Across California, school districts are under strain to produce and implement new curricula that would include an ethnic studies course for all students. School districts are rushing to comply with AB 101, which passed the California State Legislature in 2021. The law requires that all high school students, starting with the class of 2030, must complete an ethnic studies course to graduate.
This legislation remains in place even in the face of the Trump Administration’s effort to roll back ethnic studies across the nation.
While this change may seem like a routine adjustment to state curriculum guidelines, the bill was met with an onslaught of controversy even before Trump’s return. In fact, a series of guardrails were added to AB 101 shortly after it was passed to ensure that it would be “free from bias or bigotry and appropriate for all students.” In the state’s mandate, ethnic studies must cover the histories and contributions of African American, Latino American, Asian American, and Indigenous peoples. However, controversy has arisen where this model curriculum has gone far beyond its initial goal.
The original pedagogy of Ethnic Studies emerged as an academic discipline taught at the university level, following strikes by the Third World Liberation Front student groups in San Francisco and Berkeley in 1968. It mainly focused on the relationship between people who are oppressed and people who oppress. This original version of ethnic studies became known as ‘liberated’ ethnic studies. The advocacy of the Third World Liberation Front (TWLF) and other groups is centered on ideology. Universities created interdisciplinary ethnic studies departments and delved into research and coursework that explored white supremacy and the impact of colonialism, but this pedagogy largely stayed out of K-12 education.
When AB 101 made its way through the CA Assembly in 2020/2021, controversy steadily grew as stakeholders advocated for different visions for what Ethnic Studies should look like in high schools. Some advocated for a liberated model of ethnic studies that mirrored that of the TWLF in the 1970s. Others, however, advocated for a different approach to this curriculum that was non-ideological and focused on multiculturalism. And still, others have said that an ethnic studies requirement should not exist at the high school level at all.
A key player in California’s debate over ethnic studies in high schools is parent groups. One such group is the Alliance for Constructive Ethnic Studies (ACES). I asked Ilana Cohen, the Community Engagement Director at ACES, some questions to learn more.
Jason de Haaff (JD): What is ACES’s mission?
Ilana Cohen (IC): ACES’s goal is to ensure that high school courses are free from narrow ideological agendas, to support parents when issues arise, and to provide safe alternatives. We were horrified in 2019 when the Ethnic Studies curriculum being developed by the California Department of Education included a push from political activists to replace critical inquiry and analysis with political indoctrination. We encourage Ethnic Studies curricula that inspire mutual respect, fight racism, and celebrate ethnic accomplishments. The courses we support encourage critical thinking, analysis, and civil discourse among students.
Constructive Ethnic Studies is an umbrella term referring to non-politicized curricula, such as inclusive, effective, or empowered Ethnic Studies. The constructive approach teaches that the contributions of ethnic minorities are the foundation, history, and evolution of California and the United States. This includes analysis of race and racism historically and in a modern context, and encourages student engagement while presenting a range of political perspectives. It promotes student inquiry. It enables students to see themselves in the curriculum and better understand their peers without stereotyping or disparaging others.
JD: Who do you serve?
IC: We serve students, parents, and school communities who want to learn what is being taught in the K-12 classroom and how to work with the school district on promoting critical analysis in the curriculum. To that effect, we provide resources and professional development for school districts as well.
JD: What is liberated ethnic studies? Why do you think it is dangerous?
IC: Some school districts are unwittingly adopting extreme curricula, often called “Liberated” Ethnic Studies. Liberated curriculum divides society, including students, into oppressed and oppressor groups based on identity (like skin color, socioeconomic status, and gender), while ignoring one’s character, beliefs, and actions.
This curriculum uses material that was rejected by the CA State Board of Education. The CA Department of Justice, the State Board of Education, and Gov. Newsom’s office have all expressed concerns over this curriculum’s bias, bigotry, and discrimination.
In a Liberated Ethnic Studies class, there is no room for dissent or discussion as students fear being labeled oppressors. This creates a chilling effect on critical thinking and analysis—students are told what to think instead of how to formulate opinions. Students should not need to be dissidents to voice an opinion in class. When districts infuse their curricula with liberated ideology, the result has been a surge of polarization and hate speech.
JD: How has ACES been able to impact the Ethnic Studies approach in California?
IC: We are engaged with hundreds of parents around California and encourage them to advocate for constructive ethnic studies programs. We teach them how to discover what is being taught in their school districts and then engage with the school if any issues arise. In addition, we have provided analysis and recommendations for Ethnic Studies legislation, including major amendments to AB 101, the foundational legislation in California regarding Ethnic Studies.
We have organized 50 partner organizations to pressure Sacramento on legislation. We are consistently working with state legislators to keep them informed and up to date on Ethnic Studies critical issues.
This has led to revised ethnic studies curriculum and teacher resources and materials, as well as canceled liberated teacher training in dozens of districts across the state. We promote positive, empowering curriculum examples to school districts and engage with administration on understanding and utilizing the constructive approach.
We invite parents and community members to learn more and join in on our advocacy work.
JD: What are some of the challenges you have faced since starting ACES?
IC: There is a misconception that fighting for constructive ethnic studies is a partisan issue. Teaching critical thinking and analysis impacts all people and is central to American education. We believe that an empowering Ethnic Studies curriculum, focused on the contributions and histories of our local communities, is an important tool in building thoughtful, civically engaged students, which is an issue across the aisle.
JD: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
IC: Please visit us online at calethstudies.org to learn more and engage!
Ethnic studies and political activism are not intrinsically linked. Ethnic studies programs were conceived through political ethnic studies, but that history does not need to inform the current form that ethnic studies courses take.
Liberated Ethnic Studies models have structural flaws and tend to present students simplified stories with clear ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys.’ Replacing flawed teaching methods with more flawed methods is not constructive. In order to overlay political ideology on learning, Liberated models tell students what to think about histories and literatures. In doing so, they preclude the need to think critically.
Race Sorting Game in a Liberated Ethnic Studies course. This first example from a school district in Northern California asks students to sort people by what they look like (Source: ACES)
This example of an Identity Wheel, also used in at least one Northern California district, subjectively places groups on a wheel of privilege, domination, and oppression and then asks students to place themselves on the same wheel. (Source: ACES)
Liberated ethnic studies seems to presuppose the nature of historical relationships. In doing so, it tells students what they should think, precluding them from the opportunity of learning how to think.
Students should not be taught stories that are overly simple or hateful. But that is not to say that they should not be taught difficult or uncomfortable stories. The main thrust of activism in California, as represented by ACES, does not argue that students should never feel uncomfortable. A moderate approach to ethnic studies acknowledges that students should learn and even sometimes feel uncomfortable about race—they do not advocate for the Florida model that prohibits schools from making students feel “discomfort” about race, which is becoming increasingly prevalent under the current Trump Administration. Discomfort is a product of working through hard issues—it is sometimes necessary for learning and should not be avoided.
The ethnic studies courses and new curriculum requirements, as outlined in CA AB 101, offer an exciting opportunity for students to learn about more people and their lives. They aim to teach students how to use history, literature, political science, and more to learn about disparate American cultures. And in doing so, ethnic studies courses have the opportunity to teach students to think critically.
Assembly Bill 101 has the opportunity to facilitate important learning experiences for California high schoolers. Its implementation—and this learning opportunity—must not be bungled by introducing potentially harmful ideology into classrooms.
Featured Image Source: NYTimes
Comments are closed.