Ethnic-Studies Scholars Hoped Their Curriculum Would Break Boundaries. Critics Are Calling It Propaganda.

Scholars and teachers in California hoped to write a curriculum that shattered borders, bridged differences, and challenged narrow ways of thinking about identity.

But their proposal, the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, has kicked off a debate among critics who say it would do almost the opposite — overlooking some identity groups and imposing a politicized doctrine on students using “fashionable academic jargon.”

Following a law passed in 2016, the state charged an advisory committee of scholars and schoolteachers with proposing ethnic-studies coursework for the state’s education system. The 373-page proposal has drawn about 3,000 public comments and criticism from across the political spectrum, including from the State Board of Education itself.

The debate has grown as state lawmakers are considering requiring such a curriculum for students in high schools, which would be a nationwide first, and the California State University system, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The draft curriculum was posted in June. Two weeks ago, the California Legislative Jewish Caucus sent a letter to state education officials accusing the curriculum of anti-Jewish bias for its failure to address anti-Semitism alongside other forms of oppression, particularly in light of the shootings at synagogues in Pittsburgh and in Poway, Calif.

Civic groups, while supporting the broader goal of ethnic-studies instruction in high school, also condemned the curriculum on Tuesday as “replete with mischaracterizations.”

“The draft lacks cultural competency, does not reflect California’s diverse population, and advances a political agenda that should not be taught as unchallenged truth in our state’s public schools,” wrote representatives from Armenian, Greek, Hindu, Jewish, and Korean organizations in California. “The groups highlighted in the current draft should be recognized, but not at the expense of everyone else.”

In a written statement on Monday, Linda Darling-Hammond, president of California’s State Board of Education, with her colleagues Ilene Straus and Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon, said “the current draft model curriculum falls short and needs to be substantially redesigned.”

“Ethnic studies can be an important tool to improve school climate and increase our understanding of one another,” the officials wrote. “A model curriculum should be accurate, free of bias, appropriate for all learners in our diverse state, and align with Governor Newsom’s vision of a California for all.”

The drafting process has been lengthy, and Darling-Hammond stressed that it would not be completed for some time. “This early draft will be analyzed and substantially revised several times over before it makes its way to the state board next year,” she wrote in a letter to The Wall Street Journal that was published on Monday.

An advisory arm of the state board will review the hundreds of comments it has received, she wrote, a process that could continue with several rounds of edits into next year.

‘The Beginning, Not the End’

California lawmakers passed legislation in 2016 that mandated the design — but not the rollout — of an ethnic-studies curriculum by 2020. Many California classrooms are already teaching such material to a growing number of students, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Scholars credit student activists at San Francisco State University with kicking off the field of ethnic studies in 1968.

The dispute in California is yet another example of how, for decades, the field has fought to justify itself to a skeptical public, said Gaye Theresa Johnson, an associate professor of Chicana and Chicano studies and African-American studies at the University of California at Los Angeles. The proposal, for instance, mentions Arizona’s attempt in 2010 to ban ethnic-studies curricula in its public schools, which a federal judge declared unconstitutional in 2017.

Johnson was a member of the advisory committee tapped to draft the curriculum, though she said scheduling problems had left her out of the drafting process. She broadly defended the group’s work.

The current proposal isn’t perfect, Johnson said. A colleague, for instance, had noted that it uses improper language to describe some Indigenous people — but it’s an early draft that offers an important corrective to curricula that marginalize people. She said hate mail and criticism she had received were out of proportion with the group’s goals.

The draft curriculum remains open for public comment until Thursday.

“People need to keep in mind that this is the beginning, not the end,” said Stephanie Gregson, a deputy superintendent at the California Department of Education. The department itself has sent critiques to the board’s advisory arm that the draft isn’t fit for all students and teachers. A final draft will look very different, she said.

“This is a very public and transparent process, so that’s why you’ve seen a lot of attention around it,” Gregson said. “It’s also very personal.”

Follow Steven Johnson on Twitter at @stetyjohn, or email him at steve.johnson@chronicle.com.