Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

7. Educational Attainment and Ethnic Hostility | Expectations
selective group. As a consequence of the homogenization process, among native populations,
members of educational categories have thus become more distinct with respect to their skills.
Likely as a consequence of this, the educational effect on ethnic hostility increased among
native Dutch in the time period 1975-1998 (Jaspers, 2008), as well as over birth cohorts in the
US (Quillian, 1996).
Although we do not have longitudinal data to our availability, ethnicity-based
educational inequality present in the Netherlands implies that homogenization of educational
categories reached different stages across ethnic groups. Ethnic minorities – especially of fi rst
generational status – are overrepresented at the bottom of the educational hierarchy (see Chapter
5). For fi rst generation migrants this is in part due to selective migration and to less favourable
circumstances to start or continue one’s educational career in the country of origin. Second
generation migrants in the Netherlands are less likely to continue their educational career after
successfully having completed general secondary education (i.e. HAVO or VWO) (see Chapter 5).
Second generation Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans who do enrol in higher education
obtained, in general, lower grade point averages in secondary education than their native Dutch
counterparts (see Chapter 6). Given these considerations, we assume that minorities – both of
fi rst and second generational statuses – with relatively low educational degrees (below higher
education) constitute a more heterogeneous group than their native Dutch counterparts with
respect to their cognitive skills. Given the link between homogenization at the bottom of the
educational hierarchy and the strength of the (negative) effect of education on ethnic hostility,
we come to the same hypothesis as above, namely, that the negative effect of education on ethnic
hostility (i.e. opposition to ethnically mixed relationships) is smaller for ethnic minority groups
than for native Dutch.
Note that Ethnic Competition Theory and considerations around the homogenization
process of educational categories give two reasons why (differential) distributions of educational
degrees across ethnic groups asserts an infl uence on the effect of education on ethnic hostility.
First, because ethnic minorities have more often lower educational attainments than native
populations, natives who are lower educated themselves are more directly in competition with
ethnic outgroups than higher educated natives, perceive more ethnic threat, and are consequently
expected to express more ethnic hostility. If ethnic minorities were predominantly higher
educated, the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility among natives would be weaker.
Similarly, since especially higher educated minorities have similar position as members of the
native population, we expect the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility among ethnic
minority groups to be weaker. According to this threat-mechanism, ethnic threat should interpret
the (negative) effect of education on indicators of ethnic hostility. Secondly, the differential
distribution of educational degrees across ethnic groups is refl ected in differences in homogeneity
of cognitive skills of educational categories across ethnic groups. Lower educated minorities
constitute presumably a less homogenous category with respect to cognitive skills than lower
educated natives. Consequently, the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility is expected
to be weaker across ethnic minority groups.
147