5 Busting Myths About Inequity: Theories for Computer Science Educators to Think With

Chapter Overview

This chapter offers some theoretical tools to think with as educators engage in equity-focused work. Specifically, the chapter examines the idea of intersectionality and a framework called “the Four I’s” that illuminates how inequity can be reproduced through systems of oppression at ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized levels. The chapter uses these theories as lenses to bust myths that are often given as explanations for why inequity exists in computer science (CS) and CS education (CS Ed).

Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, I can:

• Identify common myths in CS Ed and explain how these myths reproduce inequities.
• Apply the theory of intersectionality to make sense of inequities in CS and CS Ed.
• Apply the theory of the Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage to make sense of inequities in CS and CS Ed.

Key Terms:

ableism; classism; the Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage; ideological oppression; ideologies; imposter syndrome; institutional oppression; internalized oppression; interpersonal oppression; intersectionality; marginalization; matrix of domination; microaggression; racism; sexism; structural oppression; theory; tokenism; xenophobia

Emily’s Story

Emily is an elementary teacher who is concerned about equity at her school.^[1] She has heard several myths about students and recognizes how those myths contribute to the inequity she sees. Emily shared:

Emily noticed that when teachers believe this myth, they often don’t expose their students to CS in their classrooms, which “widens the inequity for these students as they go through their education.” Emily finds it “very frustrating to hear these sentiments” and wants to learn how she can speak back to these myths to support more equitable instruction at her school.

Theories as Tools to Think With

Understanding why and how inequities persist is an important part of working toward educational equity. People offer many different explanations for why there are inequities in CS and CS Ed. Some of these explanations may sound like the following:

• Computer science is for “techies.” It’s a hard, technical field, so not everyone is cut out for it, which is why you don’t see a lot of diversity.
• If tech companies could find enough women and racially minoritized coders with the right skills, they’d hire them. It’s not about bias, it’s about qualifications.
• Since CS tends to attract certain types of students, like male students, there’s no need to spend extra time or resources supporting them. They already have an advantage.

While these explanations may make sense on the surface, there are a lot of false assumptions embedded in them. For example, the explanations suggest that participating in computing requires a certain set of abilities or identities but overlook the fact that anyone with interest and support can thrive in CS. They collapse differences between individuals, assuming that everyone from a certain group is the same, and they place blame on individuals without acknowledging systemic patterns that contribute to inequity.

Despite the fact that these statements are all actually myths based on incomplete information, these and other stories about inequity in CS have become second nature in CS educational spaces. There are many pitfalls, traps, tropes, and detours that people working toward equitable outcomes can fall into when they make assumptions like those described above (Dugan, 2021). To reach our goal of equity-centered CS Ed, we need to constantly examine the assumptions we are making about our students, CS as a discipline, and our classrooms.

Theories are one tool we can use to examine our assumptions. Developed by scholars, educators, activists, and people in their everyday lives, theories offer explanations for phenomena that can help us interpret what is happening around us so we can more effectively take action. In this chapter, we consider two theories: intersectionality and the Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage (ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized).

Sometimes, the writing that describes theories from academic disciplines like sociology, law, and education can use dense language. We attempt to provide examples and explanations to make the theories presented in this chapter more relevant to CS educators and provide a glossary for support. Engaging with theoretical ideas and lingo, even though it can be challenging, can be an important way to support equity-focused growth, because it helps us take up new perspectives outside of our own experiences.

As we explore the theories of intersectionality and the Four I’s in this chapter, we use them to challenge common myths you might hear in the media, from administrators and colleagues, or even from students themselves. By using theory and facts to demystify these myths, we can’t promise that working toward equitable changes in CS Ed will get easier. However, if we better understand the systems that have led to pervasive issues and challenges in the field, we can better understand how to work to change those systems and guide our students to be change agents too. Hopefully, by thinking with us about these theories and myths, you’ll be prepared with a powerful response the next time you hear a myth being perpetuated.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality starts with a recognition of the fact that people’s identities are multifaceted and complex. It also draws on the idea that identities are socially constructed and that people can experience oppression and marginalization related to particular identities, while other identities afford access to social power and privilege. Building on these two principles, intersectionality as a theory argues that different aspects of people’s identity (e.g., disability, gender, race) overlap and intersect in ways that result in forms of oppression that cannot be understood or addressed by focusing on each identity separately (Crenshaw, 1991; Collins, 2019).

The concept of intersectionality has long been used in efforts to work toward social justice — even before legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term in the late 1980s. For example, Sojourner Truth was a formerly enslaved Black abolitionist who lived in the United States in the mid-1800s. During her life, emancipation efforts gave Black men the right to vote and suffrage movements worked to grant the right to vote to white women. Truth named how her identity as a Black woman left her overlooked by both of these movements (The Sojourner Truth Project, 1851; Collins, 2019).

Truth’s experience illustrates how social dynamics marginalize Black women in unique ways that cannot be described or understood by paying attention to just race or gender in isolation. Scholars have shown how intersectionality is important when working for social justice because everyone has different overlapping identities that are perceived in different ways by society. Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) used this analogy to explain why intersectionality matters:

Consider an analogy for traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions. Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happened in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination. (p. 149)

Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins calls these intersecting systems of power the matrix of domination (Combahee River Collective, 1977; Collins, 2019). The matrix of domination creates dynamics that produce distinct and interlocking forms of oppression based on identities like gender and race. Those who hold multiple marginalized identities experience domination and oppression at the intersections of their identities.

Intersectionality can help educators recognize why equity-based initiatives might fall short. Often, equity initiatives consider the marginalization a student might face in an “additive” way. For example, an initiative might assume that by addressing issues of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and class discrimination separately, they will have helped a student who faces all three issues. But intersectionality emphasizes how our identities don’t just get added on top of each other. Instead, our identities intersect and overlap to result in distinct lived experiences, oppression, biases, and access or lack of access to power and privilege (Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2021).

Sometimes, the intersectional nature of identity gets obscured. For example, a Computer Science for All (CSforAll) initiative might consider statistics about girls’ pass rates for the AP CS Principles (AP CSP) course to measure progress toward broadening participation in CS. In 2022, 61% of girls and 64% of boys passed the AP CSP exam (Ericson, 2023). These numbers make it seem like the gender gap is closing. However, looking at the statistics in terms of gender and race highlights how large disparities still exist. In 2022, 70% of white girls passed the exam, but only 32% of Black girls, 38% of Hispanic girls, and 34% of Pacific Islander girls who took the exam passed.^[3] Looking at the data only through gender or only through race obscures how racially minoritized girls continue to be marginalized in CS at the intersections of their racial and gender identities.

Mythbusting Time!

The Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage

One myth about education in general is that just having “bad actors” or individuals change their behaviors would fix inequities. But the reality is more complicated than that. Inequities are shaped by interlocking systems of oppression and advantage like ableism, classism, racism, or sexism. These cultural, economic, and political systems were established during periods of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism and continue to shape society today (Tatum, 2003). They reproduce different forms of identity-based discrimination and exclusion through a combination of individual prejudiced action and power embedded in institutional structures (Bell, 2013). They are systems of oppression and advantage because some identities are afforded a more dominant status in society and provide people with those identities with power and privilege.

This differential distribution of power creates social hierarchies (Wilkerson, 2020). For example, in the United States, racial hierarchies afford people racialized as white with access to particular social privileges while racially marginalized people face discrimination, exclusion, and oppression around their racial identities. Members of groups who are granted more privileged status may be socialized not to talk about or even notice these -isms, while members of marginalized groups may experience their direct consequences frequently (Tatum, 2003). How hierarchies are structured and how individuals experience injustice as a lived reality vary across cultures and countries. However, because benefits and privileges are embedded in social structures, inequities get (re)produced across social contexts.

The Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage (Four I’s) is a theory that helps us understand how systems of oppression and advantage are produced across multiple layers of society: ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized (Chinook Fund, n.d.). Table 1 summarizes the Four I’s and their application to CS and CS Ed.

Table 1
The Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage

Dimension	Definition	Computer Science Application	CS Industry Example
Ideological Oppression	Dominant sets of beliefs and values that justify and maintain systems of oppression; often disguised as “common sense”	The myth of meritocracy in tech suggests that anyone can succeed if they work hard enough. This ignores systemic barriers faced by marginalized groups.	The myth of the solo “genius” tech-company founder can influence who is considered a strong leader and discount the contributions and leadership styles of those who don’t fit the Steve Jobs/Mark Zuckerberg Silicon Valley mold.
Institutional Oppression	Structures and policies within institutions that disadvantage certain groups and benefit others	Algorithmic bias in facial recognition software leads to higher misidentification rates for racially minoritized people.	A 2019 study found that facial recognition software from Amazon, Rekognition, had a 53% higher error rate for identifying racially minoritized women when compared to white men (Buolamwini, 2019).
Interpersonal Oppression	Prejudice and discrimination experienced by individuals or small groups in interpersonal interactions	Colleagues who question the programming expertise of a gender-marginalized coworker enact microaggressions in tech work spaces.	A venture capitalist is influenced by societal messages about racially minoritized women as less savvy and refuses to invest in a startup led by young Latine women, attributing it to a lack of “market potential.”
Internalized Oppression	Acceptance of negative stereotypes about one’s own group, leading to self-doubt and discouragement	Marginalized groups underestimate their coding abilities due to stereotypes about their lack of aptitude in STEM fields.	A study found that college women felt less confident in their coding skills than college men, even when their actual skill levels were comparable (Beyer, 2014).

Dynamics at all four levels of oppression shape CS education and computing professions. This means that working toward equitable outcomes in CS Ed requires more than just having people change by taking up equity-minded behaviors and mindsets. Real change also requires disrupting what we assume to be common sense, changing the policies and practices of institutions, and attending to how resources and benefits get distributed across society. The Four I’s are not exhaustive, but they can offer us a way to think about the interconnected systems that support oppression and advantage in society. Looking at each one individually, we can use them to debunk common myths in CS Ed.

Ideological Oppression and Inequity

One important way that inequity is maintained is through ideologies, or systems of ideas that circulate in society. Dominant ideologies that reproduce inequity are harmful because they perpetuate ideas that reinforce the supremacy of certain groups over others and contribute to ideological oppression. Ideologies are often hard to recognize because they get embedded in narratives and myths that are accepted as “common sense” by society.^[4]

For example, in many CS classrooms, solving problems quickly and without asking questions is associated with intelligence. Valuing the ability to solve problems quickly may at first seem like “common sense.” But it actually draws on several ideologies that reproduce inequities. This unspoken value is rooted in Western cultural ideologies that equate time with money as part of a capitalist system. Valuing quick problem solving also promotes ableist ideologies that discriminate against neurodivergent students who process information differently and at different speeds. It may also marginalize bi/multilingual learners who draw on their full linguistic repertoires to complete a task. Prioritizing this value in CS classrooms can create inhospitable conditions for learners, creating competitive environments that reproduce other ideologies like individualism, which values individual achievement over collective growth.

Amanda, an elementary CS teacher, shared an example of ideological oppression in her context. She explained: “In my school, a well-spoken student is automatically thought of as ‘smarter.’ People assume that they must have ‘a well-educated family.’” Amanda named narratives that draw on language ideologies that equate intelligence and education with certain, privileged language practices. People often equate being “well-spoken” to using “standard” or “academic” English, and “well-educated” with having attended college, despite there being many ways of communicating and learning. Amanda challenged this ideological influence as she reflected that “I don’t think enough time is spent thinking about [how] we can call people into these spaces and make our teaching more culturally responsive and relevant to families.” Amanda’s call to think about how to create learning environments that value and center students’ language and cultural practices could be one way to contest ideological oppression in her space.

Mythbusting Time!

Institutional Oppression and Inequity

Ideologies that contribute to inequity often become embedded into policies and routines in social structures. These practices create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for different groups of people. Oppression can be institutionalized (reproduced at individual institutions like a single school or a single tech company) or structural (present across similar institutions over time, like schooling in general or the technology industry).

Institutional and structural oppression in the tech industry can be seen in how African American, Native American, and Latine women may become stuck in low-level positions in tech companies. Despite well-intended recruitment and retention policies, structural barriers may prevent racially marginalized people from advancing in their careers (McKinsey & Company, 2024; Smith, 2022).

In CS Ed, institutionalized inequity may appear in recruitment policies for CS Ed programs. For example, a school might have a policy that requires students to have received high grades, completed prerequisite courses, and have a “squeaky clean” disciplinary record to participate in CS classes. This kind of policy is advantageous for students who have been able to afford tutoring and support to succeed in courses — often those from more affluent households. However, it disadvantages students who did not have the same opportunities and who may have been disciplined more frequently. This kind of policy that institutionalizes inequity at one school becomes structural if similar practices occur at schools across the country and over time.

In fact, these kinds of structural systems of disadvantage and oppression do exist and work to exclude racially minoritized students, bi/multilingual students, and students with disabilities from CS learning opportunities. Across schools in the United States, Black and Latine students are disciplined at higher rates than their white peers (Losen, 2011; Noguera, 2003). This means that policies requiring a squeaky clean record to participate in CS may exclude Black and Latine students who would otherwise be interested in and successful at CS. Similarly, bi/multilingual students and racially minoritized students are overrepresented in special education programs (Annamma et al., 2013). Structural policies that situate CS as an enrichment course may mean that students in special education programs are excluded from CS opportunities as well (Wille et al., 2017). These institutionalized and structural layers of oppression create a situation where CS courses come to be treated as clubhouses, reserved for students who meet particular standards for what an average or typical CS student looks, sounds, and acts like (Margolis & Fisher, 2003). As a result, inequitable access to CS educational opportunities continues.

Dawn, another elementary CS teacher, described how institutional oppression reproduced inequity at her school. She shared:

Dawn identified several institutional factors at play in her context: the budget cuts that eliminated the CS program, the expectation for teachers to incorporate CS into an already full curriculum with limited time, and the lack of training for teachers to feel confident teaching CS. All of these institutional factors have contributed to inequitable access to CS at Dawn’s school, despite the fact that at one time, all children did have CS opportunities.

Mythbusting Time!

Interpersonal Oppression and Inequity

Inequities that are based in ideologies and embedded in institutional and structural policies are often felt most oppressively in individual and group interactions as a form of interpersonal oppression. People may assume that interpersonal issues are simply “bad people” acting on their prejudices and biases, but interpersonal oppression goes deeper than that. Interpersonal layers of inequity are reproduced in everyday actions when people make racist or sexist jokes or share comments that perpetuate stereotypes about groups of people. It also occurs in interactions like harassment, threats, violence, and police brutality against marginalized groups. Interpersonal forms of advantage can happen when someone privileges a member of a particular group over others in interactions like hiring and promoting decisions or when approving a loan. Ideologies and institutional and structural policies shape people’s interpersonal interactions and vice versa, creating a continual feedback loop.

Interpersonal oppression is shaped by power. While all people can act on prejudiced ideas that harmfully assert the supremacy of some groups over others, not all people’s actions are socially powerful in the same way (Kendi, 2019; Leonardo, 2007). When individuals with social and institutional power act on prejudice in ways that draw on power, they contribute to the harmful reproduction of society’s -isms in a way that is not possible for those who lack social or institutional power. For example, in 2020, a white woman called the police on a Black man in New York City’s Central Park for doing nothing more than “birding while Black” (Gross, 2023). She could marshall and rely on the power of law enforcement in ways that marginalized individuals may not feel safe doing, even when reporting actual hate crimes (Devine et al., 2018).

Interpersonal forms of oppression occur in CS Ed too. CS educators may wittingly or unwittingly hold lower expectations for their racially minoritized students, their students with disabilities, or their bi/multilingual students learning English. These expectations may be revealed in their interactions with or about students. For example:

• A teacher might comment to another teacher, “Oh that Spanish-speaking student is so well spoken,” reproducing the assumption that this student is an exception to a norm.
• A teacher might give the benefit of the doubt to a student who has a missing homework assignment because they perceive them as coming from a “good” family (e.g., with two professional, college-educated parents or caregivers).
• A teacher might want to raise awareness about ableism and unwittingly tokenizes a student with a disability by asking them to “represent” people with disabilities during class discussions.
• Male students might exclude their female and non-binary peers from contributing to a group project and question their capabilities.

While our interpersonal interactions can convey negative biases that reproduce inequitable power dynamics, they can also be used to contest inequities. As CS educators, we can work to understand our negative biases. We can strive to have interactions with students and families that are driven by a spirit of curiosity and openness rather than by stereotypes we might have been socialized into. When appropriate, we can call our colleagues in when we see interpersonal oppression happening around us and invite them to reflect on their own actions as a step toward disrupting inequity.

Amanda, the elementary CS teacher who shared about the ideological oppression she saw in her school, also recognized interpersonal oppression in her experiences with her students that resulted in lowering expectations for her bi/multilingual learners. She described:

By adjusting her interpersonal interactions with her students to center their expertise and challenge them, Amanda was able to disrupt some of the inequities in her space and transform her students’ experiences with CS.

Mythbusting Time!

Internalized Oppression and Inequity

Systems of oppression can also include internalized oppression felt by individuals. Individuals who hold identities that are marginalized are often socialized, sometimes harshly, into the idea that they have no place in CS and related fields. Similarly, those who hold identities that are afforded power and privilege are socialized to the idea that they do belong in CS and “others” don’t.

How do students develop and internalize these deficit views of themselves? The other three I’s can contribute to the internalized layer of oppression. The ideological myth of meritocracy positions success as solely linked to skill or effort, so if students struggle in CS courses, they might internalize their difficulties as a personal weakness. This interpretation can create doubt in their abilities and erode confidence. Interpersonal interactions may also contribute to internalized oppression as students may hear messages from peers, family members, educators, and even guidance counselors about what they would or would not be good at, leading them to avoid CS courses. Institutionalized policies like those that require prerequisites for CS courses (e.g., calculus or algebra) can lead a student to second-guess their abilities even though skills from the prerequisite courses may not be required to succeed in the CS course.

Internalized oppression is often based on harmful stereotypes and assumptions (McGarr et al., 2023). The effects of negative stereotypes are often addressed, but expecting students to live up to positive stereotypes like the model minority myth described earlier can be just as damaging to students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and agency (McGee, 2018). Research has shown that just knowing that a stereotype exists and being afraid of confirming that stereotype can interfere with learning and performance (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Anything that makes stereotypes more apparent in a setting, like asking students to identify their race or ethnicity on an exam, makes learners more likely to respond in ways that reinforce the stereotype (Steele, 2011). Introductory “weed out” courses that are intentionally designed to push out students who are considered less likely to succeed in CS are one example. Historically, students who are “weeded out” have been disproportionately Black, Indigenous, Latine, and female (Weston et al., 2019).

While internalized forms of oppression can be particularly harmful and pervasive, educators can also have a great deal of influence when it comes to students’ mindsets. We can support our students to think critically about and resist messages that frame them and their communities in deficit ways. We can also expose them to role models that represent where they come from and advocate for policies that foster their budding interests in CS fields.

CS teacher Nicole described how reflecting on her own biases helped her recognize how interpersonal and internalized oppression might be connected in her work. Nicole noticed that she might be making assumptions that contribute to inequitable interpersonal interactions. Nicole shared:

Nicole recognized how rather than stereotyping teachers, she could address her own assumptions and biases. Then, she could intentionally plan for interactions that might explore and potentially alleviate some of the teachers’ concerns that could come from internalized negative views about CS.

Mythbusting Time!

Revisiting Emily’s Story

As Emily learned about the theories discussed in this chapter, she recognized that the myth about multilingual students at her school not being able to do CS was connected in part to an institutionalized layer of inequity. Thankfully, the administration at Emily’s school also recognized this. Emily described how the admin “are very adamant about students receiving CS education and have now tied parent events to the CS courses. Parents are invited a few times a year to see what their child has worked on and the events are very well attended.” Connecting CS learning to a schoolwide event helped disrupt institutional inequity because the teachers at Emily’s school have become more diligent in implementing CS for all students. Emily concluded that “the students LOVE showing off their work and the parents are really thankful for the CS education their children are receiving.” Emily’s experience shows how using theories can help us recognize how inequities are being reproduced in our environments so that we can work to disrupt them.

Reflection Questions:

1. How does applying the theories of intersectionality and the Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage help you make sense of inequities in CS Ed? How might you apply these theories in your contexts?
2. What myths exist in the spaces you work in? How can you use the theories in this chapter to understand and combat those myths?

Takeaways for Practice:

• Reflect on how intersectionality applies to you and how your intersectional identities influence your work as an educator. Consider changes you might make in your setting to better attend to the intersectional identities of students.
• Identify one myth in this chapter that is relevant to your work. Apply the Four I’s to determine whether that myth is influenced by ideological, institutional/structural, interpersonal, or internalized oppression (or some combination of the four). Create an action plan to start addressing this myth in your setting.

Glossary

Term	Definition
ableism	Implicit or explicit social preference for nondisabled bodies and minds that creates prejudice and oppression of disability and disabled people (Shew, 2020).
classism	A system of prejudice and discrimination in favor of people with higher socioeconomic status (e.g., upper middle-class) and against people with lower socioeconomic status (e.g., lower class).
Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage	A theory that illustrates how systems of oppression and advantage (like ableism, classism, or racism) are produced across multiple layers of society. The Four I’s are ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized. (See Bell, 2013; Chan & Coney, 2020; Chinook Fund, n.d.; Kuttner, 2016.)
ideological oppression	Dominant sets of beliefs and values that justify and maintain systems of oppression; often disguised as “common sense.”
ideologies	Systems of ideas that circulate in society. Dominant ideologies perpetuate ideas that reinforce the supremacy of certain groups over others.
imposter syndrome	Feelings and beliefs of intellectual and professional inferiority or incompetence; “a perceived self-doubt in one’s abilities and accomplishments compared with others, despite evidence to the contrary” (Walker & Saklofske, 2023, n.p.).
institutional oppression	Structures and policies within institutions that disadvantage certain groups and benefit others.
internalized oppression	Acceptance of negative stereotypes about one’s own group, leading to self-doubt and discouragement.
interpersonal oppression	Prejudice and discrimination experienced by individuals or small groups in interpersonal interactions.
intersectionality	A theory that recognizes how people’s different identities (e.g., disability, gender, race) overlap and intersect, creating access to privilege or resulting in oppression in ways that cannot be understood or addressed by considering each identity separately (Crenshaw, 1991; Collins, 2019).
marginalization	The social process of excluding or oppressing individuals who hold identities that are devalued or differ from society’s “ideal” norm.
matrix of domination	Intersecting systems of power that produce distinct and interlocking forms of oppression (Combahee River Collective, 1977; Collins, 2019).
microaggression	Common, everyday slights (verbal or behavioral) toward socially marginalized groups or individuals; microaggressions may be intentional or unintentional, but they still significantly impact those receiving them.
racism	A system of prejudice and discrimination based on race that privileges individuals racialized as white and oppresses racially minoritized individuals.
sexism	A system of prejudice and discrimination based on gender and gender identity that privileges men and oppresses women, non-binary, and gender-fluid individuals.
structural oppression	Historically maintained structures and policies across institutions (e.g., the CS industry, education) that disadvantage certain groups and benefit others over time.
theory	A set of ideas based on scholarship and practice that are used to explain and interpret how society works.
tokenism	Treating a single individual as representative of an entire group or allowing the presence of a few people with marginalized identities to give an illusion of representation and inclusion.
xenophobia	A system of prejudice and discrimination against foreigners.

References

Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5-6), 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345322

Bell, J. (2013). The four “I’s” of oppression. Begin Within. https://beginwithin.info/articles-2/

Beyer, S. (2014). Why are women underrepresented in Computer Science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education, 24(2-3), 153-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2014.963363

Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171-200). Ablex Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400688362.0011

Bui, Q., & Miller, C. C. (2016, Feb 25). Why tech degrees are not putting more Blacks and Hispanics into tech jobs. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/upshot/dont-blame-recruiting-pipeline-for-lack-of-diversity-in-tech.html

Buolamwini, J. (2019, Jan 25). Response: Racial and gender bias in Amazon Rekognition—Commercial AI system for analyzing faces. Medium. https://medium.com/@Joy.Buolamwini/response-racial-and-gender-bias-in-amazon-rekognition-commercial-ai-system-for-analyzing-faces-a289222eeced

Carey, R. L. (2024). Criminalized or stigmatized? An intersectional power analysis of the charter school treatment of Black and Latino boys. Urban Education, 00420859241227947. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241227947

Chan, E. L., & Coney, L. (2020). Moving TESOL forward: Increasing educators’ critical consciousness through a racial lens. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.550

Chen, G. A., & Buell, J. Y. (2018). Of models and myths: Asian (Americans) in STEM and the neoliberal racial project. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(5), 607-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377170

Chinook Fund. (n.d.) 4 I’s of oppression. https://chinookfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Supplemental-Information-for-Funding-Guidelines.pdf

Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478007098

Combahee River Collective. (1977). The Combahee River Collective statement. BlackPast. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139-167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Daniels, J., Nkonde, M., & Mir, D. (2019). Advancing racial literacy in tech: Why ethics, diversity in hiring & implicit bias trainings aren’t enough. Data and Society Fellowships Program. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Racial_Literacy_Tech_Final_0522.pdf

Devine, C., Byington, L., & News21 Staff. (2018, Aug 16). Millions are victims of hate crimes, though many never report them. Center for Public Integrity. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/millions-are-victims-of-hate-crimes-though-many-never-report-them/

Dugan, J. (2021). Beware of equity traps and tropes. Educational Leadership, 78(6), 35-40.

Ericson, B. (2023, April 10). AP CS data for 2022. Computing for Everyone. https://cs4all.home.blog/

Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2021). Introduction to intersectional qualitative research (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.

Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

Gross, T. (2023, June 12). Central Park birder Christian Cooper on being “a Black man in the natural world.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/12/1181314626/central-park-birder-christian-cooper-on-being-a-black-man-in-the-natural-world

Jin, C. H. (2021, May 25). 6 charts that dismantle the trope of Asian Americans as a model minority. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/999874296/6-charts-that-dismantle-the-trope-of-asian-americans-as-a-model-minority

Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.

Kuttner, P. J. (2016). Hip-hop citizens: Arts-based, culturally sustaining civic engagement pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 86(4), 527-555. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.4.527

Leonardo, Z. (2007). Teaching whiteness in a multicultural context and color-blind era [Video-stream]. University of British Columbia Centre for Culture, Identity and Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lma988cWi5A

Losen, D. J. (2011). Discipline policies, successful schools, and racial justice. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/discipline-policies

Margolis, J. & Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT Press.

McGarr, O., Exton, C., Power, J., & McInerney, C. (2023). What about the gatekeepers? School principals and school guidance counselors attitudes towards computer science in secondary schools. Computer Science Education, 33(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1953296

McGee, E. (2018). Black genius, Asian fail: The detriment of stereotype lift and stereotype threat in high-achieving Asian and Black STEM students. AERA Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418816658

McGee, E. O., & Bentley, L. (2017). The equity ethic: Black and Latinx college students reengineering their STEM careers toward justice. American Journal of Education, 124, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1086/693954

McKinsey & Company. (2024, September 17). Women in the workplace 2024: The 10th-anniversary report. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace

Noble, S. U., & Roberts, S. T. (2019). Technological elites, the meritocracy, and postracial myths in Silicon Valley. In R. Mukherjee, S. Banet-Weiser, & H. Gray (Eds.), Racism Postrace (pp. 113-129). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478003250-007

Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4204_12

Radke, S. C., Vogel, S. E., Ma, J. Y., Hoadley, C., & Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (2022). Emergent bilingual middle schoolers syncretic reasoning in statistical modeling. Teachers College Record, 124(5), 206-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221104141

Rankin, Y. A., Thomas, J. O., & Erete, S. (2021). Black Women Speak: Examining Power, Privilege, and Identity in CS Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 21(4), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3451344

Shah, N. (2021, Mar 19). Asians are good at math? Why dressing up racism as a compliment just doesn’t add up. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/asians-are-good-at-math-why-dressing-up-racism-as-a-compliment-just-doesnt-add-up-128731

Shew, A. (2020). Ableism, technoableism, and future AI. IEEE Xplore, 39(1), 40-85. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2020.2967492

Smith, R. A. (2022, July 31). Black and Hispanic employees often get stuck at the lowest rung of the workplace. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-hispanic-employees-stuck-lowest-rung-workplace-11659131490

Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. W. W. Norton & Company.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. Basic Books.

The Sojourner Truth Project. (1851). The Sojourner Truth project. https://www.thesojournertruthproject.com/

Tiku, N. (2021, March 4). Google’s approach to historically Black schools helps explain why there are few Black engineers in Big Tech. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/04/google-hbcu-recruiting/

Tucker, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K–12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K–12 task force curriculum committee. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2593247

Vogel, S. (2020). Translanguaging about, with, and through code and computing: Emergent bi/multilingual middle schoolers forging computational literacies. [Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York]. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5015&context=gc_etds

Walker, D. L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2023). Development, factor structure, and psychometric validation of the impostor phenomenon assessment: A novel assessment of imposter phenomenon. Assessment, 30(7), 2162-2183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221141870

Weston, T. J., Seymour, E., Koch, A. K., & Drake, B. M. (2019). Weed-out classes and their consequences. In E. Seymour & A. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation and loss in undergraduate STEM education, (pp. 197-243). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_7

Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste: The origins of our discontents. Random House.

Wille, S., Century, J., & Pike, M. (2017). Exploratory research to expand opportunities in computer science for students with learning differences. Computing in Science and Engineering, 19(3), 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2017.43

 

Resource 1: Applying the Theories in Action