Criminology Education and Race - Criminal Justice

Criminology education and race examines the complex and consequential relationship between racial dynamics and the teaching, learning, and institutional structures of criminological training in the United States. As one of the most substantively important topics within Criminology and Criminal Justice Education, the intersection of race with criminological education encompasses the representation of racial and ethnic minorities among faculty and students, the treatment of race in curricula and theoretical instruction, the intellectual contributions of scholars of color to the discipline’s knowledge base, the pipeline challenges that limit diversification of the professoriate, and the pedagogical complexities of teaching about race in a field whose subject matter — crime, policing, punishment — is saturated with racial meaning. Within the broader domain of Criminology, the discipline’s engagement with race is not merely one topic among many; it is a question that goes to the heart of criminology’s scientific credibility, its practical relevance, and its moral authority to produce knowledge about a criminal justice system whose racial disparities constitute one of the most extensively documented patterns in American social life.

Introduction

Race occupies a paradoxical position in American criminology. On one hand, racial disparities in criminal justice processing — from police stops and arrests through prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration — have been among the most intensively studied phenomena in the discipline, generating a vast empirical literature that documents disparate outcomes at every stage of the justice system (Tonry, 2011). Black Americans are incarcerated at approximately five times the rate of white Americans, a disparity that persists after controlling for offense severity and criminal history, though the magnitude of the unexplained gap varies across studies, jurisdictions, and time periods. Latino Americans face elevated incarceration rates relative to whites, and Native Americans experience some of the highest rates of violent victimization of any demographic group. These patterns have generated sustained scholarly attention from researchers across the discipline, making race one of criminology’s most published-on topics.

On the other hand, the discipline’s capacity to study race rigorously is compromised by the demographic composition of its own workforce. Criminology faculty are substantially less racially and ethnically diverse than either the general population or the populations most affected by the criminal justice system. Black scholars remain significantly underrepresented among criminology faculty at research universities, concentrated disproportionately in lower-ranked programs and at institutions that produce less research visibility (Gabbidon, Penn, & Richards, 2003). Latino, Native American, and Asian American scholars face similar underrepresentation, though the specific patterns vary. The intellectual consequences of this demographic imbalance are substantive: the questions researchers ask, the populations they study, the theoretical frameworks they apply, and the interpretive lenses they bring to data are all shaped by lived experience and social position. A discipline that studies race primarily through the perspectives of scholars who do not share the racial experiences of the populations most affected by criminal justice policy risks producing knowledge that is incomplete, distorted, or insufficiently attentive to dimensions of the crime and justice experience that outsider perspectives cannot fully capture.

This article examines the relationship between race and criminology education across multiple dimensions: the demographic representation of racial and ethnic minorities among faculty and students, the treatment of race in criminology curricula and theoretical instruction, the intellectual contributions of scholars of color to the discipline, the pipeline and structural barriers that limit diversification, and the pedagogical challenges of teaching about race in criminal justice contexts.

Racial Representation in the Discipline

Faculty Demographics and Institutional Stratification

The underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities among criminology faculty has been documented through multiple empirical studies that reveal a discipline whose demographic profile does not reflect the diversity of either the nation or the criminal justice-involved populations it studies. Shaun Gabbidon, Everette Penn, and W. Alex Richards (2003) published a landmark analysis demonstrating that Black scholars were significantly underrepresented in the discipline’s top-ranked doctoral programs and in the authorship of its most prestigious journals. Subsequent updates to this research have shown some improvement but continued disparity, with Black faculty remaining concentrated at teaching-oriented institutions, historically Black colleges and universities, and programs outside the top tier of national rankings. The representation of Latino, Native American, and Asian American faculty has received less systematic empirical attention but follows broadly similar patterns of underrepresentation, particularly at research-intensive universities.

The institutional stratification of minority faculty has consequences that extend beyond individual career outcomes. Faculty at research universities produce the scholarship that shapes the discipline’s intellectual agenda, train the doctoral students who become the next generation of scholars, sit on editorial boards that determine what gets published, and serve on hiring committees that determine who enters the profession. When these positions are disproportionately occupied by white scholars, the discipline’s knowledge production system reflects white perspectives, priorities, and blind spots — not through conscious exclusion but through the structural dynamics of a system that reproduces itself demographically across generations. Scholars who have examined these dynamics note that the problem is not simply numerical underrepresentation but institutional concentration: minority faculty are present in the discipline but are systematically positioned at institutions with fewer resources, higher teaching loads, and less research infrastructure than their white peers at elite programs (Greene, Gabbidon, & Wilson, 2018).

The causes of racial underrepresentation among criminology faculty are multiple and interacting. They include differential access to doctoral education, with minority students less likely to be admitted to the top-ranked programs that serve as pipelines to research university positions. They include biases — both explicit and implicit — in hiring processes, where research on faculty recruitment across disciplines has documented that search committees tend to favor candidates whose backgrounds, research interests, and intellectual styles resemble those of existing department members. They include the isolation and marginalization that minority scholars experience in predominantly white departments, where the absence of colleagues who share their racial experiences can produce intellectual loneliness, mentorship deficits, and the sense of being tokens rather than full participants in the departmental intellectual community. And they include the additional service burdens that minority faculty often bear — serving on diversity committees, mentoring minority students from across the university, providing racial perspective on institutional matters — that consume time and energy without the professional rewards that accrue to research productivity (Unnever & Owusu-Bempah, 2019).

Student Demographics and the Pipeline

The pipeline to the criminology professoriate begins with undergraduate and master’s-level education, where the racial and ethnic composition of student bodies varies substantially across institutional types. Criminal justice and criminology programs at community colleges, regional state universities, and minority-serving institutions enroll substantially more diverse student populations than programs at research universities. Historically Black colleges and universities — including programs at institutions such as Grambling State University, North Carolina Central University, and Florida A&M University — have educated a disproportionate share of Black criminal justice professionals, though their graduates have historically been less likely to pursue doctoral study at the top-ranked research programs that serve as academic career launchpads.

The transition from undergraduate to doctoral education represents the most critical juncture in the academic pipeline for minority students, and the attrition at this stage is substantial. Fewer minority students apply to doctoral programs in criminology, a pattern that reflects a combination of financial barriers, inadequate mentoring about graduate school opportunities, the attractiveness of immediate professional employment in criminal justice agencies, and the perception — often accurate — that the academic profession offers uncertain rewards for minority scholars who may face isolation and marginalization in predominantly white departments. Students who do enter doctoral programs may encounter environments where they are one of few minority members of their cohort, where the curriculum does not reflect their intellectual interests or cultural experiences, and where mentoring relationships are complicated by racial dynamics that neither advisors nor students may know how to address constructively (Peterson, 2012).

Targeted recruitment and retention programs have attempted to address pipeline challenges with varying degrees of success. The ASC’s Ruth D. Peterson Fellowship for Racial and Ethnic Diversity provides financial support and professional mentoring for minority doctoral students. The ACJS Minority Scholarship-Fellowship program combines funding with structured professional development activities. The Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program, a federally funded initiative that prepares first-generation and underrepresented undergraduate students for doctoral study, has supported some criminology students. Individual doctoral programs have implemented recruitment initiatives that target minority-serving institutions, attend recruitment fairs at minority-focused professional conferences, and offer enhanced financial packages to minority applicants. These efforts have produced incremental improvements but have not fundamentally altered the demographic composition of the field’s doctoral pipeline, suggesting that the structural barriers to diversification operate at levels that targeted programmatic interventions alone cannot address.

Race in the Criminology Curriculum

Theoretical Instruction and the Racial Canon

The treatment of race in criminology theory courses reflects both the discipline’s intellectual history and its ongoing engagement with critiques about what and whom the canonical curriculum includes and excludes. The standard theory course — organized chronologically from classical criminology through positivism, the Chicago School, strain theory, control theory, labeling theory, and developmental criminology — presents a lineage of theoretical development that is overwhelmingly white and male in its authorship (Potter, 2015). The scholars whose work defines the canon — Beccaria, Lombroso, Durkheim, Merton, Sutherland, Hirschi, Gottfredson, Sampson, Moffitt — are without exception white men from Western European and American intellectual traditions. The theories they developed, while often powerful in their explanatory reach, were frequently constructed without systematic attention to racial dynamics and were tested primarily on white populations or on racially aggregated samples that obscured differential applicability across racial groups.

The absence of scholars of color from the canonical theory curriculum is not merely a matter of demographic representation; it has intellectual consequences for the kind of knowledge the curriculum transmits. W.E.B. Du Bois’s pioneering sociological analysis of race, crime, and social structure in The Philadelphia Negro (1899) preceded much of the Chicago School research and addressed questions about the relationship between structural racism and criminal behavior that remain central to contemporary criminology — yet Du Bois rarely appears in standard theory courses (Gabbidon, 2007). Ida B. Wells’s anti-lynching scholarship addressed racialized violence as a mechanism of social control with a directness and empirical rigor that anticipated contemporary critical race criminology by nearly a century. The intellectual contributions of scholars such as William Julius Wilson, whose analysis of the urban underclass (1987) transformed understanding of concentrated disadvantage and crime, and Katheryn Russell-Brown, whose concept of the “criminal-blackman” (1998) analyzed the racialization of criminal imagery, are more commonly included in contemporary curricula but remain supplementary rather than canonical in most programs.

The integration of race into substantive courses beyond the theory sequence is similarly uneven. Policing courses may address racial profiling, use of force disparities, and the procedural justice framework without systematically analyzing how racialized social control operates as a structural phenomenon rather than merely a collection of individual officer decisions. Corrections courses may document racial disparities in incarceration without examining the political economy of mass imprisonment, the historical continuities between slavery, convict leasing, and contemporary incarceration, or the collateral consequences of imprisonment for communities of color. Courses that treat race as a variable to be controlled rather than a structural condition to be analyzed produce graduates who can document disparities but lack the conceptual tools to explain or address them.

Dedicated Race and Crime Courses

The development of standalone courses on race, crime, and criminal justice represents one of the most significant curricular innovations of the past two decades. These courses, offered at both undergraduate and graduate levels, provide the sustained and systematic engagement with racial dynamics that survey courses cannot accommodate. Shaun Gabbidon and Helen Taylor Greene’s textbook Race and Crime (2019), now in its fifth edition, has become the standard text for these courses, covering the historical context of race and crime in America, racial differences in offending and victimization, racial disparities in criminal justice processing, and theoretical perspectives on the race-crime relationship. The growing adoption of dedicated race and crime courses reflects increasing faculty and student demand for sustained engagement with racial issues and a recognition that the conventional curriculum’s treatment of race as one topic among many is inadequate to the subject’s importance and complexity.

The pedagogical challenges of teaching race and crime courses are substantial and distinctive. Classroom discussions about race, policing, and punishment can evoke strong emotional responses from students whose personal experiences with the criminal justice system vary dramatically along racial lines. White students may feel defensive when confronted with evidence of systemic racism, interpreting structural critiques as personal accusations. Students of color may feel burdened by expectations that they represent their racial group’s perspective, speak to the authenticity of scholarly findings, or educate their white classmates about racial experiences. Faculty who teach these courses — particularly white faculty teaching predominantly diverse classes or minority faculty teaching predominantly white classes — must manage these dynamics while maintaining intellectual rigor and creating classroom environments where difficult conversations can occur productively (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019).

The content of race and crime courses has evolved in response to both scholarly developments and public events. The policing controversies and social movements that have focused national attention on police use of force, mass incarceration, and racial justice — from the Ferguson protests through subsequent controversies and policy debates — have increased student interest in these courses and created both opportunities and challenges for faculty who must address highly publicized events while maintaining analytical standards that distinguish scholarly analysis from political advocacy. The growing body of research on implicit bias, algorithmic fairness, environmental racism, immigration enforcement, and the intersection of race with gender and class has expanded the content that race and crime courses can address, though the limited number of credit hours in any single course requires difficult choices about which topics receive sustained treatment and which are addressed only briefly.

Intellectual Contributions of Race Scholarship

Empirical Findings and Theoretical Advances

Scholarship on race and crime has produced some of criminology’s most important empirical findings and theoretical contributions, though this work has not always been recognized as central to the discipline’s intellectual mainstream. Research on racial disparities in criminal justice processing has generated a vast evidence base documenting disparate outcomes at every stage of the justice system. Cassia Spohn’s (2014) research on racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing, Darrell Steffensmeier and colleagues’ analyses of the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender in court processing, and Jeffrey Ulmer’s studies of local legal culture and its contribution to sentencing variation have provided detailed empirical portraits of how race shapes the administration of criminal punishment. This body of work has directly informed policy discussions about sentencing reform, prosecutorial discretion, and the design of sentencing guidelines intended to reduce unwarranted disparity.

At the theoretical level, race scholarship has challenged and enriched the discipline’s explanatory frameworks. Robert Sampson’s (2012) research on neighborhood effects and racial-spatial inequality has demonstrated that the concentration of crime in disadvantaged communities reflects structural conditions — residential segregation, concentrated poverty, institutional disinvestment — rather than individual or cultural pathology. Ruth Peterson and Lauren Krivo’s (2010) analysis of divergent social worlds has shown that the racial gap in neighborhood crime rates is almost entirely attributable to the structural characteristics of the neighborhoods in which different racial groups live, challenging explanations that locate the causes of racial differences in offending within racial groups themselves. Michelle Alexander’s (2010) The New Jim Crow, while not a work of academic criminology, synthesized decades of criminal justice research into an argument about mass incarceration as a system of racialized social control that reached an audience far larger than any journal article could achieve and that fundamentally shifted public discourse about incarceration in the United States.

The concept of racial threat, derived from Hubert Blalock’s (1967) power-threat hypothesis and developed through decades of criminological research, has provided a theoretical framework for understanding how the racial composition of communities influences criminal justice outcomes — with larger minority populations associated with more punitive policing, prosecution, and sentencing, independent of crime rates (Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006). Khalil Gibran Muhammad’s (2010) historical analysis in The Condemnation of Blackness has revealed how the statistical association between Black Americans and crime was constructed through the selective use of crime data in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, showing that the racial framing of crime has deep historical roots that continue to shape contemporary perceptions, policies, and research priorities. These contributions demonstrate that race scholarship is not a peripheral specialty within criminology but a central intellectual endeavor that addresses fundamental questions about the nature of crime, the operation of justice, and the relationship between social structure and individual behavior.

Critical Race Criminology and Structural Analysis

Critical race criminology has emerged as a distinctive intellectual tradition that brings critical race theory’s analytical tools — the concepts of structural racism, intersectionality, interest convergence, and counter-storytelling — to bear on criminological questions. Unlike mainstream empirical research on racial disparities, which typically documents differences in outcomes and attempts to identify their proximate causes within existing institutional frameworks, critical race criminology interrogates the frameworks themselves, asking how the definition of crime, the structure of criminal law, and the design of justice institutions reflect and reproduce racial hierarchy (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). This tradition challenges the assumption that racial disparities can be adequately addressed through reforms within existing systems — implicit bias training, sentencing guideline adjustments, body-worn cameras — and argues instead that the systems themselves are structured by racial logics that incremental reform cannot fundamentally alter.

The concept of intersectionality, developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) and extensively applied in feminist and critical race scholarship, has become increasingly influential in criminological analysis. Intersectional approaches examine how race, gender, class, sexuality, and other dimensions of social position interact to produce distinctive patterns of criminal justice experience — recognizing, for example, that the experiences of Black women in the justice system differ from those of both white women and Black men in ways that single-axis analyses of either race or gender cannot capture. Hillary Potter’s (2015) Intersectionality and Criminology has provided a systematic application of intersectional analysis to criminological questions, demonstrating how the discipline’s traditional categories of analysis fail to account for the complexity of lived experience at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

The intellectual relationship between critical race criminology and mainstream empirical criminology is characterized by productive tension. Mainstream scholars sometimes view critical race approaches as insufficiently empirical, too reliant on interpretive and narrative methods, and politically motivated rather than scientifically grounded. Critical race scholars counter that the pretense of political neutrality in mainstream crime research is itself a political stance that legitimizes existing power arrangements, and that the discipline’s methodological preferences — large-n quantitative studies, official data sources, outcome variables defined by the criminal justice system — systematically privilege certain kinds of knowledge while marginalizing others. This tension, while sometimes unproductive, has also generated important intellectual exchanges that have pushed both traditions to sharpen their arguments and engage with the other’s strongest objections.

Pipeline Reform and Institutional Change

Recruitment, Retention, and Mentoring Initiatives

The recognition that diversifying criminology’s faculty and student bodies requires sustained institutional effort has generated a range of recruitment, retention, and mentoring initiatives at the organizational and program levels. The ASC’s Ruth D. Peterson Fellowship for Racial and Ethnic Diversity, named for the distinguished scholar whose presidential address (2012) placed race at the center of the discipline’s self-examination, provides financial support and professional mentoring to minority doctoral students. The fellowship’s structure — combining financial assistance with mentoring relationships, conference participation support, and integration into the ASC’s professional networks — addresses multiple barriers simultaneously rather than treating financial support alone as sufficient.

The American Society of Criminology‘s Division on People of Color and Crime provides an organizational home within the discipline’s largest professional association for scholars whose research focuses on race and crime and for minority scholars more broadly. The division sponsors panels at the annual meeting, administers awards, organizes mentoring events, and advocates for institutional policies that support diversity within the ASC and the discipline at large. Similar functions are served by the ACJS’s Minorities and Women Section and by informal mentoring networks organized by senior minority scholars who recognize the importance of providing guidance and support to junior colleagues navigating institutions where they may be isolated.

At the program level, individual doctoral programs have implemented various strategies to diversify their student bodies and create more inclusive intellectual environments. These strategies include targeted recruitment at minority-serving institutions and at conferences such as the National Council for Black Studies annual meeting, enhanced financial packages for minority applicants, the hiring of faculty of color who can serve as mentors and role models, the inclusion of race and crime courses in required curricula rather than relegating them to elective status, and the creation of departmental climate assessments that identify and address sources of isolation and marginalization. The effectiveness of these strategies varies with the institutional commitment behind them — programs that treat diversity as a genuine intellectual priority rather than a compliance exercise produce more sustainable change than those that adopt diversity initiatives primarily in response to external pressure.

Structural Barriers and Systemic Change

The persistence of racial underrepresentation in criminology despite decades of diversity initiatives suggests that the barriers to diversification operate at structural levels that individual programmatic interventions cannot adequately address. The academic labor market’s reliance on program prestige as a primary hiring criterion — documented empirically through studies of faculty hiring networks — systematically disadvantages graduates of programs that enroll more diverse student bodies but that rank lower in national prestige hierarchies. The tenure and promotion system’s emphasis on publication in top-tier journals — which have historically published less research on race than the topic’s importance warrants — can disadvantage scholars whose primary research focus is on racial dynamics in criminal justice. The service burden that falls disproportionately on minority faculty — committee work, diversity programming, student mentoring across the university — reduces the time available for the research productivity on which career advancement depends.

Addressing these structural barriers requires changes at the institutional level that go beyond programmatic add-ons. Revising hiring criteria to value scholarly excellence in race scholarship alongside methodological technique, adjusting service expectations to account for the disproportionate service demands placed on minority faculty, expanding the definition of research impact to include community engagement and policy influence alongside journal publication, and creating institutional cultures where intellectual diversity — including the kinds of questions asked and the methods used to answer them — is valued rather than merely tolerated would represent the kind of systemic change that can produce sustainable diversification. The discipline’s capacity to produce accurate and complete knowledge about crime and justice depends on achieving this diversification, as Ruth Peterson (2012) argued in her ASC presidential address — not as a matter of political correctness but as an epistemological requirement for a field whose subject matter is fundamentally structured by race.

Table 1. Dimensions of Race in Criminology Education

Dimension	Current Status	Key Challenges	Representative Scholarship	Implications for Education
Faculty Demographics	Significant underrepresentation of Black, Latino, and Native American scholars, especially at research universities	Pipeline attrition, hiring bias, institutional stratification, service burden disparities	Gabbidon, Penn, & Richards (2003); Greene, Gabbidon, & Wilson (2018)	Limited diversity of perspectives in knowledge production; mentorship gaps
Curriculum	Race treated as variable or supplementary topic in most programs; dedicated courses growing but not universal	Canon dominated by white male scholars; race often isolated from core theory	Potter (2015); Gabbidon & Greene (2019)	Graduates may document disparities without understanding structural causes
Theoretical Canon	Du Bois, Wells, and other early scholars of color largely absent from standard theory courses	Resistance to canon revision; finite curricular space; path dependence	Gabbidon (2007); Muhammad (2010)	Incomplete intellectual history; marginalization of foundational race scholarship
Research Production	Extensive empirical literature on disparities; critical race criminology emerging but contested	Tension between mainstream empiricism and critical analysis; methodological gatekeeping	Unnever & Gabbidon (2011); Sampson (2012); Peterson & Krivo (2010)	Need for methodological pluralism in studying race
Student Pipeline	Diverse undergrad enrollments; sharp attrition at doctoral transition	Financial barriers, mentorship gaps, unwelcoming program climates	Peterson (2012)	Targeted recruitment and retention programs with sustained institutional support

Conclusion

The relationship between race and criminology education is simultaneously one of the discipline’s most important and most challenging dimensions. The persistence of racial underrepresentation among criminology faculty limits the range of perspectives brought to bear on a subject matter that is fundamentally shaped by racial dynamics. The treatment of race in curricula — often fragmented, supplementary, and insufficiently structural in its analytical framework — risks producing graduates who can quantify racial disparities but lack the conceptual tools to explain or address them. The intellectual contributions of race scholarship, from Du Bois’s early sociological analyses through contemporary critical race criminology, have enriched the discipline’s theoretical and empirical foundations in ways that the canon has been slow to recognize. And the pipeline challenges that limit diversification of the professoriate operate at structural levels that programmatic interventions alone cannot resolve. Addressing these challenges requires sustained institutional commitment — to curricular reform that centers race rather than marginalizing it, to hiring practices that value intellectual diversity, to mentoring structures that support minority scholars through the pipeline, and to a disciplinary culture that recognizes that the study of crime and justice in a racially stratified society cannot be conducted adequately by a profession that does not itself reflect the society it studies.

References

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. Wiley.
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
Gabbidon, S. L. (2007). W.E.B. Du Bois on crime and justice: Laying the foundations of sociological criminology. Ashgate.
Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2019). Race and crime (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Gabbidon, S. L., Penn, E. B., & Richards, W. A. (2003). The status of Black criminologists in the discipline’s top-ranked journals and doctoral programs: An update. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250300085761
Greene, H. T., Gabbidon, S. L., & Wilson, S. K. (2018). Minorities and criminological thought. In H. T. Greene & S. L. Gabbidon (Eds.), Encyclopedia of race and crime (pp. 523–527). Sage Publications.
Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America. Harvard University Press.
Peterson, R. D. (2012). The central place of race in crime and justice — the American Society of Criminology’s 2011 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 50(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00271.x
Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation.
Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. Routledge.
Russell-Brown, K. (1998). The color of crime: Racial hoaxes, white fear, black protectionism, police harassment, and other macroaggressions. New York University Press.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
Spohn, C. (2014). Racial disparities in prosecution, sentencing, and punishment. In S. Bucerius & M. Tonry (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration (pp. 166–193). Oxford University Press.
Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9010-2
Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.
Unnever, J. D., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2011). A theory of African American offending: Race, racism, and crime. Routledge.
Unnever, J. D., & Owusu-Bempah, A. (2019). A Black criminology matters. In J. D. Unnever, S. L. Gabbidon, & C. Chouhy (Eds.), Building a Black criminology (pp. 3–30). Routledge.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.

Related Articles