological and statistical analyses of
the effects of discrimination on schoolchildren were used in the
case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 (Hans
and Martinez, 1994), which we will examine later in this
module.
Return to top of page

II. The Legal Construction of RaceAfrican Americans
In 1857, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case
of Scott v. Sandford (1857), stating that African Americans
were not citizens and therefore were not entitled to the benefits
of American citizenship. This decision is popularly known as
the Dred Scott decision. Scott was a Missouri slave who filed a
lawsuit in 1847 in the Federal District Court of Missouri,
asserting his claim to freedom. The court ruled that African
Americans were not citizens and therefore did not have the
rights as other citizens, such as bringing claims to courts. In
addition, Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Maryland slave owner
who was the key spokesman in the case, held that Scott was not
entitled to freedom based upon his residence in Missouri, a
slave state. (The court seems to have disregarded the fact that
for two years, Scott had lived as a slave in an area of the
Louisiana Purchase where slavery was prohibited by the
Missouri Compromise.)
In 1868, following the Civil War (1861–1865), the Fourteenth
Amendment granted full citizenship to African Americans:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment, 1868)
In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution granted African American men the right to vote:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude…. (15th Amendment, 1870)Immigrants
The early 1900s were a time of peak immigration and
industrialization in America. By the 1930s, about 12 million

immigrants had entered this country through the Ellis Island
receiving facility (Haney López, 1996). The first wave of
immigrants, in the mid-1800s, had come from northern Europe,
Scandinavia, and England, and from Asia and the South Pacific.
Beginning in the 1880s, a second wave of much poorer and less-
skilled immigrants began arriving from eastern and southern
Europe. Meanwhile, immigrants from China were denied entry
to the west coast from 1882 until the restriction was repealed in
1943 (Marger, 2006; Saito, 2007). Fears of foreigners
overcrowding schools, depleting social services, and committing
crimes fanned an anti-immigration sentiment that resulted in a
series of immigration laws and quotas. The American
government passed a strict immigration law in 1924
(Immigration Act) that forbade the immigration of anyone who
was not considered by American law to be white (Weiner,
2006). Thus, the act completely stopped immigration from Asia
and greatly decreased the number of people arriving from
eastern and southern Europe. Immigrants Attempting to Become
Citizens: The Racial Prerequisite Cases
When the Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, Americans
took pride in posting Jewish immigrant Emma Lazarus's
sonnet The New Colossus on a bronze plaque at the base of the
statue. The poem ends with the now-famous lines:
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe freeThe wretched refuse of your teeming shore send
these.The homeless tempest-tost to me.I lift my lamp beside the
golden door.
In light of this stirring sentiment, it is perplexing to find the
United States has generated a very long legal record of
determining that many, if not most, ethnic and racial groups
were deemed "not white" and thus did not quality for the
benefits and privileges of citizenship accorded to white
individuals in America.
Learn more about Lazarus and see photographs of her and her
poem on the Statue of Liberty.

The American government had restricted naturalization, the
process for gaining American citizenship, to white people only.
Whiteness was a prerequisite for attaining citizenship in the
United States from 1790 until 1950. Legal scholars have studied
the racial prerequisite cases—those cases in which an immigrant
asked for a ruling determining whether he or she was white. As
the social sciences developed the new paradigm of culture to
replace the racial hierarchy, new ideas flowed into the legal
system. But in the realm of American citizenship, categories of
race and the racial prerequisites for citizenship were so well
established in the culture and in law that little change was seen
for many decades. Laws stipulating which racial or ethnic
groups would be categorized as white flourished from 1878
until restrictions on race ended in 1952 (Haney López, 1996, p.
49). These laws opened or closed doors to citizenship based on
race, for immigrants could become citizens only if they were
judged to be white.
Weiner finds the laws that govern the United States are more
fair today than they were in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries but still tend to favor the white majority while
drawing a "circle of we" around dominant groups and keeping
minority groups as "perpetual foreigners" (Weiner, 2006, p. 7;
Ancheta, 2006, p. xi). African Americans, Native Americans,
Irish Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and Latinas, and
people of Middle Eastern descent are among the groups who
have been deemed "ineligible to citizenship" at one time or
another (Saito, 2007, p.7). The racial prerequisite cases focused
on the immigrant "others" and whether they deserved the
privileges of American citizenship.
Until 1952, when racial prerequisites for people applying for
citizenship ended, immigrants needed to be white become
American citizens (Haney López, 1996, p. 15). How did people
define whiteness? They went to the courts for legal rulings. To
make their rulings, judges used information from scientists,
from popular culture, and from popular understanding.
The courts cited specific rationales for their decisions:

· Common knowledge: The judge reflected on popular belief.
· Scientific evidence: The judge consulted with anthropologists
or other scientists.
· Congressional intent: The judge referred to the longstanding
laws preventing nonwhite people from becoming citizens.
· Legal precedent: The judge used previous legal rulings to back
up the ruling in a subsequent individual case.
· Ocular inspection of the skin: The judge looked at the
petitioner's skin color.
We will discuss each of these rationales in greater detail.
Between 1878 and 1944, dozens of racial prerequisite cases
were heard and decided around the nation. Review the summary
tableand consider the following questions:
1. What patterns do you notice?
2. The table is arranged in chronological order; look at the
dates. Are there inconsistencies?
3. Were there firm and fast rules for who was white? If so, did
those rules change?
4. What can you conclude about race and about whiteness from
studying this list of cases?
5. What do these cases show us about the concept of race—is
race scientifically established or socially constructed?
The rationales the courts used to classify some groups as white
and others as nonwhite demonstrate how culture and science
legally construct race. Various kinds of legal reasoning were
used to explain, for example why Ah Yup, a Chinese immigrant,
was considered not white in 1878, or why Syrians were
considered white in a 1909 decision but nonwhite in a 1913
decision. These rationales serve as informative examples of how
legal decisions were influenced by the intersection of culture,
science, and the racial thinking of the time. The decisions
themselves illustrate the fluidity of race (Haney López,
1996).Common Knowledge
The common knowledge rationale was based upon a shared
understanding of what it meant to be white. In 1878, when the

decision was made in Ah Yup's case, whiteness was identified
by an individual's outward appearance, such as skin color. The
one-drop rule was also used. The court opinion classifying Ah
Yup as nonwhite was partly based upon this racial reasoning.
The court's decision stated that "The words 'white person'… in
this country, at least, have undoubtedly acquired a well settled
meaning in common popular speech, and they are constantly
used in the sense so acquired in the literature of the country, as
well as in common parlance" (Haney López, 1996, p.
5).Scientific Evidence
Evidence from science was also used as a means to determine
who was white. The scientific evidence referred to here
originated from anthropology and the social sciences. The
courts appealed to several tenets of race science; the most basic
of these were that race was biological and the various races
could be identified, classified, and labeled from inferior to
superior, as we discussed in module 2. The courts appealed to
the racial classification and racial hierarchy of the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. Ah Yup was classified as
nonwhite and therefore unable to become citizen based upon
biased science. The decision stated:
In speaking of the various classifications of races, Webster in
his dictionary says,
The common classification is that of Blumenbach, who makes
five. 1. The Caucasian, or white race to which belong the
greater part of the European nations and those of Western Asia:
The Mongolian, or yellow race, occupying Tartary, China,
Japan, etc. 3. The Ethiopian or Negro (black) race occupying all
of Africa, except the north. 4. The American, or red race,
containing the Indians of North and South America; and, 5, The
Malay, or Brown race occupying the islands of the Indian
Archipelago,
etc. This division was adopted from Buffon, with some changes
in names, and is founded on the combined characteristics of
complexion, hair, and skull…. (Haney López, 1996, p.
6)Congressional Intent and Legal Precedent

College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx

College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx

Similar to College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx (20)

More from mary772

More from mary772 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60.docx