What does “soft bigotry of low expectations” mean?

Solution 1:

The expression refers to a prejudiced attitude of intolerance with respect to races and religions, especially those which are not the main accepted ones. This attitude here is described as soft and with low expectations in the sense that it is not aggressive but has little chances of change in a positive way.

soft bigotry Schools need to stop promoting the soft bigotry of low expectations, the Education Secretary has said, claiming teachers refuse to believe that children from poor homes can achieve high standards.

As Ngram shows the expression has been popolar in recent years especially in Am E, but as shown in the article by the a Telegraph is used in Britain too.

Solution 2:

In context, from the rest of Charles Blow's answer to the question linked article:

I suffered from this as well. At one school, the teacher never expected me to perform, so I didn’t. They even tried to transfer me to a “slow” class, which was full of mostly African-American boys, but my mother protested. I changed schools, and the teachers there expected much of me and I rose to meet those expectations, I was given an IQ test and deemed “gifted” and I graduated the valedictorian of my class.

(Emphasis added.) Note that Mr. Blow is African-American, and the question comes after several others about racism and race relations.

His answer implies that his teacher held the racist stereotype that Black people are “slow” (euphemism for learning-disabled or stupid), and on this basis, lacked faith that Blow could perform well in school (the “low expectations”). Blow internalized this stereotype until he changed schools.

This is called soft bigotry in contrast to “harder” forms that were common in the pre-Civil Rights era, such as Black students not being allowed to attend White schools at all.

Solution 3:

"The soft bigotry of low expectations" is a political term, crafted by a speechwriter. It's useful to understand it in the context of a political conversation about educational policy, poverty, and racial issues in America. It's a phrase with a lot of connotations, both direct and indirect, that pulls a lot of weight in George W. Bush's "no child left behind" NAACP speech. Understanding all of the subtext may require reading up on modern-day education reform movements (standardized testing, charter schools, &c.), as well as the No Child Left Behind Act. Whether policies like NCLB and Common Core actually constitute a functional answer to "low expectations" is an ongoing political debate in the US.

I think the spirit of this question, though, is this: what does it mean when bigotry is "soft?"

• "Soft" bigotry is milder and less direct than the most overt kind of discrimination. For example, in the original speech, this is part of a segue to move from talking about "racial redlining and profiling" — the direct persecution of minorities by the police — to talking about structural issues that tend to affect educational outcomes for minority students.

• "Soft" bigotry is subtle. Because it's less direct, it may be harder to identify and address. In other words, people can act in racist ways (e.g. neglecting students of color) without being labeled as racists by the people around them.

• "Soft" bigotry is, potentially, unwitting bigotry. The speech hints that even well-meaning people may be perpetuating a bad system. For example:

  There's a tremendous gap of achievement between rich and poor, white and minority. This, too, leaves a divided society.

  And whatever the causes, the effect is discrimination.

  In other words, even without overt or covert malice (or even unexamined racist beliefs at all), someone may be contributing to a de-facto racist system. This bit is a big part of what makes it effective political rhetoric that has survived for more than a decade.

Solution 4:

It's a piece of political rhetoric and needs to be seen as such. As with many political slogans, it's carrying a number of hidden assumptions and arguments and unspoken conclusions:

• There are generally demanded standards of achievement.
• Not demanding an individual meet those standards is doing them a disservice.
• Individuals who are judged to be less likely to be able meet standards generally face less strong demands to meet those standards.
• One reason individuals can be judged to be less likely to be able meet certain standards is due to bigotry.
• Hence, variation in standards is evidence of bigotry.
• Therefore sink-or-swim one-size-fits-all approaches, without individual consideration are warranted, and opposition to this approach is tantamount to supporting bigotry.