CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2020, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“GET READY FOR ANOTHER ETHNIC STUDIES BATTLE”
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2020, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“GET READY FOR ANOTHER ETHNIC STUDIES BATTLE”
None of
the myriad documents prepared by state agencies last year came close to
generating the conflict and heated emotions of a proposed new ethnic studies
curriculum for public schools put forward by the state Board of Education and
California’s Department of Education.
Expect
a new battle on this subject soon.
The end
result of last year’s kerfluffle was that the plan went back to the drawing
board. A draft of a purported new plan will be released later this spring,
barring coronavirus-related delays, with public input to follow and the aim of
getting approval by the state board next fall for use during the 2021-22 school
year.
Good
luck with that schedule. The way it seems to be shaping up indicates the new
ethnic studies program will strongly resemble the old one, which drew fire for
ignoring the contributions and problems of many ethnic groups, including Jewish
Americans, Armenian Americans and some other significant groups.
This
happened in part because the rejected draft divided all Californians into four
basic ethnic identities: African-Americans, whites, Hispanic Americans and
Asians/Pacific Islanders (as if – for one example – it makes any sense to toss
Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans into the same pot).
The
rejected curriculum was essentially a litany of complaints. Perhaps that was because
academics who subscribe to a field of studies known as “critical ethnic
studies” dominated the volunteer committee that helped shape it.
Several
websites describe the guiding question explored by the Critical Ethnic Studies
Association as this: “How do the histories of colonialism and conquest, racial
chattel slavery and white supremacist patriarchies…affect, inspire and unsettle
scholarship in the present?”
That
pretty much means ethnic studies thinking is dominated by negatives, with
little use for the positive contributions of the 80-plus ethnic groups that
live side-by-side in California.
But
critical ethnic studies has essentially been the background for shaping both
the failed ethnic studies draft and the upcoming new effort.
Said
Theresa Montano, an ethnic studies professor at Cal State Northridge, “Racism
has played a critical role in America and California. There’s a dominant white
culture and then the others.” Might the cause of that last be the fact this
nation was founded principally by Europeans?
No
informed American denies that slavery played a major role in the nation’s
history. So did the cheap labor of Chinese and other immigrants, including the
Irish, Jews and Hispanics. There’s also no arguing that Native Americans suffered
enormously.
All
this belongs in public school curricula. But so do the positive contributions
of European colonists and other immigrants who together made this the most
successful nation planet Earth ever saw, both economically and, often, in
living out democratic ideals.
But
anyone who expects the new draft to focus on the positive much more than the
previous, rejected version probably should guess again.
In an
update early this year, state Schools Supt. Tony Thurmond said “Our
recommendations will acknowledge and honor the four foundational groups” at the
core of critical ethnic studies. That will lump Jews, Armenians, Irish, and all
other Caucasian hyphenated Americans together with whites in general. It likely
means anti-Semitism and the Armenian genocide, for two examples, would be
downplayed next to racism and the interning of Japanese-Americans during World
War II.
Each of
these subjects deserves separate, substantial study. But it can’t happen when
there are “four foundational groups” and everyone else goes into some kind of
sub-group. It’s like the major leagues vs. the minors, or like network
television vs. something streamed on YouTube.
Essentially,
the Critical Ethnic Studies Assn. advocates focusing on communities of color
and not giving much attention to others, no matter how central their role in
American history and no matter how severe a persecution they may have suffered.
So
there will likely be no notation, for example, that Portuguese-Americans were
central to building the state’s strongest-in-the-world agriculture industry.
Sure,
the new draft will eliminate most of the little-used words that dotted the
first version, like cisheteropatriarchy (a male-dominated system) or hxrstory
(pronounced the same as herstory and supposedly more inclusive than “history”).
But the general thrust likely won’t differ much from last year’s effort, which
means this one likely won’t fly, either.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias
at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most
Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,"
is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment