10 Peer Review and Revision

Example: Leadership

Stepping Back and Stepping Up: Ogimaa Ekwe, Indigenous Women in Leadership

Dr. La Royce Batchelor

March, 2023

Stepping Back and Stepping Up: Ogimaa Ekwe, Indigenous Women in Leadership

Dr. La Royce Batchelor

Abstract

We are living amid a leadership crisis. Models of leadership long taught in higher education and in professional development systems have created an unsustainable environment. Leadership has a long and storied history. Monuments cover the world depicting great leaders. They depict singular leaders in distinct times with often common characteristics, usually espousing a western Eurocentric and even Christian form of leadership. Educational programs and private consultants profit billions from the supposed ability to train leaders or to create systems of leadership. But these systems deny some of the strongest forms of leadership. These systems try to devalue differing leadership epistemologies. The definitions provided see leadership as a person with inherent or teachable traits, or as an activity, something someone does. Some even focus on the relationship between leader and follower. But NONE provide a holistic approach. Not only does this exclude a large portion of the nonbinary population, but also assumes that all genders fall into similar behaviours regardless of cultural influence or understanding. Even the constructs allocated to women speak of a Eurocentric Western colonizing competitive capitalistic patriarchal leadership construct. However, there is a shift happening not only within leadership scholarship, but within a broader understanding of the implications of changing the focus of leadership. There are other options. Historically misunderstood and devalued, scholars are taking a deeper look into Indigenous leadership. The problematic superior/subordinate relationship is gone and replaced by a collective community which makes decisions cooperatively. Indigenous leadership is not about any individual. Ensemble leadership, as some authors have called it, is a collectivist, community based, collaborative way to make decisions and establish priorities. In 2018, we conducted 25 interviews with Manitoba Indigenous women from five communities. These women not only served as individuals in managerial roles of necessary institutions, they also served within the community in other capacities such as organizing ceremonies or solving community issues. Indigenous women have been silenced and dismissed by dominant hero icon-based systems of leadership that oppress the subordinate and devalue deeply held beliefs for efficiency and progress. This research provides four key definition differences as well as placing women in the center of the conversation about leadership.

 

Stepping Back and Stepping Up: Ogimaa Ekwe, Indigenous Women in Leadership

Dr. La Royce Batchelor

 

Introduction

We are living amid a leadership crisis. Models of leadership long taught in higher education and in professional development systems have created an unsustainable environment. But how did we get here? How did we develop the heroic icon-based systems of leadership? Leadership scholarship has long been criticized for examining phenomenological elements of leadership focusing on individuals but ignoring the environment. The western, Eurocentric, Christian, capitalistic, competitive, hierarchical, patriarchal systems have resulted in superior/subordinate systems rife with issues.

But what can be done? What other models of leadership are there?

In Indigenous culture, the answer would be simple: ask the grandmothers.

As an Indigenous person this is where the journey would begin. Ask the grandmothers. As an educator within higher education for 30 years, this has also been where things begin. Ask the grandmothers.

This research is a project born of frustration. 2018 saw me working on programs to assist Indigenous communities. The project was to examine systems of leadership that were not discussed outside communities. This research examines leadership models, methods, limitations, and shifts to arrive at a place where we can begin to have valuable conversations about leadership.

Discussion of Western Leadership Research

Leadership has a long and storied history. “The industrial paradigm of leadership is based in an obsession with the persona of kings and conquerors that can be traced at least as far back as Biblical times” (Barker, 2001, 476). Monuments cover the world depicting great leaders. Histories from every corner of the globe fill history books delineating the tales of heroic leadership. But look again. The monuments are of a kind. They depict singular leaders in distinct times with often common characteristics, usually espousing a western Eurocentric and even Christian form of leadership. “The canon of industrial era leadership theories is an adaptation of the hierarchical view of the universe adopted by the early Christian Church, and presumes that leadership is all about the person at the top of the hierarchy” and is male (Barker, 2001, 471).

Educational programs and private consultants profit billions from the supposed ability to train leaders or to create systems of leadership. But these systems deny some of the strongest forms of leadership. These systems try to devalue differing leadership epistemologies.

I teach academic writing utilizing a diverse epistemological approach that some would argue is teaching writing backwards. However, it has proven most effective. This research was also born of that process as I write alongside my students as they write. This process begins with not a hypothesis, but a desire to learn. From that desire a learning bundle is created. This process began with the search terms leadership language. This produced millions of articles but most were dated and colonial. Next, the terms women in leadership were used to demonstrate to students how to narrow search terms. Finally, the search terms Indigenous women in leadership was used. From this the Learning Bundle is created. This is a reading list; a list of teachers. The articles are sorted and highlighted using Toulmin. Students and I create envelopes using Sonja Foss’s (2015) method of research from Destination Dissertation. Envelopes allow for another level of evaluation and organization. From this, information and evidence are placed where they belong and an outline forms. Students then find it easy to curate their learning.

Definitions

Most academic articles begin with definitions. However, leadership scholars can’t agree on a definition. Scholars can’t even agree on the realm of reality in which leadership might be defined. Definitions focus on traits of iconic individuals in extraordinary times or deconstruct phenomenon to determine strategic processes or competencies that might be mined and sold as leadership training.

While some articles focus on the outcomes or functions of leadership, others focus on the situation. Winston and Patterson (2006) write, “A leader is one or more people who selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more followers who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the followers to the organization’s mission and objective causing the followers to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational mission and objectives” (7). However, Silva (2016) focuses on the situations requiring leadership. “Although difficult, it is important to have a good definition of leadership. It is one of the terms most widely used in many areas of human activity, including armed forces, business, politics, religion, and sports “(Silva, 2016, 1). It is important to note that these perspectives reflect a colonizing approach and one that focuses on the roles of men in a Eurocentric culture. There is a weakness in “Western-oriented leadership in being rooted in the cultural history of mythical heroes and suggests that Western leaders are overly representative of the stereotype of white middle class males” (Long, 2017, 250).

The definitions provided see leadership as a person with inherent or teachable traits, or as an activity, something someone does. Some even focus on the relationship between leader and follower. But NONE provide a holistic approach. All Western Eurocentric Christian based models of leadership ignore the environment and cultures that do not view leadership as a single person activity to press progress. As the dominant literature focuses on iconic heroic individuals without broader context, limited paradigms emerge. The literature is separated into two main categories; teachable capabilities and inherent traits. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of leadership studies, spanning the history of the discipline have focused on men as the universal without stating that the sample or exemplar population was male. This among other limitations, such as the commodification of capabilities, has led to a crisis within leadership scholarship. “Leadership studies in the past few decades have come under increasing criticism for maintaining outmoded constructs and for bearing less than scholastic integrity” (Barker, 2001, 469).

Veering away from scholarly research into convention empirical information, leadership scholarship has shifted to reflect attainable systems of outcomes and controls. “Conventional understanding of leadership has been systemically constructed from other conventional knowledge about social hierarchies, and about their command and control structures. This knowledge is then used to validate leadership theories without further critical analysis” (Barker, 2001, 473). Barker (2001) continues, “Leadership theory has been based in the understandable but incorrect perception of a direct cause-effect relationship between the leader’s abilities, traits, actions, and leadership outcomes” (478).

These studies assume that leadership is granted by some system, therefore the true leadership lies within that system. “The assumption that the leader is the source of leadership also implies that the leader is defined by the position in a hierarchy” (Barker, 2001, 478). But this is a dangerous assumption. This hierarchical focus creates a demand for superior and subordinate roles.  Barker asserts, “The problem with current leadership study is that it continues to focus excessively on superior/subordinate relationships to the exclusion of several functions that leaders perform and to the exclusion of organizational and environmental variables that are crucial to effectively leadership performance” (474).

Reflecting on these common limitations and concepts, several other problematic elements become clear. De la Ray (2005 states, “I have found that there are two prevailing assumptions: the first is about leadership in general, that it is a construct that can be learned, and the second is about gender and leadership that women have a different leadership style compared to men” (5).  This assumes that gender roles are binary, static, and that leadership styles can be categorized using gender. Not only does this exclude a large portion of the nonbinary population, but also assumes that all genders fall into similar behaviours regardless of cultural influence or understanding. Even the constructs allocated to women speak of a Eurocentric Western colonizing competitive capitalistic patriarchal leadership construct. “This perspective points to a distinctive leadership style associated with women, with characteristics that include being more participatory, democratic, more sensitive, nurturing and caring. Other characteristics associated with women’s leadership include good conflict management and interpersonal skills, being excellent listeners and showing tolerance and empathy” (de la Ray, 2005, 5).

Even if we leave gender roles behind, traits associated most commonly with leadership fall into similar lines. “The traits commonly associated with leadership include: effective communication, task completion, responsibility, problem solving, originality, decision making, action taking, passion, vision, ethics, humour, self-awareness, confidence, courage, experience and power” (de la Rey, 2005, 5).

The construct of leadership as a commodity to be bought through a handbook comes from McClelland (1973). Seemiller and Murray (2013) revisit McClelland to examine the diffusion of McClelland like competency programs within higher education and other post-secondary training programs. “McClelland asserted in 1973 ‘Competency testing provided a better predictor of job success than intelligence testing and thus championed the competency movement’” (Seemiller and Murray, 2013, 33).  Seemiller and Murray (2013) found that, indeed, the competency approach permeates higher education, particularly business and public administration programs. But do these programs produce leaders or managers? The primary difference is that leaders do not necessarily exist within a hierarchy, but managers do.  “The assumption that the leader is the source of leadership also implies that the leader is defined by position in a hierarchy” (Barker, 2001, 478). If a leader is defined by their position within a hierarchy, then their vision is not their own, but is commuted from the top down. Compliance becomes more necessary than following.

Shifts in Leadership

However, there is a shift happening not only within leadership scholarship, but within a broader understanding of the implications of changing the focus of leadership. Shifting away from a heroic icon emphasis and diagnostic, leadership is beginning to see the forest.  Leadership is beginning to see the environments of leadership, time lines of leadership, community leadership, and leadership as a process not a product. Several authors are shifting leadership research attention. “First, leadership is a process that is not specifically a function of the person in charge. Second, leadership is a process of adaptation and of evolution; it is a process of dynamic exchange and the interchanges of value. Third, leadership is a process of energy, not structure” (Barker, 2001, 491).

Barker (2001) spends a lot of intellectual capital examining a process-oriented leadership stating, “Process and not structure is the vessel of leadership; chaos and complexity are not problems to be solved, they are the engines of evolution, adaptation, and renewal” (489).  But then also falls into the trap of trying to create a structure or framework.  “A new framework for leadership studies can be built upon a direct, phenomenological experience of leadership that occurs prior to the creation or adaptation of conventional knowledge” (Barker, 2001, 483).

Indigenous Leadership

There are other options. Historically misunderstood and devalued, scholars are taking a deeper look into Indigenous leadership. It’s becoming clearer this time because Indigenous authors are involved. Organizations and communities understand that a single leader has inevitable drawbacks. However, Indigenous leadership, or Ensemble leadership builds community, momentum, decreases burn out and is invariable inclusive. “Ensemble leadership means every follower is a potential leader. Further, the distinction between leader and follower is blurred, in favour of a more collectivist understanding which avoids the oppositional dualism of individual/group” (Rosile, Boje, and Claw, 2018, 2).

The problematic superior/subordinate relationship is gone and replaced by a collective community which makes decisions cooperatively. “Collectivism, dynamism, decenteredness, and heterarchy all are weak or missing in traditional leadership literature” (Rosile, Boje, and Claw, 2018, 2).

Similarly, others are included in the community such as nonhumans, expanding responsibility to include the environment as well as learning from the environment. Rosile, Boje, and Claw (2018) explain these dynamics and shifts, “Roles of Humans: The indigenous world is non-human centric. Roles of nonhumans: Nonhumans are barely recognized in traditional leader literature, and at best, merely part of the furniture. Indigenous wisdom not only recognizes nonhuman life but accords the natural world a starring role in providing wisdom and guidance. Relationships: We recognize that for many indigenous cultures, relationships are ends in themselves. Theories: Most traditional leadership literature still reflects cause-effect linearity, and the search for sameness and generalizability” (14).

Sandefur & Deloria (2018) hold up protests at Standing Rock as an example of ensemble Indigenous diversified human and nonhuman leadership. They state, “Leadership was everywhere, active in alternative – and often highly laudable forms” (126). “Questions are more readily talked to consensus rather than enunciated as a winning argument aimed at establishing the dominance of one position over another. It is less a question of convincing a powerful leader to take a particular action than convincing everyone of the rightness of a certain course” (Sandefur & Deloria, 2018, 130).

This unified vision and ensemble leadership allow for a level of unparalleled leadership. “Standing Rock suggested a more human set of leadership values: decentralization spirituality, self-deflecting humility, collectivism, the navigation of subgroup interests, and a sometimes contentious but epistemologically distinct diffusion of authority” (Sandefur & Deloria, 2018, 126).

Ogimaa Ekwe

While this focus on ensemble leadership is heartening, it misses the point. This scholarly paper removes an essential construct long silenced. It gives the impression that any group or ensemble can create this form of collectivism. However, as givers of life, the beings connected to the spirit world able to bring forth new souls from the other side and with the responsibility for that life; Indigenous leadership collectives have always been women. The grandmothers in circle were the leaders. Waters (2003) informs us that, “It is a native woman’s sacred obligation and responsibility to lead the way, through traditional women’s leadership and authority, to reclaiming the earth, humanity, and all our relations via an ecoethics of reciprocity” (xii).

It is important to note that this form of community guidance is not unique to any one area. This approach was common place across Turtle Island prior to contact and removal.

In 2018, I led a team of Indigenous women student researchers to examine Ogimaa Ekwe, or the Indigenous understanding of women in collective or ensemble leadership. It’s is first important to understand the translation and distinction between Ogimaa and leadership. While reading through the western Eurocentric, competitive, capitalistic, hierarchical, patriarchal forms of leadership, it becomes clear why this understated, cooperative, patient, matriarchal, matrifocal, long lens ensemble leadership is not examined. There are no heroes. There are no icons. There are only the core values of the Seven Sacred teachings, the value of the next seven generations, and all our relations. This is no simple system that can be packaged and commodified. This is a culture of Ogimaa, or stepping up to serve, then stepping back.

In 2018, we conducted 25 interviews with Manitoba Indigenous women from five communities. These women not only served as individuals in managerial roles of necessary institutions, they also served within the community in other capacities such as organizing ceremonies or solving community issues.

The women were asked 15 questions regarding their roles and Ogimaa. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Four key themes quickly emerged.

*Each had gone away to school or develop understanding, but felt compelled to return to serve their community. The community was paramount. The community was not merely a set of people, but people and nonhuman relations in a particular place that was THEIR land.

*Each relied heavily on community connections for insights and solutions. There was no official gathering of women to make decisions. But the women gathered for full moon ceremonies or sweats and in this environment collectively made decisions to act to bring about change. They enacted change in their places of employment and at home. These changes sent a powerful message to the community and the community listened.

*Each relied heavily on each other for shared knowledge, decision making, and support. None believed they had the knowledge or understanding to do all that must be done. They discussed, drummed, sang, and sweat together. This shared understanding and value-based approach to community creates a heterarchal structure, or ensemble leadership.

*None believed that their role was a rung on a ladder to more power, leadership, or control, but rather believed it was their job to do their best to groom and make room for the next woman in the circle, or Ogimaa Ekwe.

Braiding Work (Combining Concepts)

For more than 400 years leadership scholars have professed to understand the secrets of successful leadership. Hundreds of books have been written on the topic in the last few years alone. But the Western Eurocentric Christian Competitive Capitalistic hierarchical patriarchy systems continue to fail. Statues continue to topple. Organizations are realizing that managers are not leaders.

Scholars are shifting away from hero icon worship constructs of leadership. However, hundreds of programs still exist that claim to teach and train leadership utilizing this approach. The commodification of leadership is the paramount ethical concern about leadership. Other systems of leadership, ecosystems, cultural systems, ensemble systems of leadership place relationships and shy away from leadership remuneration models for a more holistic, engaged, and ethical approach to leadership. However, without a culture that values relationships with humans and nonhumans above all else, they systems will continue to fail. Even Indigenous scholars writing from a place of cultural understanding edit or omit key cultural and value information that inevitably renders what they offer paralyzed.

Indigenous leadership is not about any individual. Ensemble leadership, as some authors have called it, is a collectivist, community based, collaborative way to make decisions and establish priorities. However, even these must be deeply steeped in two ideas. First, it is clear that we must value the elder women (Mindemooyen) or she who hold the relations together, that must be communally at the center of all systems. Second, it is the Indigenous culture and teachings that create an environment based in love, respect, humility, truth, honesty, courage, and wisdom that ensures not just ethical pursuits, but pursuits with which people will rise and feel honoured to engage. Finally, it is the shared burden that allows individuals to avoid burn out that is so prevalent. When the circle is the medicine, there is no burn out.

Indigenous women have been silenced and dismissed by dominant hero icon-based systems of leadership that oppress the subordinate and devalue deeply held beliefs for efficiency and progress. But these prices are too high. It is only a return to deeply held seven sacred teachings, the grandmothers circle, and a desire for the thriving continuation of the next seven generations that will see true leadership. That is a leadership that is collective, supportive, inclusive, and reflective. We must seek and ask the grandmothers.

Learning Bundle

De La Rey, C. (2005). Gender, women and leadership. Agenda, 19(65), 4-11.

Dennis, M. K., & Bell, F. M. (2020). Indigenous women, water protectors, and reciprocal responsibilities. Social Work, 65(4), 378-386. Foss, S. K. (2015). Destination dissertation: A traveler’s guide to a done dissertation. Rowman & Littlefield.

Fredericks, B., & White, N. (2018). Using bridges made by others as scaffolding and establishing footings for those that follow: Indigenous women in the Academy. Australian Journal of Education, 62(3), 243-255.

Gram-Hanssen, I. (2021). Individual and collective leadership for deliberate transformations: Insights from Indigenous leadership. Leadership, 17(5), 519-541.

Hardison-Stevens, D. E. (2014). Knowing the indigenous leadership journey: Indigenous people need the academic system as much as the academic system needs indigenous people (Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University).

Huggins, J. (2004). Indigenous women and leadership: a personal reflection. Indigenous  Law Bulletin, 6(1), 5-7.

Lawrence, B., & Anderson, K. (2005). Introduction to” Indigenous Women: The State of Our Nations”. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 29(2), 1-8. Long, J. E. (2017). Framing indigenous leadership. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(6).

Maranzan, K. A., Sabourin, A., & Simard-Chicago, C. (2013). A Community-Based Leadership Development Program for First Nations Women: Revaluing and Honoring Women’s Strengths. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 4(2).

Makokis, L. J. (2001). Teachings from Cree Elders: A grounded theory study of Indigenous leadership. University of San Diego

Rosile, G. A., M Boje, D., & Claw, C. M. (2018). Ensemble leadership theory: Collectivist, relational, and heterarchical roots from indigenous contexts. Leadership, 14(3), 307-328.

Sandefur, G., & Deloria, P. J. (2018). Indigenous leadership. Daedalus, 147(2), 124-135.

Seemiller, C., & Murray, T. (2013). The common language of leadership. Journal of  Leadership Studies, 7(1), 33-45.

Voyageur, C., Brearley, L., & Calliou, B. (2014). Restorying indigenous leadership. Restorying indigenous leadership: Wise practices in community development, 329-342.

Waters, A. (2003). Introduction: Indigenous women in the Americas. Hypatia, 18(2), ix-xx.

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony. Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg:  Fernwood.

Young, A. E. (2006). Elders’ teachings on Indigenous leadership: Leadership is a gift (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

Example: The Bell Curve

 

The Bell Curve: Norms as Oppression

Dr. La Royce Batchelor

June 27, 2023

 

The Bell Curve: Norms as Oppression

Rough Draft

Introduction

As long as there has been education, there have been systems to assess the impact of education. Early on in the practice of mass education, students would ascend from one level to the next. But as class sizes grew, it became necessary to differentiate between levels of understanding. Grading systems were created. Systems are created by those in control of the system. Those in control of the systems often don’t realize how biased the systems of assessment are. The bell curve is one such system.

However, the bell curve, applied in a diverse and varied system becomes a tool of oppression. The bell curve has been implemented nearly universally across disciplines where it does not make sense. The bell curve has been used as an excuse to oppress and label. The bell curve has been used as the statistical backbone that justifies the adjustment of grades and expectations.

As an educator, I have on several occasions been instructed to utilize a bell curve for assessment. The justification has been that it negates grade inflation and provides statistical justification for assessment schemes. The bell curve, a binary system of analysis for averages, is a poor system to assess multivariate systems of assessment and analysis as it removes outliers and seeks to justify the mean.

What is the Bell Curve?

Someone mentions the bell curve and most people believe they understand what that means. The common perception is that the bell curve visually depicts normal distribution of nearly all things. The standard definition: “A bell curve is a type of graph that is used to visualize the distribution of a set of chosen values across a specified group that tend to have a central, normal values, as peak with low and high extremes tapering off relatively symmetrically on either side” (TechTarget 2023) is a bit misleading. It must first be understood that “normal” doesn’t exist. Normal has become a term used to describe the mean or average. This conflated with the idea of normal by its binary of abnormal produces a poor understanding of mean or average. Indeed, the bell curve does not depict normal distribution, but rather a distribution of means or averages. The confusion of denotative and connotative meanings produces poor implementation of the bell curve into areas where its use enforces a form of sorting into normal and abnormal categories. For example, “Most of our school is still based on ‘normal’ distributions and Newtonian thinking, which breaks down reality into independent variables and cause and effect. This view of the world has permeated multiple disciplines, from medicine to statistics and management” (Gore 2022). But is the ubiquitous use of the bell curve appropriate across so many disciplines where the dichotomy of normal and abnormal also produces prejudicial sorting?

There are alternatives to the bell curve. “Most human activities, as well as many disciplines from physics and biology to linguistics, finance, and computer science, follow a Pareto distribution instead of a ‘normal’ Gaussian curve” (Gore 2022). Pareto distribution examines ratios rather than averages. Pareto suggests that 80% of the intended results come from 20% of the sample.  For example, within management, 80% of the outstanding work comes from 20% of the employed. Another example might be that 80% of charitable donations come from 20% of the population. If the bell curve were used instead, the results would be skewed into averages creating an unclear depiction spreading distribution over a larger field misrepresenting contributions. “The joke that when Bill Gates walks into a bar, everyone in that bar becomes a millionaire on average, illustrates the point” (Gore 2022). The use of averages or normal distribution using the bell curve is not always appropriate or helpful but rather dramatically misrepresents information. The bell curve pulls all factors toward a central distribution or average or mean. “This model holds that most phenomena occur around the middle point, while few occur at either the high or low extreme ends. An assumption of bell curve distribution permeates educational projects on several dimensions that far exceed the scope of the infamous book” (Fendler & Musaffar 2008, 63). The “infamous book” referred to is The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray in 1994. This book utilized the bell curve to examine human behaviour, education, wealth distribution, geography and intellect. However, this book, is an example of where not to implement the bell curve.

Statistical Errors and Assumptions

Price and Cutler (2001) present a literature review of the flaws of Hernstein and Murray’s work including criticisms of definitions of race and intelligence, problematic sources of data, flawed interpretation of data, leaps of logic amounting to hasty generalization fallacy, and funding for the work from sources with specific agendas. “Hernstein and Murray created a specific picture of the world: The intelligent control over themselves and society. They naturally do well in school. They gain opportunities to continue their schooling. They have choices about what profession they pursue, and once they begin working, they make good salaries. This money gives them choices about where to live and what amenities they can buy. They band together, because they attend the same colleges, they become leaders and exert control over society” (Price & Cutler 2001, 478). Is this supported by quantitative data: Statistics? But aren’t statistics foolproof? Isn’t quantitative data objective?

In fact, no. All data is flawed. The way data is collected is often flawed. The nature of data gathering in general is flawed as in any sample, many potential responses are excluded, and outliers are discarded, invariably skewing results toward an inaccurate average. The field of quantitative criticism seeks to examine exactly that kind of sample skew. Within the bell curve, that sample skew shifts normal toward a white, male, Eurocentric, patriarchal, capitalistic, competitive average that is not exemplified in reality. Quantitative Criticism or Quantcrit is the analysis of quantitative methods for flaws of data and analysis. Statistics, in this way, have been historically used to validate white superiority and other inferiority. “The history of how quantitative epistemology came to be is rarely presented, discussed, or even mentioned in present day coursework” (Arellano 2022, 116). Such quantitative perceived infallibility perpetuates racism, sexist, and classist stereotypes. “For BIPOC communities, this usually means being compared to white peers. For women, this means being compared to men, and so on” (Arellano 2022, 116).

Considering that the bell curve omits outliers and establishes the mean or average as normal, disciplines have made structural decisions based on this flawed information. First, as stated earlier, the establishment of average as the norm indicates that anything outside that average or norm is abnormal. This produces a binary. Male and female, black and white, rich and poor, smart and stupid, college bound and labour bound, average and below average are the common binary systems created by the bell curve that are not accurate when placed in comparison to reality. “The bell curve supports three games (class systems) that are destructive” (Price & Cutler 2001, 488). The binary nature of the bell curve discards all other elements that may contribute to the establishment of the average. Privilege is not considered, but race is creating an inaccurate attribution system. “Hernstein and Murray attempted to turn back the wheels of time through asserting that there are significant differences between races and that these differences cannot be helped. The other frame that is sustained by the bell curve is that between men and women” (Price & Cutler 2001, 489). The bell curve asserts universal forms of intelligences. “Specifically, the creation of the construct of ‘intelligence’ was based on Eurocentric values and the subsequent creation of intelligence tests was designed to highlight the superiority of the white race, were normed on that population, and any responses that fell outside of that context were considered wrong and inferior” (Grant, et all. 2002, 348). Through this lens, it is evident that the quantitative sample for intelligence tests is dramatically skewed. Depending heavily on epistemicide, a single form of intelligence is measured, and averages created by, again, omitting outliers and producing a binary of normal and abnormal where, in reality, a universe of epistemologies and intelligences exists.

Systems of Oppression, Power and Privilege

Two groups receive inordinate advantages from the current use of the bell curve. Those two groups are people with power and people with privilege. “Power may be defined as people’s access to resources that enhance their changes of getting what they need in order to lead safe, productive, fulfilling lives” (David, Schroder, & Fernandez 2019, 1058). Power in this case is the power to justify the use of an oppressive tool within inappropriate circumstances. “Privilege may be defined as unearned power that is only easily or readily available to some people simply as a result of their social group membership” (David, Schroder, & Fernandez 2019, 1058).  In the case of the bell curve, privilege is being a part of the group embraced by the testing mechanisms which create opportunities based on scores of intelligence with a narrow scope. Normalizing an average and below average distribution creates an environment where there is a statistically validated expectation of failure. If there is a norm there must be an abnormal. “The assumption of the bell curve distribution allows for such concepts as acceptable rate of failure and the average student” (Fendler & Muzaffar 2008, 63). This produces an environment of the acceptance of failure as predictable, particularly within certain samples or populations. “Naturalization of the bell curve is unjust because it perpetuates the inevitability of failure; we hold that the idea of failure should be attributed to popularly ascribed features instead” (Fendler & Muzaffar 2008, 63). Education, psychology and many other disciplines now have an excuse to dismiss segments of the sample as the bell curve predicts their inevitable failure. This is particularly tragic in areas of health care and education.

Within education, there is an overwhelming pressure to meet the standards of average distribution. Those that fall outside that average are selected out of the normal distribution and labeled as other. The expectation of the norm is oppressive. Students are not only expected to perform intellectually within averaged or normal parameters, but also to behave within a culturally oppressive system of homogenized social structures. Classes are arranged by age, not ability. Bathrooms and activities are arranged by binary gender assignment. Characters in books, math problems, daily work are all presented in this normative lens.  Within education, students are pushed toward concepts of monetary gain rather than intellectual or epistemological diversity and contribution. “The paradigms of oppression in educational research that I consider here are a) the model of cultural hegemony, b) the analysis of oppression as a matter of capitalist accumulation, c) the model of oppression as a matter of regulatory discursive norms” (Lissovoy 2008, 83).

Racism in the Bell Curve

What is to be gained by the oppression of the non-average? A Eurocentric, patriarchal, capitalist system requires the subjugation of a segment of the population to allow for the accumulation of power and wealth by another segment of the population. In an educated social system, this must appear to be a natural or normative distribution in order to mask the oppression. The political and social economies of developed nations requires the silent subjugation of the non-average in order to establish the dominance of the oppressor. The political economy and social order prioritize certain types of intelligence testing school children for that propensity and leaving the rest with few alternatives. “In schools, this systemic racism results in a series of structural and pedagogical injustices, including tracking, retention, low expectations for students of color, and generally the privileging of the needs of White students” (Lissovoy 2008, 87). Standardized testing, assignments, universal rubrics and instruction result in the homogenization of the educational population. Students learn the industrial model of education preparing them for a life of labour. Only certain forms of intelligence are rewarded. The rest are denied and oppressed through systems of denial. “These standard methods of knowledge production and resulting knowledge products can cause harm amounting to epistemic violence” (Grant, et all. 2002, 350).

“Our ideas are shaped by the social order. Under slavery and the plantation economy, the knowledge of the period reflected that social order and the social arrangements therein. Such oppression was deemed to be normal” (Newby & Newby 1995, 14). In other words, we consider it normal for students of color to underperform in academics but expect them to excel within physical elements of education such as athletics. The athletic field becomes the new cotton field and the athlete the new unintelligent slave.  “As pointed out earlier, what passes for knowledge is not an isolated phenomenon but shaped by the political economy and social order of its day” (Newby & Newby 1995, 17).  And yet, concepts of normative testing, distribution, and a system of false averages dominates systems that produce oppression in the wake.  “Our purpose here is to criticize one of the fundamental justifications of educational sorting practices, namely, the belief that a normal curve distribution is a representation of real things in nature” (Fendler & Muzaffar 2008, 63).

Internalized Racism after the Bell Curve

Such systems reinforce the social systems of oppression. Those unsuccessful in school see few options after school. Some call this the “prison pipeline”. When the youth see no options for success, they turn to crime. They are caught, arrested, sentenced and imprisoned and the system congratulates itself on correctly identifying those with potential and those without. Such a system works so well because youth don’t see the oppression. As labels are layered daily in education, the youth internalize those labels. “Eventually, members of the oppressed racial groups may no longer need society to perpetuate such inferiorizing messages, because they begin inferiorizing themselves in overt and subtle ways” (David, Schroeder, & Fernandez 2019, 1066). Once individuals internalize those messages, they no longer need a system to categorize them, they do it themselves and to their own children.

Braiding Works

The bell curve is integrated as an objective measure of intelligence without critical questions about the skewed nature of statistics or the diversity of intelligence. Humans are compared to a fictional average that is redrafted as normal and by the binary nature also outlines abnormal. Dozens of authors have critically analyzed the bell curve and found it inappropriate as a tool of measurement. Still, the bell curve remains in use. The bell curve is used to justify concepts of unbiased assessment. However, statistically and rationally, researchers understand this is a falsehood. Scholars have demonstrated that the bell curve is skewed, racist, limiting, binary, and unethical. Its use leads to blanket racism and ablism. It eventually leads to internalized racism and intergenerational internalized racism. It allows institutions the false perception of objectivity. It allows higher education the perception of prestige of intellect. It perpetuates justifications of segregation. It condemns entire populations to lives less than they deserve mired in a system of oppression.

The bell curve and the misleading data it depicts, specifically in education, is a functional tool for oppression. Standardized tests are created by those representing the systems of power and privilege, negating other intelligences and epistemologies, normalizing a Eurocentric, patriarchal, capitalistic, competitive, colonizing, scarcity-based system.

A braid is strong because the strands are bonded together. Even if braided loosely, the braid is still stronger by far. If those not embraced by the averages and norms of the bell curve were to call its use into question and demand a detailed description of its implementation and scholarly justification of its utility, perhaps then, braided together, the bell curve could be revealed for what it is.

Bell Curve Learning Bundle

Arellano, L. (2022). Questioning the science: How quantitative methodologies perpetuate inequity in higher education. Education Sciences, 12(2), 116.

David, E. J. R., Schroeder, T. M., & Fernandez, J. (2019). Internalized racism: A systematic review of the psychological literature on racism’s most insidious consequence. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1057-1086.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Cracks in the bell curve: How education matters. Journal of Negro Education, 340-353.

De Lissovoy, N. (2008). Conceptualizing oppression in educational theory: Toward a compound standpoint. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 8(1), 82-105.

Fendler, L., & Muzaffar, I. (2008). The history of the bell curve: Sorting and the idea of normal. Educational Theory, 58(1), 63-82.

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury publishing USA.

Glymour, C. (1998). What went wrong? Reflections on science by observation and The Bell Curve. Philosophy of Science, 65(1), 1-32.

Grant, S., Leverett, P., D’Costa, S., Amie, K. A., Campbell, S. M., & Wing, S. (2022). Decolonizing school psychology research: A systematic literature review. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 346-365.

Kolluri, S., & Tichavakunda, A. A. (2022). The counter-deficit lens in educational research: Interrogating conceptions of structural oppression. Review of Educational Research, 00346543221125225.

Newby, R. G., & Newby, D. E. (1995). The bell curve: Another chapter in the continuing political economy of racism. American behavioral scientist, 39(1), 12-24.

Ohito, E. O., & Oyler, C. (2017). Feeling our way toward inclusive counter-hegemonic pedagogies in teacher education. Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Issues for research and practice, 183-198.

Price, J. D., & Cutler, C. E. (2001). Games intellectuals play: Authority, power, and intelligence. Journal of Black Psychology, 27(4), 477-495.

Roberts, P. (2008). Liberation, oppression, and education: Extending Freirean ideas.