Toward Peace in a Divided World: Educational Emasculation, Structural Violence, and the Futures of Black Boyhood

• In Event: Gender, Agency, and Education for Peace: Power, Resistance, and Identity in Divided Contexts

Proposal

Rationale
his scoping literature review, part of a larger study on African American boys’ education, draws on thirty-five peer-reviewed articles published between 1972 and 2024 to examine how structural inequities and cultural tensions shape the educational trajectories of Black boys in the United States. It introduces the concept of educational emasculation to name the racialized and gendered forms of symbolic and systemic violence that deny African American boys full access to peace, personhood, and academic success. Grounded in Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), and decolonial feminist thought (hooks, 2004; Mohanty, 2003), the review critically analyzes how disciplinary policies, curricular omissions, and deficit discourses reinforce marginalization. I argue that schools must be understood as spaces where social inequalities are both mirrored and maintained; peace in education must be redefined not as silence or control, but as justice, humanization, and relational dignity.
The purpose of this study is to interrogate how African American boys are systematically denied educational peace through disciplinary exclusion, criminalization, cultural silencing, and symbolic erasure. The current sociopolitical backlash against equity-centered pedagogies, anti-CRT movements, and surveillance of justice-oriented educators underscores the urgency of centering their experiences in educational discourse. While existing research has documented the racialized and gendered dimensions of Black boys’ schooling, none have conceptualized these experiences through what I term educational emasculation. This proposed framework names the symbolic stripping of leadership, agency, and emotional vulnerability as a form of institutional violence. Drawing on Connell’s (1995) theory of hegemonic masculinity, this analysis examines how Black boys are positioned as “failed” masculinities in schools that privilege white, middle-class, heteropatriarchal norms. Rather than advocating for assimilation into patriarchal structures, it follows bell hooks (2004) in envisioning alternative masculinities grounded in healing, relationality, and critical love. The aim is twofold: to name and analyze educational emasculation as a mode of violence, and to contribute to peacebuilding and rehumanization in education.

Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored in an integrated theoretical framework combining Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intersectionality, and decolonial feminist thought. CRT, as articulated by Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), provides the foundation for understanding how racism is embedded in schools, challenging race-neutral policies and exposing how disciplinary practices, curricular omissions, and school culture sustain white dominance. Complementary to this, Noguera’s (2003) work on structural inequities and discipline disparities offers empirical evidence of how these patterns operate in practice. Through this lens, exclusionary discipline, the erasure of Black histories, and the framing of Black boys as inherently problematic are recognized as systemic patterns of racial subordination.
Intersectionality, building on Crenshaw (1991) and Allen (2010), adds depth by showing how race, gender, and class intersect to shape the experiences of African American boys. It reveals how racial marginalization is compounded by gendered surveillance, producing distinctive forms of exclusion that mark Black boys as threats rather than learners.

Decolonial feminist thought, hooks (2004) and Mohanty (2003), critiques patriarchal and Western epistemologies that limit the emotional, cultural, and intellectual expression of minoritized youth. It interrogates how schools privilege monolithic masculinities aligned with white, middle-class norms, casting African American boys as “failed” versions of manhood. Rather than reinforcing these hierarchies, decolonial feminist perspectives open possibilities for reimagining masculinities rooted in care, relationality, and love. Together, these three perspectives provide a robust foundation for examining educational emasculation as structural and symbolic violence, framing the denial of educational peace as an intentional outcome of intersecting systems of oppression.
Methodology
Using the PRISMA-ScR framework (Tricco et al., 2018) and the PAGER framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2021), this review examined literature from ERIC, EBSCO, JSTOR, and PsycINFO. The search yielded 6,132 records; after removing duplicates and screening, I assessed 50 full-text articles, and 30 met the inclusion criteria. The selection prioritized highly cited, peer-reviewed works and foundational texts, alongside key national reports. The 1972–2025 timeframe captures shifts in policy and discourse from the post–Civil Rights era to the present. Thematic analysis identified dominant and counter-narratives concerning Black boys’ education, focusing on symbolic violence, structural exclusion, and emergent resistance frameworks.
Findings
National data reveal how structural inequities extend from broader social conditions into schools. Black males had the highest age-adjusted homicide rates in 2021 (52.9 per 100,000) and were twelve times more likely than White Americans to die from gun homicide in 2023 (CDC, 2021, 2023), despite an 8.9% decline that year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2025). These trends are mirrored in education, where Civil Rights Data Collection (2021) shows Black boys comprise only 8% of K–12 enrollment but account for 15% of in-school suspensions, 18% of out-of-school suspensions, and 18% of expulsions which undermines Article 26 of the UDHR (1948).
Research indicates that same-race teacher representation can reduce exclusionary discipline (Lindsay & Hart, 2024; Dee, 2004), yet Black male educators often work within systems constrained by bias and zero-tolerance policies (Reynolds, 2010). Context also matters: in predominantly White or Latino schools, Black boys report heightened racial microaggressions, including punitive reactions to African American Vernacular English and Hip Hop dress (Allen, 2010; Neal et al., 2003). Such experiences contribute to internalized racism and what Freire (2000) calls “the oppressor within.”
These disciplinary and cultural harms are reinforced by curricular erasure. hooks (1994) warns that silencing Black histories perpetuates inferiority; Mignolo (2011) and Mohanty (2003) urge decolonizing curricula to center marginalized epistemologies. This review conceptualizes these intersecting harms as educational emasculation—structural and symbolic violence that, akin to Jim Crow logics (Alexander, 2010; hooks, 2004), polices racialized masculinities and strips Black boys of agency, dignity, and leadership opportunities.

Significance
This study advances the 2026 CIES theme by naming educational emasculation as a form of structural and symbolic violence that denies Black boys dignity and educational justice. It reframes peace in education as justice, humanization, and relational dignity, aligning with critical peace education and decolonial frameworks. While U.S.-focused, the findings resonate in other postcolonial contexts where colonial legacies perpetuate racialized exclusion. By centering African American boys’ experiences, this study calls for transformative, rather than tokenistic, reform—reclaiming schools as spaces of freedom, dignity, and peace.

Authors

• Giovanni E Whyte, University of North Dakota

• Shallamar Goodwin-Richards, Florida State University