powell, j., Menendian, S. & Ake, W. (2019). Targeted universalism: Policy & practice. Haas Institute for a Fair & Inclusive Society, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from https://belonging.berkeley.edu/targeteduniversalism
The main idea: “Raise everybody up and eliminate inequities” (from Race, Power, and Policy reading)
Universal policies provide the same benefits or protections to everyone. Examples: social security and minimum wage.
Strength: these policies gain widespread support because of their broad appeal to a diversity of people.
Limitation: these policies can’t root out group-based discrimination, which may lead to greater inequality among groups. (For example, aren’t undocumented immigrants excluded from social security and minimum wage?) Resources that are more needed by one group may end up in the hands of a group that is already better off.
Targeted policies provide benefits or protections based on group membership or status. Examples: SNAP (conditions benefits on income level), the Americans with Disabilities Act (requires public accessibility for disabled groups), and Affirmative Action (focuses on historically disadvantaged groups).
Strength: these policies support groups that have been unfairly and historically excluded from benefits and protections.
Limitation: these policies struggle to gain widespread support because of “the critique that they unfairly favor constituent groups over the public good by directing resources to marginalized groups who are already subjected to unfair stereotypes.”
Targeted Universalism sets universal goals that can be achieved through targeted approaches. This approach supposedly reminds people that “we are all part of the same social fabric.”
Step 1: define a universal goal. Example: 100% proficiency in 8th grade math.
Step 2: measure how the overall population fares relative to the universal goal. Example: we may discover how only 80% of 8th graders are proficient at grade level math.
Step 3: measure the performance of population segments relative to the universal goal (i.e. understand disparities). Example: even though 80% of 8th graders are proficient, only 70% of Latinx students are proficient.
Step 4: understand how structures and other factors support or impede groups’ progress toward the universal goal. Example: understand how school materials and lessons designed for first-language English speakers may impede on Latinx students’ learning.
Step 5: Implement targeted strategies to that every group can achieve the universal goal based on their needs and circumstances. Example: ESL tutoring for Latinx students, special needs instructional assistants for students with learning differences, etc.
Targeted Universalism “is like equity 2.0” because equity often normalizes what the dominant group has as the ideal, focuses on closing the disparity, and then assumes the work is done. “What if the dominant group doesn’t have what they need either,” and the ideal could be improved for everyone?
This becomes a “bridging strategy” because it unites groups with varying challenges towards a shared goal. It draws attention away from individualized problems and turns that attention towards the structures that perpetuate the problems and disparities.
Questions: Is Targeted Universalism affective because it plays into Interest Convergence (CRT)?
Is Targeted Universalism without reparations simply interest convergence?
Can all groups share in a truly ideal universal goal, or will that ideal always look different for some groups based on different values or needs?
