Abstract
Racial Othering in schools remains a deeply entrenched issue—difficult to articulate and even more demanding to confront. Conversations about the problem are often avoided, deflected, or softened through vague language. Disagreements over what constitutes racial Othering also persist. These dynamics hinder the development of effective strategies for meaningful change. In response to such conceptual and practical challenges, this article proposes a typology that identifies labels, mechanisms, and manifestations of racial Othering in schools. At the discursive level, racial Othering occurs when students are labeled as different, deficient, or disruptive. In the domain of practice, mechanisms of racial Othering include devaluation, discrimination, and demonization. Finally, the intersection of these labels and mechanisms engenders specific manifestations of racial Othering: misrepresentation, non-recognition, misrecognition, marginalization, stratification, over-discipline, stigmatization, pathologization, and criminalization. My goal in developing this typology is to provide educators and other practitioners with a sharper lens for assessing, challenging, and addressing racial injustice in schools.
Introduction
Othering is a persistent feature of social life, deeply embedded in both historical legacies and contemporary power relations. It manifests in multiple and intersecting forms: cultural Othering, where individuals or groups are marked as foreign, exotic, or unassimilable based on attributes such as language, religion, or ethnicity; socio-economic Othering, where poverty and unemployment are stigmatized and framed as moral failings or social deviance; and ideological Othering, where differing political beliefs or worldviews are portrayed as irrational, dangerous, or unpatriotic (Essed, 1991; Said, 1978; Yuval-Davis, 2011).
Racial Othering represents a particularly insidious form of exclusion, historically rooted in the twin systems of slavery and colonialism (Omi & Winant, 2015). Under slavery and colonialism, racialized hierarchies justified the dehumanization of Africans and the dispossession of Indigenous peoples across the globe, casting them as primitive, uncivilized, or vanishing races to legitimize conquest and settlement (Fanon, 1963; Gilroy, 1993; Moreton-Robinson, 2004; Wolfe, 2006). These interwoven forms of exploitation and Othering not only shape how difference is perceived and managed in society but also reinforce unequal power relations by legitimizing exclusion and control.
In school contexts, racial Othering manifests through targeted surveillance, lowered expectations, curriculum erasure, and unfair disciplinary practices (Gillborn, 2006; Vass, 2015). When racial Othering is prevalent, as argued in this article, racialized students are more likely to be viewed as disruptive, less academically capable, or culturally deficient. Such perceptions often lead to disciplinary hyper-visibility, streaming into non-academic tracks, and alienation from schooling altogether. The consequences are profound: disengagement from learning, early school leaving, and long-term socio-economic disadvantage, including reduced employment opportunities, health disparities, and limited civic participation (Hughes & Rigby, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Hence, confronting racial Othering in schools is not only an educational imperative but also a fundamental matter of social justice.
In contemporary Australia, racialized migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are often positioned as perpetual foreigners, with their presence tolerated conditionally and frequently framed as threats to national identity and social cohesion (Adonteng-Kissi et al., 2025; Bargallie, 2020; Hage, 2000; Jupp, 2002; Molla, 2024a). The problem of racial Othering is also prevalent in schools and universities. Numerous studies (e.g., Aveling, 2007; Baak, 2019; Forrest et al., 2015; Molla, 2021; Moodie et al., 2019; Yared et al., 2020) have documented the pervasive nature of racism within Australian educational institutions.
For any problem to be meaningfully addressed, it must first be clearly identified and named. Yet racism persists as a wicked problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973)—complex, deeply entrenched, and often difficult to define, let alone confront. One reason racial Othering endures is the widespread reluctance to acknowledge it as a severe social ill. In Australia, racism often evades confrontation, operating through denial, deflection, and silences (Aveling, 2007; Elias, 2024; Elias et al., 2021; Hage, 2000; Moreton-Robinson, 2015). It is often framed as an isolated incident rather than a structural condition that requires sustained attention.
This article emerges from, and is shaped by, my experiences conducting fieldwork over the past 7 years. Across three large-scale projects, I visited 24 secondary schools across three Australian states. I engaged with a wide range of participants, including school leaders, teachers, community liaison officers, career advisors, student services staff, and wellbeing officers. These visits were informed by, and often preceded by, interviews with African-heritage students from refugee backgrounds. A recurring theme across student narratives was the pervasiveness of racism and racial Othering in their schooling experiences. In response, I raised these issues with school staff, asking about their understanding of the problem, its impact, and their institutional responses. What struck me most was the discomfort many staff expressed when asked to speak about race and racism. At times, this discomfort reflected not only hesitance or avoidance, but also difficulty in differentiating racist behaviors from non-racist ones, or in recognizing how racism manifests in the everyday practices and interactions of schooling. Even among well-meaning school staff, conversations were frequently redirected toward issues of student behavior, with many appearing uncertain about the appropriate language to describe what were clearly racialized experiences. The moments of silence, ambiguity, and misrecognition revealed how challenging it can be for schools to acknowledge and confront the realities of racial Othering. As decolonial theorist Gloria Anzaldúa (2015) observes, the refusal to acknowledge what race is and what race does is itself a form of racism. This denial sustains racial hierarchies by masking their origins and effects.
The lack of conceptual clarity—compounded by a broader reluctance to confront the pervasive harms of racism—hampers efforts to identify, challenge, and disrupt racial Othering in schools in meaningful ways. Drawing on my field observations, this challenge became a central motivation for developing a typology of racial Othering, designed to help school staff recognize its varied expressions and to foster a more sustained and informed commitment to addressing the issue. In response, this article seeks to meet that challenge by presenting a typology of racial Othering specifically situated within educational contexts, offering both a conceptual framework and a practical tool for understanding and addressing the complex processes through which racialized students are marginalized and positioned in schools.
A clearly articulated typology can illuminate the distinct mechanisms through which racialized students are marginalized within schooling systems. As critical race theorists have argued (Crenshaw, 1991; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Dixson et al., 2017; Gillborn, 2006; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Dixson, 2013; Yosso, 2006), fostering a more equitable society requires disrupting dominant racial narratives through counter-storytelling and critically interrogating seemingly race-neutral policies and practices that obscure structural inequalities. In this light, developing a typology of racial Othering does more than deepen our understanding of how racism operates in schools; it also provides a shared conceptual vocabulary that enables educators, researchers, and policymakers to engage in more honest, critical, and constructive conversations about race and schooling. A nuanced typology can differentiate between overt acts of racism (e.g., racial slurs), covert exclusions (e.g., tracking racialized students into non-academic streams), and institutional patterns (e.g., curricular erasure and deficit discourses).
Before proceeding, my use of race as a term and analytical lens does not endorse its validity as a natural category, nor does it assume what Anzaldúa (2015) refers to as “a racial certainty.” I understand that race is a social fabrication—an ideological construct with no biological basis, yet one that carries profound and enduring social consequences. I invoke race in my research for two critical reasons. First, the term provides a necessary analytical tool for examining the persistent structures of hierarchy, exclusion, and inequality that shape institutions, social relations, and everyday experiences. Second, my use of the term is provisional and strategic. By making visible the ways in which racial categories are historically constructed and systematically weaponized, I hope we can begin to demythologize race and challenge its power. Through clarity, critical engagement, and collective reckoning, we can confront racism as a structural and ideological force and, eventually, progress towards liberation from the enduring burden of racial categorization.
The remainder of the article is structured into three main sections. The “Analytical Framework and Method” section develops the conceptual framework by examining the relationship between social essentialism and racial Othering, highlighting how essentialist beliefs underpin the construction of racialized differences within educational contexts. The “Toward a Typology of Racial Othering” section introduces a typology of racial Othering, organized into three categories: labels, mechanisms, and manifestations. Each category is employed to illuminate how racial Othering functions, with key terms briefly outlined to enhance analytical clarity. The “Discussion and Conclusion” section briefly presents the dialogical interplay between the categories and domains of racial Othering in schools, and implications for anti-racist interventions.
Analytical Framework and Method
Othering as Social Essentialism
To bring greater conceptual clarity to research on race-related disadvantage in schools, this article adopts racial Othering as its primary analytical lens rather than the broader term “racism.” While race 1 is a socially constructed category that classifies people based on perceived physical characteristics (such as facial features, body build, skin color, and hair color and texture), racism is a belief system that connects physical appearance to moral and cognitive worth (Taguieff, 2001) and is sustained through structural power—the ability to enforce these beliefs via institutions, laws, and everyday practices (Mills, 2017). The result can be the unequal treatment of individuals or groups.
As Bonilla-Silva (2022) argues, when racism is deeply embedded in social structures and institutions, it can function systemically—without needing overtly racist individuals—through everyday practices, policies, and norms that reproduce racial inequalities. Through specific processes of racialization, racial beliefs are enacted and reinforced through classificatory labels and institutional mechanisms that normalize racial hierarchies.
While racism remains essential for understanding structural power relations and systemic inequalities, like all other -isms, its meaning is often contested or diluted—and its use in school settings is frequently met with defensiveness, denial, or a narrow focus on individual intent. These responses can obscure the structural dimensions of racism and limit meaningful action to tackle the problem. Racial Othering, by contrast, foregrounds the relational and institutional dynamics of racialization—capturing how certain students are constructed as outsiders to the imagined norm and how these constructions are reproduced through everyday pedagogical interactions, disciplinary measures, and curricular materials (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012; Powell & Menendian, 2024). It enables a deeper interrogation of the context-specific and intersecting ways of racialization and reveals how seemingly neutral practices give rise to quiet, cumulative harms that do not rely on explicit racial hostility to be effective. In doing so, racial Othering shifts the focus from proving racism to unpacking how it operates subtly and structurally, making it not only analytically sharper but also pedagogically more constructive for those seeking to transform educational institutions.
Othering is based on essentialist logics that ascribe fixed, inherent, and homogeneous traits to social groups, constructing their identities as static and naturally distinct from a presumed normative center. It entails “portraying the other essentially different and translating this difference to inferiority” (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012, p. 299). Here, social essentialism refers to the belief that individuals or groups possess fixed, inherent characteristics that determine their moral worth, intelligence, or capacity to contribute to society (Carlson, 2001; Fuchs, 2001). This way of thinking naturalizes social hierarchies by attributing them to supposedly immutable traits, rather than acknowledging the role of structural inequalities and historical injustices.
Evolutionary psychologists trace the origin of social essentialism back to our past, arguing that early human communities on the African savanna likely lived in small, kin-based groups where survival depended on loyalty to the in-group and suspicion of outsiders (Buss, 2024). This explanation, commonly referred to as the Savanna hypothesis (Buss, 2024), suggests that over millennia, these survival strategies shaped lasting psychological tendencies towards tribalism, prejudice, and xenophobia. Human brains have evolved to generate emotions that support cooperation and social bonding within small groups, an adaptation that was crucial for survival in early human societies (Greene, 2013). This evolutionary reality makes it more difficult to instinctively trust or connect with those who are unfamiliar or different from us.
However, we should approach such explanations with caution because, as anthropologist Didier Fassin (2011) argues, the hypothesis naturalizes what is, in fact, socially constructed and historically contingent. For instance, in The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea, geneticist Elof Axel Carlson (2001) illustrates how pseudo-scientific ideologies—particularly those linked to eugenics—have shaped societal perceptions of human value through essentialist logic. Although overt eugenic discourses have been widely discredited, the essentialist worldview that underpinned them continues to influence contemporary attitudes, often in more subtle and coded ways (Hirschfeld, 1996; Morning, 2011). Of course, Othering does not stop at drawing boundaries between groups by constructing differences—it also shapes moral expectations towards those identified as outsiders. Especially when rapid demographic change generates cultural unease and heightens competition for jobs and public services, the search for scapegoats becomes a means of alleviating collective anxieties. In such moments, essentialist narratives re-emerge to frame visibly distinct social groups as inherently dangerous and undesirable.
Historically, Othering has functioned as a political strategy to establish hierarchies, secure power, and control resources. It has been mobilized to segregate communities based on race, caste, class, gender, and religion (Powell & Menendian, 2024). Nonetheless, it is essential to emphasize that while premodern societies did hold negative stereotypes towards out-groups, such hostility was primarily rooted in cultural attributes, such as linguistic and religious differences. For instance, highlighting that race-based prejudice against non-White peoples emerged as a modern phenomenon, historian Bernard Lewis (1990) has noted: The Persians, Greeks, and later Romans had some occasional contacts with China, and rather more with Ethiopia, which was a known part of the civilized world even in biblical times. […] Ethiopia and China were both respected, and there is no real evidence in Jewish, Greek, or Roman sources of lower esteem for darker skins or higher esteem for lighter complexions. Nor were there slave races. (p.18)
However, in our time, one of the most prominent forms of Othering in contemporary society is racial Othering (Molla, 2024b; Powell & Menendian, 2024). When individuals adopt essentialist views about race, they are more likely to interpret behaviors or outcomes through the lens of presumed group traits rather than social context. Glenn Loury uses the concept of racially biased social cognition to refer to the ways in which individuals internalize and act upon socially constructed racial categories, often subconsciously, in ways that reinforce racial stereotypes and inequalities (Loury, 2021). It involves the habitual use of race as a cognitive shortcut to judge others’ character, abilities, or social worth, which can lead to discriminatory behaviors and systemic disadvantage. Importantly, racial Othering is self-perpetuating (Loury, 2021). When people act on racially biased assumptions, their behavior can shape outcomes in ways that appear to validate those assumptions, even if they were unfounded to begin with.
Racism remains a persistent and systemic challenge. Evidence from Canada (Cameron & Jefferies, 2021; Hampton, 2010), the United Kingdom (Elliott-Cooper, 2023; Sherwood, 2001), the United States (Bartz & Kritsonis, 2019; Blaisdell, 2016; Huber et al., 2006), and Australia (Bargallie, 2020; Elias et al., 2021; Molla, 2024a, 2024b) demonstrates that, in predominantly White societies, Black and Brown people continue to face persistent racial stereotyping and discrimination. Schools, as key social institutions, can themselves become racialized spaces where racial Othering often goes unchecked, thereby reproducing broader patterns of social stratification. It is therefore critical to unmask how racial Othering operates within schools and to develop tools and frameworks that can enable educators and policymakers to address the problem meaningfully.
In other words, schools are not neutral spaces; they reflect and reproduce the social hierarchies of the societies in which they exist. Through curricula, disciplinary regimes, teacher expectations, and institutional culture, racial Othering can be perpetuated in subtle but significant ways. The consequences of racially biased social cognition can be profound. In schools, for instance, racialized students may be subtly steered into low-expectation pathways, disciplined more harshly, or perceived as “problems” to be managed rather than learners to be nurtured. As a result, some students may disengage, underperform, or act out—responses shaped by their school environment rather than by inherent traits. Yet, these outcomes are then used to justify the original assumptions, creating a cycle of racial Othering and structural disadvantage. These patterns reflect a deeply ingrained essentialist lens that interprets social disadvantage as an individual or group trait rather than a condition shaped by systemic forces.
A typology of racial Othering highlights how individuals and groups are labeled as different (not like “us”), deficient (lacking what “we have”), or disruptive (a threat to “our order”). These labels are sustained through interconnected mechanisms of devaluation, discrimination, and demonization. As will be elaborated in the following section, the convergence of these imposed labels and the social processes that legitimize them produces what can be understood as manifestations of racial Othering—cultural and institutional signifiers that assign value, determine belonging, and regulate inclusion and exclusion. In racialized contexts, an individual's actions are often viewed as representative of an entire group, reinforcing harmful narratives and justifying disproportionate scrutiny or punishment. The strength of racial Othering as an analytical lens lies in its ability to unmask and problematize these relational dimensions of racism that might otherwise be dismissed as isolated incidents. It facilitates a deeper interrogation of how racial inequalities are produced and sustained within social systems.
Method
This study draws on an extensive literature review to develop a typology of racial Othering in schools. The review aimed to synthesize research that conceptualizes and documents racialized processes of exclusion, stigmatization, and differential treatment in educational settings. It was guided by the overarching research question: How is racial Othering conceptualized, operationalized, and experienced in school contexts? The scope of the review included peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and key grey literature that provide empirical and theoretical insights into racialized schooling practices.
Given my longstanding research focus on race and racial Othering in education, I was already familiar with a substantial body of literature, including foundational texts, key authors, and central debates. Building on this expertise, I conducted a systematic search of relevant literature using major academic databases such as EBSCOhost and Google Scholar. Keywords included racial Othering, racism in schools, racialization in education, and critical race theory in education. This systematic approach was complemented by reference chaining and hand-searching of key journals—including Race and Justice, Race & Class, and Race Ethnicity and Education—to ensure comprehensive coverage of both foundational works and the most recent scholarship in the field. While the primary focus was on Australian schools, international literature, particularly from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, was included to capture comparative perspectives and shared colonial histories.
To develop the typological framework and align with the overarching analytical lens, I conducted a close, iterative reading of the selected literature to identify patterns in how racial difference is constructed, sustained, and enacted within school contexts. Using a thematic analysis, I iteratively constructed the three key categories—labels, mechanisms, and manifestations of racial Othering. Instances in which racialized students were described, characterized, or positioned in ways that diverged from normative school ideals were carefully annotated. These recurring descriptors informed the category of labels, capturing the discursive framing of racialized students as deficient, disruptive, or culturally incongruent. Next, attention was directed to how the literature depicted routine, often institutionalized, practices and logics that produced or reinforced racial distinctions, such as differential disciplinary measures, lowered academic expectations, or selective curricular pathways. These patterns were clustered to form the category of mechanisms, which represents the patterned enactment of racial Othering within educational practice. Finally, I examined how the combination of labeling and these mechanisms materialized in students’ lived experiences, identifying a set of recurrent outcomes—such as stigmatization, marginalization, over-surveillance, and constrained opportunities—which collectively formed the manifestations category, representing the visible and experiential consequences of racial Othering in schools.
A point of clarification is in order here. Labels of racial Othering can be understood as integral to the mechanisms through which Othering operates, insofar as naming students as “different,” “deficient,” or “disruptive” actively produces and legitimizes unequal treatment. However, I analytically differentiate labels from mechanisms to foreground both the discursive and practical dimensions of racial Othering. Labels function primarily at the level of discourse, shaping how racialized students are perceived, talked about, and made intelligible within schools. Mechanisms, by contrast, refer to the institutional and interactional processes of devaluation, discrimination, and demonization through which these discursive constructions are translated into material practices and outcomes. This distinction allows for a more precise analysis of how racial Othering is produced: from the naming of difference to the enactment of unequal treatment, to its manifestation in practices such as misrecognition, over-discipline, and criminalization.
In constructing the typology, I intentionally drew on both empirical and theoretical literature to ensure it was grounded in real-world observations while informed by critical conceptual frameworks. This dual approach not only strengthens the analytical robustness of the typology but also provides a comprehensive tool for understanding the processes, practices, and consequences of racial Othering in school contexts. My positionality as a scholar of African heritage working within Australian higher education fundamentally shapes the interpretive lens I bring to this work. Throughout this study, I drew on key theoretical insights from Critical Race Theory and Bourdieu's notion of symbolic violence, while also integrating reflexive insights from my longstanding engagement with race-related scholarship and fieldwork (see Molla, 2021, 2024a, 2024b; Molla et al., 2025). My positionality informs the theoretical frameworks I mobilize and underpins my commitment to challenging structural and symbolic forms of racial injustice. Being situated in an academic context where conversations about race and racism are often muted or resisted further sharpens my sensitivity to the silences, hesitations, and deflections that surround such discussions. This dual positioning—as both an insider to the lived realities of racial Othering and a researcher located within predominantly white institutional spaces—requires ongoing reflexivity in how I interpret and present participants’ voices.
To ensure both rigor in developing the typology, as noted above, the literature review was conducted systematically and iteratively across multiple databases, incorporating peer-reviewed articles, scholarly books, and key grey literature. Efforts were made to capture a wide range of empirical and theoretical perspectives, paying attention to disciplinary contexts and geographic distributions.
Toward a Typology of Racial Othering
Drawing on the scholarly literature and my own experiences in race-related studies, this paper proposes a typological framework to understand the multifaceted nature of racial Othering in schools. The framework consists of three categories of racial Othering typology: labels, mechanisms, and manifestations. Labels refer to the discursive categories used to classify and define racialized students in ways that portray them as incompatible with dominant school norms. These labels act as interpretive frames that shape how students are perceived, assessed, and treated in educational contexts. In parallel, mechanisms of racial Othering refer to the recurring, patterned, and often institutionalized practices through which individuals or groups are framed as racially different, inferior, or positioned outside the normative center of belonging. Finally, manifestations are the tangible expressions of racial Othering, arising from the interplay between these labels and mechanisms. They not only reflect but also reinforce the processes through which racial difference is constructed, maintained, and operationalized in everyday settings. Manifestations of Othering, ranging from misrepresentation to criminalization, embed racial labeling and Othering mechanisms into school routines, policies, and power relations.
This section briefly discusses each category in turn.
Labels
Labels serve as a foundational category for understanding racial Othering in schools, providing an analytical lens through which to examine how students are symbolically positioned within racialized hierarchies. Labels are not merely descriptive terms but function as classificatory tools that shape perceptions, expectations, and interactions in educational contexts (Anzaldúa, 2015; Taguieff, 2001). As socially constructed and institutionally reinforced identifiers, they carry the weight of historical and cultural meanings that legitimize unequal treatment (Carlson, 2001). In this study, three recurring labels emerged from the literature—different, deficient, and disruptive—each reflecting a dominant framing of racialized students as ethnoculturally incompatible, intellectually lacking, or behaviorally problematic. These labels are analytically valuable because they reveal how everyday discourses and practices in schools contribute to the symbolic exclusion of racialized students, often under the guise of neutral or objective assessments. By foregrounding the role of labels, the typology highlights the subtle yet pervasive ways in which racial Othering is enacted and maintained through the routinized language of schooling.
Different
The label of “different” positions individuals and communities as outsiders. It marks racialized groups as fundamentally separate from the dominant social groups, often emphasizing perceived exoticism, cultural incongruity, or lack of assimilation. Historically, such representations were deeply entrenched in colonial ideologies. For instance, as Said (1978) noted, orientalist depictions cast Asians as inscrutably “foreign,” while Indigenous peoples were often romanticized as “noble savages”—figures frozen in time and removed from modernity.
In contemporary schooling contexts, these legacies persist in subtle but powerful ways. Students may be superficially celebrated for bringing “diversity” yet are regularly subjected to microaggressions such as being asked, “Where are you really from?”—a question that signals their enduring otherness and presumed incompatibility with the Australian national identity. Even when not overtly hostile, the label of “different” reinforces exclusion by treating cultural distinctions as fixed and insurmountable (Gillborn, 2008). It limits the educational and social inclusion of racialized students by positioning them as cultural anomalies rather than equal participants. In doing so, it upholds racial boundaries and legitimizes differential treatment, ensuring that those marked as “different” remain on the margins of belonging.
Deficient
To be labeled as “deficient” is to be positioned as inherently inferior. When racialized groups are framed as deficient, they are portrayed as lacking in intellectual ability, moral character, or cultural value (Gillborn, 2008; Loury, 2021). This narrative suggests that certain groups are incapable of self-determination or success without external control or intervention. Anti-Black racism, for instance, has long been underpinned by stereotypes of laziness or cognitive inferiority, historically used to justify slavery, segregation, and ongoing economic marginalization.
In educational settings, these narratives persist through seemingly neutral frameworks such as meritocracy and behavioral standards. Racialized students—particularly those from African, Indigenous, or Muslim backgrounds—are often held to dominant cultural norms that fail to recognize their diverse ways of knowing, being, and learning. As Delgado and Stefancic (2017) argue, labels of deficiency shift the blame for unequal outcomes away from systemic injustices and onto the students themselves. This deflection obscures the structural barriers embedded in the schooling system—such as racial bias in curriculum, assessment, and disciplinary practices—while maintaining the illusion of fairness. The label of deficiency also serves to legitimize paternalistic control. Dominant groups are thus able to frame exploitation or imposed assimilation as a form of benevolence, echoing colonial logics such as the so-called “white man's burden.” In this way, the deficit label does not merely describe; it actively reproduces racial hierarchies under the guise of care, correction, or improvement.
Disruptive
Students labeled as “disruptive” are often simultaneously positioned as threats. Among the most overtly hostile and politically charged labels, “disruptive” frames racialized individuals—particularly students—as dangers to social order, public safety, or even national identity. Within school settings, this label carries disproportionate consequences for students of color, who are often subjected to heightened surveillance, exclusionary discipline, and deficit-based assumptions about their character or capability. As Rudolph (2023) illustrates in her analysis of school disciplinary practices targeting Indigenous students in Australia, such labeling is far from neutral; it reflects and reinforces colonial logics that criminalize Indigenous presence and reproduce racial hierarchies under the guise of maintaining classroom order.
This pattern is reflected globally. In the United States, for instance, Black students are systematically overrepresented in suspensions and expulsions, highlighting broader societal narratives that associate Blackness with aggression and violence (Skiba et al., 2002, 2016). Similarly, in the post-9/11 context, Muslim students have faced Islamophobic surveillance and disciplinary scrutiny, as dominant discourses conflated their faith with extremism and threat (Poynting & Perry, 2007). In each instance, the label disruptive is not merely a behavioral descriptor; it is a politically charged construct that mobilizes fear and legitimizes punitive responses—including exclusion, incarceration, deportation, and targeted policing. By portraying racialized students as existential threats—whether to school climate or national security—the label fuels policies and practices that entrench educational and social exclusion. In racialized learning spaces, visibly different and minoritized students are often burdened with presumptions of incongruence, deficiency, and disruptiveness.
Mechanisms
Mechanisms constitute the second analytical category for understanding racial Othering, capturing the ways labels are enacted and sustained in school settings. While labels assign meaning to students’ identities, mechanisms represent the processes, actions, and interactions that arise from these meanings, shaping students’ lived realities within educational institutions (Leonardo, 2009). The mechanisms of racial Others comprise three broad and interrelated elements—devaluation, discrimination, and demonization—each representing a mode of symbolic violence that marginalizes racialized students. Devaluation involves lowering expectations and dismissing potential; discrimination refers to unequal treatment in areas such as classroom participation, academic placement, and disciplinary action; and demonization signals the framing of students as threatening or dangerous. These mechanisms are analytically significant because they reveal how racial Othering operates beyond overt acts of racism, often embedded in everyday practices and institutional norms (Bonilla-Silva, 2022). By examining mechanisms alongside labels, the typology highlights how racialized perceptions translate into patterned exclusions that limit students’ educational opportunities and sense of belonging.
Devaluation
Devaluation refers to the act of assigning lesser social, cultural, or moral worth to racialized groups by framing their identities, traditions, or abilities as inferior or deficient (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012; Loury, 2021; Mills, 2017). Acts of devaluation may not always be overt; they often manifest in subtle, everyday interactions—such as backhanded compliments like “You’re so articulate for someone from your background”—which carry the underlying assumption of deficiency. Devaluation is perpetuated through media representations, where racialized communities are frequently portrayed using reductive and harmful stereotypes—depicting them as lazy, unintelligent, criminal, or culturally backward.
Negative racial portrayals within broader society often seep into educational institutions (Cohen, 2011; Molla, 2021), influencing how students from racialized backgrounds are perceived and treated in classrooms. In these environments, such students frequently encounter coded judgments and subtle forms of bias that undermine their sense of belonging and self-worth. They are less likely to be recognized as capable, high-achieving, or leaders and more likely to face increased surveillance, disciplinary actions, or academic streaming into lower tracks. For example, in Australian schools, for students of African heritage, whose visible differences often mark them as outsiders, these experiences can be especially acute and persistent. Over time, this continuous erosion of dignity and academic confidence becomes normalized, embedding racial inequality into the everyday practices of schooling. It conceals structural injustice as meritocratic neutrality, rendering deeply entrenched racial hierarchies invisible while powerfully determining students’ educational outcomes and life chances.
Discrimination
While devaluation shapes attitudes and perceptions, discrimination operationalizes those beliefs into tangible outcomes—through policies, laws, and institutional practices that restrict access to opportunities, resources, safety, and power. Discrimination can be interpersonal, such as racial profiling by police or classroom microaggressions. Still, it endures and causes the most harm when it is structural-embedded in systems that govern education, employment, housing, and the justice system (Dei, 2006; Loury, 2021; Omi & Winant, 2015). In the Australian context, migrant communities from African, Middle Eastern, or Asian backgrounds continue to encounter systemic barriers: from discriminatory hiring practices (where job applicants with non-Anglo names receive fewer callbacks) to the chronic underfunding of schools serving Indigenous and refugee-background students (Hage, 2000). In education, such discrimination can be particularly pernicious. Racialized students often face lower teacher expectations, harsher disciplinary measures, or curriculum content that marginalizes their histories and cultures (Gillborn, 2008; Leonardo, 2009). These structural disadvantages are frequently misinterpreted as individual failings, further entrenching educational disparities. Importantly, discrimination does not always require conscious prejudice. Much of it is “baked into” institutional routines, policies, and norms—rendering it less visible, but no less harmful. This invisibility makes systemic discrimination harder to detect, easier to deny, and more challenging to dismantle.
Demonization
The most extreme form of racialization, demonization, constructs racialized groups as dangerous, immoral, or existential threats to social order (Cohen, 2011). This mechanism goes beyond negative stereotyping—it activates fear, incites hostility, and legitimizes punitive responses, including state violence. In the Australian context, such framing has been particularly evident in the criminalization of African-heritage youth in Melbourne (Baak, 2019; Molla, 2021; Windle, 2008). Sensationalist media coverage and political rhetoric have seized upon isolated incidents to depict entire communities as “out of control” or inherently violent, fueling moral panic and justifying over-policing in schools and neighborhoods.
For racialized students, these narratives have significant consequences. Demonization can lead to disproportionate disciplinary actions in schools, increased surveillance, and an internalized sense of alienation or danger (Maynard, 2017; Skiba et al., 2016). Students may begin to view their own identities as liabilities—something to conceal, minimize, or apologize for. Meanwhile, dominant narratives that portray them as threats often mute their voices, distort their experiences, and deprive them of the presumption of innocence or belonging. Demonization can be politically advantageous. It galvanizes public support for exclusionary and coercive policies by transforming marginalized communities from fellow citizens into perceived enemies. Once a group is effectively depicted as a threat, breaches of their rights—whether through mass surveillance, deportation, or police brutality—become not only permissible but publicly demanded.
Manifestations
Racializing labels such as different, deficient, and disruptive—often imposed on minoritized students—do not merely describe perceived attributes; they activate and legitimize harmful mechanisms that systematically devalue, discriminate against, and demonize these individuals. Manifestations constitute the third analytical category in the typology of racial Othering. They provide concrete indicators of how racialized labels and mechanisms manifest in students’ everyday schooling experiences. They represent the discernible expressions and consequences of racial Othering, highlighting how students are: negatively framed in the curriculum (misrepresentation), rendered invisible (non-recognition), denied cultural legitimacy (misrecognition), excluded from key school spaces (marginalization), placed in lower academic tracks (stratification), subjected to excessive punishment (over-discipline), marked as socially undesirable (stigmatization), viewed as a problem for difference (pathologization), or scrutinized through a lens of suspicion and risk (criminalization). As an analytical tool, this category enables a more nuanced understanding of how racial Othering is sustained through institutionalized practices and everyday interactions.
This section elaborates on each of the elements of the manifestations of racial Othering.
Misrepresentation
The first pairing captures how students who are racially marked as different are often subtly yet persistently positioned as less worthy within the educational environment. Once marked as different, these students frequently endure devaluation, in which their cultural knowledge, ways of being, and potential contributions are implicitly deemed less legitimate or relevant. This can occur through curriculum content that erases their histories or misrepresents their identities (Gillborn, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Curricular invisibility or misrepresentation quietly but powerfully undermines the educational experiences of racially minoritized students. In my research, many African-heritage students reported that their cultures, histories, and languages are seldom acknowledged in the curriculum. Some also expressed concerns about how the use of negative racial representations (e.g., the use of the N-word) in textbooks (e.g., in Steinbeck, 1937/1993) made them feel alienated and repressed.
Marginalization
Marginalization highlights how the construction of racialized students as “different”—for example, based on their perceived racial identity—often leads to discriminatory treatment that limits their educational opportunities and experiences. In a sense, the labeling of students as “different” becomes a gateway to structural exclusion, veiled in the language of academic readiness or behavioral appropriateness. The result is a schooling experience that systematically restricts the educational possibilities available to racialized students, even as schools outwardly champion values of equity and inclusion. Marginalization is a marker of everyday racism (Essed, 1991) that interprets “difference” as deviance, justifying exclusionary treatment and outcomes. For instance, despite their capabilities and aspirations, African-heritage students are often overlooked in favor of peers who conform more closely to white, middle-class standards of respectability and authority (Molla, 2024a). When students marked as different are consistently the ones sent out of class, denied leadership roles, or questioned more aggressively than their peers, the cumulative effect reinforces racial hierarchies (Vass, 2015). Teachers and school staff may not always recognize how implicit biases and racialized expectations shape their responses to student behavior, academic performance, or participation.
Stigmatization
When a difference is framed as a threat, it escalates into demonization. The shift from viewing students as merely “different” to perceiving them as “dangerous” represents a central mechanism of demonization. This form of Othering extends beyond exclusion to a more insidious portrayal of racialized students as inherently problematic, volatile, or morally suspect. Demonization often permeates school discourses that present themselves as race-neutral or “color-blind.” Educators may assert that they are responding to behavior, not race, but when patterns reveal that it is predominantly racially minoritized students who are regarded as disruptive or needing control, it becomes evident that what is depicted as a problem is, in fact, perceived racial background. As Majavu (2020) argues, expressions of Black identity and resistance in educational spaces are often construed as political provocations that disrupt the assumed neutrality of the school environment. In this context, the celebration of Whiteness is viewed as standard or benign, while any overt articulation of Blackness is seen as a challenge to the status quo (Leonardo, 2009). In research exploring the drivers of school disengagement among African-heritage students in Australia, students reported being persistently stereotyped as “too loud,” “aggressive,” or “threatening,” leading to social isolation and negative teacher expectations (Molla, 2025). Racial stigmatization is also often disguised as humor, allowing prejudiced remarks to be circulated in the form of jokes that trivialize their harmful impact. As Raby (2004) notes, framing racism as “just joking around” enables its denial while reinforcing racial hierarchies and undermining anti-racist efforts in schools.
Non-recognition
While the label “different” marks racialized students as ethnoculturally Other, the label “deficient” intensifies this marginality by attaching assumptions of lack, particularly regarding academic ability, language proficiency, and social competence. Racialized students are often judged through a deficit lens that interprets their cultural, linguistic, or behavioral differences as evidence of academic inadequacy. These students are more likely perceived as underachieving, lacking motivation, or coming from “problematic” homes, rather than as bearers of valuable cultural knowledge or potential (Vass, 2015). Such framing leads to lower teacher expectations, exclusion from enrichment opportunities, and overrepresentation in remedial programs. When assessments of “potential” are filtered through racialized assumptions, schools become complicit in reproducing racial hierarchies.
In many cases, race-based devaluation is both subtle and pervasive. Even when racialized students excel academically, teachers may respond with disbelief, surprise, or excessive praise—revealing an implicit bias that success from these students is unexpected or exceptional. These reactions, though often couched in positive language, reinforce deficit narratives by positioning achievement as anomalous rather than normal. Over time, constant exposure to lowered expectations and pedagogical neglect can lead students to internalize these limiting messages, resulting in self-doubt and disengagement from learning experiences. This creates a damaging cycle in which students’ perceived deficiency becomes self-fulfilling, not due to their actual capacity, but because of the constrained opportunities afforded to them.
Stratification
One of the most entrenched and institutionalized mechanisms of racial inequality in education is the deficient-to-discrimination pipeline. The classification of racialized students as “deficient” does not merely operate at the level of perception—it translates into material forms of structural discrimination. What makes this marker of racial Othering particularly insidious is its surface-level rationality: it appears to be evidence-based or well-intentioned when, in reality, it is built upon deeply racialized assumptions about who belongs, who can succeed, and who must be managed. The label of “deficient” is commonly operationalized through the disproportionate placement of racialized students into low-stream classes, remedial literacy programs, or behavioral intervention plans, often without rigorous or culturally responsive assessment (Yared et al., 2020). For example, in predominantly White schools, Black students are disproportionately placed in lower academic tracks or offered vocational pathways despite their potential or aspirations (Oakes, 2005). Students from these communities are more frequently placed in behavioral support units or special education streams, often without rigorous assessment, based on the assumption that their perceived deficits require specialized intervention. This practice, although framed as “support,” effectively segregates them from the academic mainstream and reduces access to meaningful learning opportunities.
Pathologization
When deficit narratives take hold in school settings, they easily evolve into problem-framing, portraying students not merely as underachievers but as disruptions to be managed or contained (Gillborn, 2006). In schools where racial Othering is pervasive, Black students often face pathologization—a marker through which their emotions, behaviors, or identities are framed as indicators of disorder, dysfunction, or moral failing (Dumas, 2016; Groba et al., 2023; Lopez & Jean-Marie, 2021). Instead of being understood as rational responses to intergenerational trauma, structural marginalization, or experiences of institutional bias, assertiveness and other cultural expressions are treated as intrinsic problems of the student. This framing legitimizes disciplinary and surveillance-oriented interventions—such as suspensions, behavioral management plans, or the deployment of school-based police—positioning the student, rather than the system, as the source of disruption. Pathologization, therefore, not only individualizes systemic problems but also reinforces racial hierarchies by casting Black students as inherently problematic, unstable, or dangerous—as “problems to be managed” rather than learners to be nurtured (Ladson-Billings, 2009). This shift typically follows a predictable pattern: first, educational challenges are reinterpreted as personal failings rather than structural barriers; second, these presumed failings are moralized through racialized descriptors such as “lazy,” “unmotivated,” or “aggressive”; and third, students are positioned as active disruptors within the school environment.
Misrecognition
Bourdieu (1991) defines misrecognition as a form of symbolic power, which is “a power of constructing reality” (p. 105) and in which “the arbitrary is misrecognized as natural” (p. 55). In school settings, this power enables dominant groups to define what is considered legitimate knowledge, appropriate behavior, and acceptable modes of communication within the school environment. Through this power, dominant norms are naturalized and presented as neutral or universal, while the cultural expressions, identities, and behaviors of racialized students are rendered abnormal, inappropriate, or inferior. For instance, the racialized label of disruptive is not simply about behavior; it reflects a deeper form of misrecognition whereby the cultural expressions, communicative styles, and legitimate frustrations of these students are viewed through a racialized deficit framework that strips them of value and legitimacy. Racial Othering is perpetuated through policies and practices that appear to be neutral (Gillborn, 2008; Powell & Menendian, 2024). In this respect, misrecognition frames the cultural capital of racialized students, such as their communicative styles, affect, or assertiveness, as deficits rather than as resources or forms of agency (Yosso, 2006). Hence, once students are labeled as disruptive—whether due to their behavior, language, dress, or cultural identity—they often face systematic devaluation, where their experiences, aspirations, and dignity are rendered invisible or irrelevant. In other words, misrecognition becomes a marker of racial Othering when schools fail to see racialized students as knowers and contributors, instead interpreting their assertiveness or resistance as insolence or a threat.
Over-discipline
Once racialized students are labeled as “disruptive” and “dangerous,” disproportionate disciplinary measures are often justified as both necessary and legitimate. In schools, the interplay between the disruptive label and the marker of discrimination becomes a powerful mechanism justifying exclusionary practices under the guise of maintaining order or safety. Students from racialized backgrounds are disproportionately surveilled, disciplined, and excluded based on assumptions of inherent risk or disorderliness, leading to what Skiba et al. (2016) refer to as racialized discipline gaps. For example, following the racialization of youth violence that depicted African communities in Australia through the lens of gang violence (see Majavu, 2020; Molla, 2021), the negative representation of Black students has seeped into the schooling context, shaping how teachers and administrators interpret students’ actions and intent. As a result, African-background students in Australian schools are disproportionately subjected to punitive measures such as suspensions, exclusions, and behavior contracts—often without adequate investigation, mediation, or culturally responsive support (Yared et al., 2020). These actions are often justified under the guise of maintaining order or uniform standards, but in practice, they reflect deeper racial anxieties and power asymmetries embedded within school cultures. This institutionalization of bias creates a self-fulfilling cycle: surveillance leads to higher rates of punishment, which then “confirms” the initial stereotype of disruptiveness. Economic and social exclusion, in turn, fuels frustration and disengagement, which schools misinterpret as further evidence of deficiency or defiance.
Criminalization
When the label of disruptive directly fuels the mechanism of demonization, criminalization emerges as a potent marker of racial Othering. For instance, in racialized learning spaces, the presence of Black students is viewed through a lens of suspicion, and ordinary misbehavior is reinterpreted as criminal intent (Cohen, 2011; Duncan, 2000; Gillborn, 2008). Behavioral infractions often lead to disproportionate disciplinary responses, in which the focus shifts from what a student does to who the student is. For example, as demonizing narratives gain traction—amplified by media tropes of Black violence and gang affiliation—African-background students become hyper-visible within schools, not as learners but as liabilities (Molla, 2021). Against this backdrop, for African heritage students, minor misbehaviors are often perceived through a lens of suspicion and threat (Yared et al., 2020). The criminalization of student behavior often results in punitive interventions, including suspensions and behavioral contracts. In extreme cases, students are treated as dangerous, with school security or police involved for minor infractions—mirroring carceral logics (Rudolph, 2023). Furthermore, once a group is deemed threatening to school safety, standard rights to education, inclusion, and support are quietly suspended (Maynard, 2017; Noguera, 2003). Racialized students are routinely denied the benefit of the doubt that is readily extended to their peers, reinforcing a pattern where identity, not behavior, becomes the basis for judgment and sanction.
Discussion and Conclusion
The typology outlined above suggests that racial Othering operates through an interconnected set of dynamics encompassing how individuals and groups are labeled, how these labels activate social and institutional mechanisms, and how both contribute to manifestations that reproduce exclusion and marginalization. The typology shows how racialized students are constructed and regulated in schools through the intersection of labels (different, deficient, and disruptive) and mechanisms (devaluation, discrimination, and demonization), resulting in nine specific manifestations. These manifestations—such as misrepresentation, stratification, and criminalization—are not isolated practices but are mutually reinforcing processes that shape how racialized students are positioned within the institutional culture of schooling. The labels operate as interpretive frames that justify specific responses: “difference” invites marginalization and stigmatization, “deficiency” legitimizes non-recognition and pathologization, and “disruption” prompts over-discipline and criminalization. These intersections expose the deep entanglement of cultural logics and institutional power in the maintenance of racial inequality in schools.
While each label—different, deficient, and disruptive—may operate independently, they often intersect in patterned and cumulative ways. A student marked as different might be symbolically excluded from leadership roles. Academically, as perceived difference is reinterpreted as deficiency—due to unfamiliar accents, linguistic practices, or cultural norms—racialized students are often placed within a deficit framework and relegated to remedial tracks. When such students assert pride in their identity or resist marginalization, they are commonly recast as disruptive, prompting disproportionate punitive responses. In this way, labeling leads to misrecognition, which culminates in devaluation and demonization. Likewise, the mechanisms of racial Othering are both sequential and cyclical. Devaluation—where students are seen as lacking the required cultural or intellectual capital—creates fertile ground for discrimination through exclusionary discipline, academic gatekeeping, and biased teacher expectations. When students resist or express distress in response to these injustices, their actions are recoded as threats to school order, triggering further marginalization. Over time, these dynamics converge into entrenched mechanisms of exclusion, including curricular invisibility, behavioral pathologization, and systemic underachievement. Further, mechanisms of racial Othering can lead to segregation. For example, low expectations, unfair tracking practices, and disproportionate disciplinary measures often result in the curricular, spatial, or social separation of racialized students. I also recognize that, in some contexts, segregation can also function as a reinforcing mechanism, perpetuating the very practices that produce racial Othering.
The interaction between labels and mechanisms reveals how racialized students are subjected to shifting yet connected forms of exclusion. For instance, a student labeled as “disruptive” may be misrecognized when their assertiveness is misread as defiance; simultaneously, they may be overdisciplined through punitive responses and ultimately criminalized by school authorities. Similarly, the label of “deficient” often underpins the structural practice of academic streaming (stratification), where students are tracked into non-academic pathways based on perceived limitations rather than potential. The typology thus captures how racial Othering is reproduced through the alignment of discourse and practice—how students are seen (labeled), acted upon (mechanized), and ultimately positioned within the school hierarchy (manifested). These patterns are often obscured by color-blind or meritocratic discourses that deflect attention away from race—the typology makes visible the deep structure of racial inequality in school life.
Understanding where to look is essential for identifying and dismantling racial Othering. The typology can be used as an interpretive tool to diagnose how racism manifests across the core domains of schooling—curriculum, pedagogy, tracking, discipline, peer relations, and governance. In the curriculum, Othering appears through erasure and misrepresentation. The absence of racialized histories, or their reductive inclusion, signals both devaluation and deficit framings. For example, the uncritical teaching of canonical texts like Of Mice and Men, where racial slurs go unchallenged, normalizes racial violence and entrenches what Zembylas (2014) calls “affective desensitization”—a diminished emotional responsiveness to the harm of racism. In pedagogy, low expectations, minimal support, and teacher suspicion reflect patterns of misrecognition and pathologization that undermine racialized students’ sense of agency and belonging.
These racializing logics also shape decisions around academic tracking and discipline. Racialized students are routinely excluded from enrichment programs and directed into vocational or behavioral streams, often based on implicit bias about language use, parental background, or classroom behavior. These practices reproduce educational stratification while masking systemic bias behind claims of neutrality or “best fit.” Discipline, similarly, becomes a site where racial Othering is intensified. Everyday expressions of frustration, resistance, or cultural affirmation by racialized students—particularly African-heritage boys—are read as aggression, inviting punitive responses such as behavioral contracts, suspension, or police involvement. Here, the label of “disruption” combines with demonizing mechanisms to produce over-surveillance and exclusion, showing how institutional responses are filtered through racialized perceptions of threat (Table 1).
A Matrix of Racial Othering: Labels, Mechanisms, and MANIFESTATIONS; Author's Representation.
In light of these dynamics, the typology has significant implications for anti-racist policy and practice. First, anti-racist schooling must go beyond inclusion to explicitly address the underlying logics of racial Othering. It is imperative that schools question how labeling practices, organizational structures, and policy framings reproduce racial hierarchies. In this respect, the typology helps schools to identify where and how racism operates in practice—within curriculum decisions, pedagogical assumptions, disciplinary responses, and student placements. This diagnostic function is critical: it enables schools to map the everyday operations of racism and trace how institutional norms align with broader systems of racial power.
Second, anti-racist interventions must address each mechanism identified in the typology. Addressing devaluation requires curriculum renewal that centers the histories, contributions, and perspectives of racialized communities. Tackling discrimination requires equitable resource allocation, expanded opportunities for academic advancement, and inclusive leadership development that affirm racialized students. Confronting demonization demands a shift toward restorative rather than punitive policies, dismantling the carceral logics that construct Black and Brown youth as threats to school order (Rudolph, 2023). Crucially, these measures must be grounded in sustained professional learning and community engagement to ensure that anti-racist practice is embedded, reflexive, and accountable.
Finally, the typology underscores the need for a whole-school approach to anti-racism—one that recognizes racialized students not as problems to be managed but as active agents whose cultural identities, aspirations, and experiences enrich the educational community. Anti-racist practice must reject deficit framings, affirm students’ full personhood, and create space for counter-narratives and resistance. A genuine commitment to anti-racism requires coordinated action across all domains of schooling—from curriculum and pedagogy to staff recruitment, student support, and community engagement. Used effectively, the typology becomes both a mirror and a map: it exposes how racism is institutionally reproduced and offers a framework for systemic transformation. Through this lens, schools can shift from a culture of denial and reaction to one of acknowledgment and change, creating environments in which all students—especially those historically othered—can belong, thrive, and lead.
Footnotes
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (grant number FT220100062).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.