Amy E. Slaton

BOOKS

Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering

The History of an Occupational Color Line

Despite the educational and professional advances made by minorities in recent decades, African Americans remain woefully underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, mathematics, and engineering. Even at its peak, in 2000, African American representation in engineering careers reached only 5.7 percent, while blacks made up 15 percent of the U.S. population. Some forty-five years after the Civil Rights Act sought to eliminate racial differences in education and employment, what do we make of an occupational pattern that perpetually follows the lines of race?

Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering pursues this question and its ramifications through historical case studies. Focusing on engineering programs in three settings—in Maryland, Illinois, and Texas, from the 1940s through the 1990s—Amy E. Slaton examines efforts to expand black opportunities in engineering as well as obstacles to those reforms. Her study reveals aspects of admissions criteria and curricular emphases that work against proportionate black involvement in many engineering programs. Slaton exposes the negative impact of conservative ideologies in engineering, and of specific institutional processes—ideas and practices that are as limiting for the field of engineering as they are for the goal of greater racial parity in the profession.

Purchase

Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U. S. Enginering: The History of an Occupational Color Line is available  from Harvard University Press.

    Reinforced Concrete

    Examining the proliferation of reinforced-concrete construction in the United States after 1900, historian Amy E. Slaton considers how scientific approaches and occupations displaced traditionally skilled labor. The technology of concrete buildings—little studied by historians of engineering, architecture, or industry—offers a remarkable case study in the modernization of American production.

    The use of concrete brought to construction the new procedures and priorities of mass production. These included a comprehensive application of science to commercial enterprise and vast redistributions of skills, opportunities, credit, and risk in the workplace. Reinforced concrete also changed the American landscape as building buyers embraced the architectural uniformity and simplicity to which the technology was best suited.

    Based on a wealth of data that includes university curricula, laboratory and company records, organizational proceedings, blueprints, and promotional materials as well as a rich body of physical evidence such as tools, instruments, building materials, and surviving reinforced-concrete buildings, this book tests the thesis that modern mass production in the United States came about not simply in answer to manufacturers’ search for profits, but as a result of a complex of occupational and cultural agendas.

    AMY SLATON, PHD

    Education:

    • BA, Fine Arts and Art History, Northwestern University, 1978
    • MFA, Painting and Printmaking, Pratt Institute, 1980
    • PhD, Department of History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995

    Research Interests:

    • History of technology
    • Labor
    • Race

    ABOUT AMY E. SLATON

    Download my CV

    I am an historian of American science and technology and professor of history at Drexel University. I hold a Ph.D. in the history and sociology of science from the University of Pennsylvania and was a post-doctoral fellow in the History of Science at Harvard University. Additional details may be found on my CV.

    My research and writing have focused on the social relations of technical practice in contexts that include factories, construction industries, and materials testing laboratories, as well as places of post-secondary education, ranging from engineering schools to trade schools and community colleges. I am interested in critiquing such consoling modern projects as “meritocracy” and “diversity” through the study of materials standards, building codes, measurement instruments, textbooks, and the many other protocols and apparatus that direct routine technical practice. Whether written guidelines or mechanical devices, these artifacts may be seen to distribute credit, blame, responsibility and opportunity among those who labor or aspire to labor in technical occupations, and to help ascribe expertise and authority in science, engineering and industry. Entangled with power, these quotidian devices actively produce human differences dependent on those ascriptions, including race, gender, sexuality, and (dis)ability…categories which of course in turn historically justify stratified learning and labor in the United States.

    My first book, Reinforced Concrete and the Modernization of American Building, 1900–1930, examined the development of concrete testing expertise in American building, including the role of that science-based activity in the nation’s embrace of functionalist design for its commercial architecture. That study found that ideas about class, ethnic, and gender differences could be seen in many supposedly practical innovations on the building site, from new managerial practices to the design of materials and equipment.  Continuing that concern with inequity in technical occupations, I then completed a historical study of race in U.S. higher engineering education: Race, Rigor and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color Line. The book combines a case-based narrative, covering engineering instruction at historically black and traditionally white schools since the 1940s, with some constructive suggestions on how to change the character of American STEM professions.

    I have now begun a new historical project on the false consolations of “STEM Diversity,” a world of ostensibly welcoming educational and workforce reforms formulated after the Civil Rights era in the U.S. Inclusive programming and a “rainbow” sensibility regarding human difference can offer significant interpersonal support and resources to marginalized communities, but nonetheless the potential here for structural change is limited. STEM fields have largely disregarded the essentialist and assimilationist character of diversity ideologies and the stubborn(and related) nature of economic stratification in America. Cases include the recent proliferation of certificate and two-year degree programs in the vast range of undertakings known as “nanomanufacturing,” and the promissory claims of other high-tech sectors. The book suggests that intersectional and indeterminate confrontations with identity are needed if the persistent inequities of American learning and labor are to be dismantled.

    All of these projects have been grounded in my local, national, and international scholarly communities, which include the Society for the History of Technology, the Society for the Social Studies of Science, the American Society for Engineering Education, and the International Network for Engineering Studies. I have also pursued applications for my historical findings within educational and policy settings. I am the co-Editor- in-Chief, with Tiago Saraiva, of the international journal, History+Technology.