Liberated Ethnic Studies

Discussion

A critique from FAIR against such education mandates:

" FAIR’s stance against mandated “liberated” ethnic studies in K-12 education. Our reasoning is grounded in our founding principles: insisting on common humanity, rejecting race essentialism, and upholding equality under the law. We champion Martin Luther King Jr.'s principle of judging individuals by character, not skin color.

You might be wondering why these principles contradict “liberated” ethnic studies. To most, the idea of students learning about individuals from different ethnicities and backgrounds sounds virtuous and helpful. Let us be clear: that is not what “liberated” ethnic studies teaches. Liberated ethnic studies require that students understand the existence of certain ethnic groups, who fits within them, and also that certain ethnic groups enjoy an oppressor status while others are oppressed. Neither FAIR’s founding principles nor the civil rights laws of our country allow this to be required for the teaching of public school students.

The fact that “ethnic studies” sounds like a nice topic for students to learn is only one angle we have contended with since FAIR’s inception. Another is a popular research study that educators across the country have widely referenced in arguing that K-12 education should be reformed to include ethnic studies. What the Research Says About Ethnic Studies, by Christin Sleeter and Miguel Zavala, claims that ethnic studies improves students’ academic engagement, self-efficacy, personal empowerment, academic performance, graduation rates, and cross-cultural understanding. At first glance, it’s easy to understand why a finding like this should be used to promote the mandatory teaching of ethnic studies. However, a close analysis of Sleeter and Zavala’s study uncovers the myriad of problems involved in it and why teachers, families, administrators, and school board members must evaluate research claims to make informed decisions about proposed changes to curriculum and instruction.

FAIR’s analysis of Sleeter and Zavala’s study found that their claims are not well supported, and that in some cases, studies are being cited as evidence in ways the primary researchers explicitly cautioned against. FAIR also identified conflicts of interest that could compromise Sleeter’s and Zavala’s performance of an unbiased review. In addition to these concerns, FAIR’s analysis found that many of the programs and curricula featured in the studies reviewed by Sleeter and Zavala were premised on the notion that students should be taught separately and differently based on race and/or ethnicity—an idea which is contradicted by a robust body of developmental and cognitive learning theories and which is inadequate for a multiethnic, multiracial democracy."

(https://news.fairforall.org/p/fair-news-standing-against-divisive)