Hubbry Logo
Ethnic studiesEthnic studiesMain
Open search
Ethnic studies
Community hub
Ethnic studies
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ethnic studies
Ethnic studies
from Wikipedia

Ethnic studies, in the United States, is the study of difference—chiefly race, ethnicity, and nation, but also sexuality, gender, and other such markings—and power, as expressed by the state, by civil society, and by individuals.

Its antecedents came before the civil rights era, as early as the 1900s. During that time, educator and historian W. E. B. Du Bois expressed the need for teaching black history.[1] However, ethnic studies became widely known as a secondary issue that arose after the civil rights era.[2] Ethnic studies was originally conceived to re-frame the way that specific disciplines had told the stories, histories, struggles and triumphs of people of color on what was seen to be their own terms. In recent years, it has broadened its focus to include questions of representation, racialization, racial formation theory, and more determinedly interdisciplinary topics and approaches.

As opposed to international studies, which was originally created to focus on the relations between the United States and Third World countries, ethnic studies was created to challenge the already existing curriculum and focus on the history of people of different minority ethnicity in the United States.[3] Ethnic studies is an academic field that spans the humanities and the social sciences; it emerged as an academic field in the second half of the 20th century partly in response to charges that traditional social science and humanities disciplines such as anthropology, history, literature, sociology, philosophy, political science, and area studies were conceived from an inherently Eurocentric perspective.[4]

"The unhyphenated-American phenomenon tends to have colonial characteristics," notes Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera in After American Studies: Rethinking the Legacies of Transnational Exceptionalism: "English-language texts and their authors are promoted as representative; a piece of cultural material may be understood as unhyphenated—and thus archetypal—only when authors meet certain demographic criteria; any deviation from these demographic or cultural prescriptions are subordinated to hyphenated status."[5]

History

[edit]

In the United States, the field of ethnic studies evolved out of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s and early 1970s, which contributed to growing self-awareness and radicalization of people of color such as African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and American Indians. Ethnic studies departments were established on college campuses across the country and have grown to encompass African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Raza Studies, Chicano Studies, Mexican American Studies, Native American Studies, Jewish Studies, and Arab Studies. Arab American Studies was created after 9/11 at SF State University. Jewish Studies and Arab Studies were created long before 1968, outside of the U.S., apart and separate from the 1968 Ethnic Studies Movement.

The first strike demanding the establishment of an Ethnic Studies department occurred in 1968, led by the Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), a joint effort of the Black Student Union, Latin American Students Organization, Asian American Political Alliance, Pilipino American Collegiate Endeavor, and Native American Students Union at San Francisco State University.[citation needed] This was the longest student strike in the nation's history and resulted in the establishment of a School of Ethnic Studies. President S. I. Hayakawa ended the strike after taking a hardline approach when he appointed Dr. James Hirabayashi the first dean of the School (now College) of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University,[6] and increased recruiting and admissions of students of color in response to the strike's demands. In 1972, The National Association for Ethnic Studies was founded to foster interdisciplinary discussions for scholars and activists concerned with the national and international dimensions of ethnicity encouraging conversations related to anthropology, Africana Studies, Native Studies, Sociology and American Studies among other fields.

Minority students at The University of California at Berkeley- united under their own Third World Liberation Front- the TWLF, initiated the second longest student strike in US history on January 22, 1969. The groups involved were the Mexican American Student Confederation, Asian American Political Alliance, African American Student Union, and the Native American group. The four co-chairmen of the TWLF were Ysidro Macias, Richard Aoki, Charlie Brown, and LaNada Means.[citation needed]

This strike at Berkeley was even more violent than the San Francisco State strike, in that more than five police departments, the California Highway Patrol, Alameda County Deputies, and finally, the California National Guard were ordered onto the Berkeley campus by Ronald Reagan in the effort to quash the strike.[citation needed] The excessive use of police force has been cited with promoting the strike by the alienation of non-striking students and faculty, who protested the continual presence of police on the Berkeley campus. The faculty union voted to join the strike on March 2, and two days later the Academic Senate called on the administration to grant an interim Department of Ethnic Studies.[citation needed] On March 7, 1969, President Hitch authorized the establishment of the first Ethnic Studies Department in the country, followed by the establishment of the nation's first College of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University on March 20, 1969.[citation needed] In 1994, with Taiwanese government's support, National Dong Hwa University established the first Ethnic Studies institute in Taiwan, the Graduate Institute of Ethnic Relations and Cultures, which nowadays is one of leading institution of Ethnic Studies in Asia for its Austronesian and Taiwanese Indigenous Studies.[7]

Courses in ethnic studies address perceptions that, because of the Eurocentric bias and racial and ethnic prejudice of those in power, American historians have systematically ignored or undervalued the roles of such ethnic minorities as Asian Americans, Blacks, Mexicans, Latinos and Native Americans.[citation needed] Ethnic studies also often encompasses issues of intersectionality, where gender, class, and sexuality also come into play. There are now hundreds of African American, Asian American, Mexican American and Chicano/Latino Studies departments in the US, approximately fifty Native American Studies departments, and a small number of comparative ethnic studies programs. College students, especially on the East Coast, continue to advocate for Ethnic Studies departments.The Ethnic Studies Coalition at Wellesley College,[8] the Taskforce for Asian and Pacific American Studies at Harvard University, and CRAASH at Hunter College[9] are among student organizations calling for increased institutional support for Ethnic Studies. Ethnic studies as an institutional discipline varies by location. For instance, whereas the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley comprises separate "core group" departments, the department at UC San Diego does not do so.[10]

SF Students hold signs in solidarity and support of the Third World Liberation Front 2016, the name of the court students on a hunger strike to defend the SF State College of Ethnic Studies, during an emergency press conference in the Quad Monday, May 9. (Melissa Minton)[11]

In May 2016 there was another Hunger Strike that took place at San Francisco State University. It was started by Hassin Bell, Julia Retzlaff, Sachiel Rosen, and Ahkeel Mesteger, all students at SFSU, in the attempt to both defend and improve the College of Ethnic Studies. They were on strike for 10 days and their strike reached national attention that helped end the strike with a signed compromise from the SFSU president Leslie Wong. The compromise consisted of allocating $250,000 to the Ethnic Studies department.[2]

Schools of thought

[edit]

While early ethnic studies scholarship focused on the repressed histories and identities of various groups in the U.S., the field of study has expanded to encompass transnationalism, comparative race Studies, and postmodernist/poststructuralist critiques. While pioneering thinkers relied on frameworks, theories and methodologies such as those found in the allied fields of sociology, history, literature and film, scholars in the field today utilize multidisciplinary as well as comparative perspectives, increasingly within an international or transnational context. Central to much Ethnic Studies scholarship is understanding how race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and other categories of difference intersect to shape the lived experiences of people of color, what the legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw calls intersectionality.[12] Branches of ethnic studies include but are not limited to African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Native American/ Indigenous Peoples' Studies, and Latino/a Studies.[13]

A discipline within ethnic studies is African American Studies, which consist of studying people of African descent and their ideologies, customs, cultures, identities, and practices by drawing on social sciences and the humanities.[14] The changes made to educational and social institutions by the U.S. Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s can be traced as the origin for the development of African American Studies as a discipline.[14] In general, the changes made to the higher education system to incorporate African American Studies has been led by student activism.[15] When initially created, in many cases to end protests, the African American Studies programs at predominately white universities were underfunded and not highly esteemed.[16] Since the 1970s, African American Studies programs, in general, have become reputable and more concretely established within predominantly white universities.[16] Historically, African American scholars and their works have been used as sources to teach African American Studies.[17] Teaching African American Studies has been categorized by two methods: Afrocentric, which relies solely on text by black authors and are led by all-black faculties, and traditional methods, which are more inclusive of non-black authors and are more broad in their studies.[18] Scholars whose work was influential to the development of African American Studies, and whose work is studied include W.E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Carter G. Woodson, and George Washington Williams.[16] The first historically black college or university to offer a variation of African American Studies was Howard University, located in Washington D.C.[18]

Native American Studies, or sometimes named Native Studies or American Indian Studies, is another branch of ethnic studies which was established as a result of university student protest and community activism.[19] The first attempts at establishing some form of Native American Studies came in 1917 from Oklahoma Senator Robert Owen, who called for an 'Indian Studies' program at the University of Oklahoma.[20] Several decades later, the "Red Power" Movement of the 1960s, in a time of high minority and suppressed group activism in the US, sought to get Native American Studies into higher education.[21] San Francisco State University and University of California at Berkeley were the first to adopt these fields into their departments in 1968.[21] The TCU (tribal colleges and universities) movement of the 1960s aimed to expand the teaching of Native American Studies by establishing tribe-run universities to educate the tribe's youth and their communities.[22] Navajo Community College, later renamed Diné College, was the first of these institutions.[22] Curriculum in Native American Studies programs teach the historical, cultural and traditional aspects of both natives of the land in general, as well as that of the American Indians specifically.[19] Figures within Native American Studies include Vine Deloria Jr., an American Indian scholar and rights' activist,[23] Paula Gunn Allen who was a writer and educator of Native American Studies,[24] poet Simon J. Ortiz.[25]

Asian American Studies, different than Asian Studies, is a subfield within ethnic studies, which focuses on the perspectives, history, culture, and traditions of the Asian peoples' in the United States.[26] Asian American Studies originated in the late 1960s at the San Francisco State College (now San Francisco State University) where a student strike led to the development of the program at the school.[26] The historical approach to representing Asia in the United States prior to the introduction of Asian American Studies has been Orientalism which portrays Asia as a polar opposite to anything western or American.[27] To counter this historical representation of ideas, Asian American Studies became one of the interdisciplinary fields that emphasized teaching the perspective, voice, and experience of the minority community.[26] In terms of the ethnicities being studied, there are distinctions between Asian Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino Americans for example) and Pacific Islanders (Samoan Americans), but those groups tend to be grouped as a part of Asian American Studies.[28] Prose, plays, songs, poetry (Haiku) and several other forms of writing were popular during the 1970s as methods of Asian American expression.[29] Among the most read authors were Frank Chin, Momoko Iko, Lawson Fusao Inada, Meena Alexander, Jeffery Paul Chan, and John Okada,[29] who were considered by Asian American scholars to be pioneers of Asian American literature.[28]

Most recently, "whiteness" studies has been included as a popular site of inquiry in what is traditionally an academic field for studying the racial formation of communities of color. Instead of including whites as another additive component to ethnic studies, whiteness studies has instead focused on how the political and juridical category of white has been constructed and protected in relation to racial "others" and how it continues to shape the relationship between bodies of color and the State. As Ian Haney-Lopez articulates in White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race, the law has functioned as the vehicle through which certain racialized groups have been included or excluded from the category of whiteness across time, and thus marked as inside or outside the national imaginary (read as white) and the privileges that result from this belonging.[30] Important to whiteness studies, according to scholars such as Richard Dyer, is understanding how white bodies are both invisible and hypervisible, and how representations of whiteness in visual culture reflect and, in turn, shape a persistent commitment to white supremacy in the U.S. even as some claim the nation is currently a colorblind meritocracy.[31] In addition to visual culture, space also reproduces and normalizes whiteness. The sociologist George Lipsitz argues that whiteness is a condition rather than a skin color, a structured advantage of accumulated privilege that resurfaces across time spatially and obscures the racism that continues to mark certain bodies as out of place and responsible for their own disadvantage.[32] Such attention to geography is an example of the way ethnic studies scholars have taken up the study of race and ethnicity across almost all disciplines using various methodologies in the humanities and social sciences.

In general, an "Ethnic Studies approach" is loosely defined as any approach that emphasizes the cross-relational and intersectional study of different groups. George Lipsitz is important here as well, demonstrating how the project of anti-black racism defines the relationship between the white spatial imaginary and other communities of color. Thus, the redlining of the 1930s that prevented upwardly mobile African Americans from moving into all-white neighborhoods also forced Latino and Asian bodies into certain spaces.

Relationship to other fields

[edit]

Ethnic studies often faces resistance from traditional fields of inquiry which prioritize objective and detached scholarship. Scholars from such disciplines often consider ethnic studies politicized. In contrast, ethnic studies has increasingly aligned with other fields of study which also emphasize power dynamics. These include African American and Asian American studies.[citation needed]

Ethnic Studies is often organized housed within departments that operate under a variety of names, including Critical Ethnic Studies,[33] Comparative American Cultures,[34] Ethnic Studies,[35] or American Studies and Ethnicity.[36] A wide variety of curricula are employed in the service of each of these rubrics. Occasionally, the gap between American Studies and Ethnic Studies can be productively bridged, especially in departments where the bulk of faculty focus on race and ethnicity, difference and power. But that bridgework can be troublesome, obscuring one foci and sharpening the emphasis on another.[37]

As a consequence of this great variation, though, ethnic studies needs to be understood within its specific institutional context. And, despite considerable financial (and often political) pressure to consolidate or eliminate ethnic studies within American Studies—or to house Native American studies, Latino studies, and Asian American studies within either ethnic studies or American Studies—the relationships between these fields should be considered within each institution's governing eco-system.[38]

Professional associations

[edit]

Association for Ethnic Studies

[edit]

The Association for Ethnic Studies (AES) was founded in 1972 by several scholars who wanted to study race through an interdisciplinary approach. It was previously known as the National Association for Ethnic Studies (NAES), and was initially named the National Association of Interdisciplinary Studies for Native-American, Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Asian Americans. The organization was officially renamed as NAES in 1985, and then to its current name in 2018.[39] It is the oldest ethnic studies association in the United States.[40]

From its founding, the organization has strived to promote scholarship, research, and curriculum design for its members.[39] The organization hosts an annual conference.[41]

AES also publishes the Ethnic Studies Review, a peer-reviewed journal for scholarship in ethnic studies, published by the University of California Press.[42]

Critical Ethnic Studies Association

[edit]

The Critical Ethnic Studies Association (CESA) began with its first conference in March 2011 at the University of California Riverside, Critical Ethnic Studies and the Future of Genocide: Settler colonialism/Heteropatriarchy/White Supremacy. This prompted the people who had organized and partaken in the conference to form the association. The second conference then took place in September 2013 at the University of Illinois Chicago and it was themed, Decolonizing Future Intellectual Legacies and Activist Practices. The third conference took place from April 30-May 2015 at York University in Toronto and it is titled, Sovereignties and Colonialisms: Resisting Racism, Extraction and Dispossession.[43]

In some instances, ethnic studies has become entrapped within and similar to the mandates of liberal multiculturalism, which relies on politics beholden to US nation-building and capitalist imperatives. Ethnic studies is in a difficult position, because as it gets more legitimized within the academy, it has frequently done so by distancing itself from the very social movements that were the triggers for its creation. On the other hand, ethnic studies departments have always existed on the margins of the academic industrial complex, and became further marginalized through funding cuts due to the 2008 global economic crisis. Instead of just dismissing or wholly embracing identarian nationalism, CESA seeks to construct an open dialogue around issues like white supremacy, settler colonialism, capitalism, and heteropatriarchy, militarism, occupation, indigenous erasure, neocolonialism, anti-immigration anti-Islam, etc. in order to expand the parameters and capacities of ethnic studies.[citation needed]

CESA's goal is not to romanticize all movements or dictate a specific relationship between scholars and activists. Instead, it questions the emphasis of professionalization within ethnic studies, the politics of the academic industrial complex, or the engagement of larger movements for social transformation. It recognizes that at times Ethnic Studies has been complicit in neutralizing the university, rather than questioning the university's ideologies, actions, regulation and production of knowledge, and power. It works to situate the university as a point of contention, as a location among many for political struggles. CESA invites participation from all types of people: scholars, students, activists, arts, media makers, and educators of all fields, generations, and disciplines. The Critical Ethnic Studies Association was founded as a transnational, interdisciplinary, and un-disciplinary association of scholars, activists, students, artists, media makers, educators, and others who are directly concerned with interrogating the limitations of ethnic studies in order to better engage the historical stakes of the field. It organizes projects and programs to reimagine ethnic studies and its future through new interventions, both scholarly and activist based. They aim to develop an approach to scholarship, institution building, and activism animated by the spirit of the decolonial, antiracist, and other global liberationist movements that enabled the creation of Ethnic Studies in the first place. It hopes that this approach will continue to inform its political and intellectual projects.[44]

Within the organization, there is an emphasis on counteracting institutional marginalization, revisiting the ideas that prompted the creation of ethnic studies, and creating new conversations that challenge US hegemony in traditional ethnic studies. Their goals include establishing an interdisciplinary network of scholars and activists stimulating debate on critical ethnic studies, providing forums such as the biannual conference or dialogues thought seminars, social media, etc. There is also a focus on publishing a journal, Critical Ethnic Studies, for new scholarship, and to facilitate dialogues that are critical and constructive between activist and academics.[45]

In high schools

[edit]

In California schools

[edit]

A 2021 law required California state's public high schools to offer an ethnic studies class by 2025 and to require an ethnic studies credit for graduation by 2030 "upon appropriation" of funding. However as of 3/14/2025 no funding has been allocated so it is unclear if the requirement has taken effect.[46] As of 2020 half of California students attended a high school where an ethnic studies class was offered.[47]

Though the state provides a model ethnic studies curriculum it does not require that school districts adopt it. There are two competing visions for high school ethnic studies. Liberated ethnic studies calls on students to "“[c]onceptualize, imagine, and build new possibilities for post-imperial life that promote collective narratives of transformative resistance, critical hope, and radical healing.” While constructive ethnic studies aims to “[e]quip students with the skills to understand and analyze multiple points of view on relevant topics, so that they can develop their own opinions and present well-articulated, evidence-based arguments.”[48]

School districts in California are implementing ethnic studies courses into school requirements. The El Rancho Unified School District (ERUSD), which serves the area of Pico Rivera, became the first school district in California to require an ethnic studies class as part of its students' graduation requirement in 2014.[49] The ethnic studies resolution in ERUSD was both drafted and proposed by ERUSD's board President, Aurora Villon and Vice President, Jose Lara and was presented as an effort to "expose ... students to global perspectives and inclusion of diversity".[50] This graduation requirement for ERUSD high school students is expected to be fully implemented by the 2015–2016 academic school year.[50]

In a similar move, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will also begin to require ethnic studies courses in its high schools and will include such courses in its A-G graduation requirements. In November 2014, the LAUSD board approved a resolution proposed by board members Bennett Kayser, George McKenna and Steve Zimmer.[51] The ethnic studies curriculum will begin as a pilot program in at least five high schools.[51] It is expected that by the 2017–2018 academic school year, every high school will offer at least one course in ethnic studies and the class would be compulsory by the time the class of 2019 graduates.[52] While LAUSD board members proposed the resolution, many students took on the efforts by creating petitions and rallies in support of the ethnic studies resolution.[53][54] In February 2021, the California Board of Education approved a curriculum to include the contributions of Asian, Black, Latino, and Native Americans. This included the approval of 33 optional lesson plans for schools to choose from.[55]

In Arizona schools

[edit]

On May 11, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2281 (also known as HB 2281 and A.R.S. §15–112), which prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that

  1. Promotes the overthrow of the Federal or state government or the Constitution
  2. Promotes resentment toward any race or class (e.g. racism and classism)
  3. Advocates ethnic solidarity instead of being individuals
  4. Are designed for a certain ethnicity

But the law must still allow:

  1. Native American classes to comply with federal law
  2. Grouping of classes based on academic performance
  3. Classes about the history of an ethnic group open to all students
  4. Classes discussing controversial history[56]

Coming off the heels of SB 1070, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne was adamant about cutting Mexican-American Studies in the Tucson Unified School District. He devised HB 2281 under the belief that the program was teaching "destructive ethnic chauvinism and that Mexican American students are oppressed".[57][58] In January 2011, Horne reported TUSD to be out of compliance with the law. In June of that year, the Arizona Education Department paid $110,000 to perform an audit on the TUSD's program, which reported "no observable evidence was present to suggest that any classroom within the Tucson Unified School District is in direct violation of the law."[59] John Huppenthal (elected Superintendent as Horne became Attorney General) ordered the audit as part of his campaign promise to "Stop La Raza", but when the audit contradicted his own personal findings of noncompliance, he discredited it. Despite a formal appeal issued on June 22, 2011, by TUSD to Huppenthal, Judge Lewis Kowal backed the Superintendent's decision and ruled the district out of compliance in December, 2011.[60] On January 10, 2012, the TUSD board voted to cut the program after Huppenthal threatened to withhold 10% of the district's annual funding. Numerous books related to the Mexican-American Studies program were found in violation of the law and have been stored in district storehouses, including William Shakespeare's The Tempest, Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and Bill Bigelow's Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years.[61]

Supporters of MAS see HB 2281 as another attack on the Hispanic population of Arizona. This is due partly to the fact that none of the other three ethnic studies programs were cut. Support for the ethnic studies programs subsequently came from scholars, community activist groups, etc. For example, The Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department refuted all of the violations under House Bill 2281. The audit instead recommended that the courses be implemented further, given the positive impacts of the courses on the students. In addition to the defense of the ethnic studies department, the UN Charter of Human Rights challenges the bill as a violation of fundamental human, constitutional, and educational rights (Kunnie 2010). A 2011 documentary, Precious Knowledge directed by Ari Palos and produced by Eren McGinnis for Dos Vatos Productions, argues that while 48% of Hispanic students drop out, TUSD's program had become a model of national success, with 93% of enrolled students graduating and 85% going on to college.[62] The film shows a 165-mile community run from Tucson to Phoenix in protest of the state's decision, as well as student-led marches and stand-ins. In one instance, students overtook a board meeting by chaining themselves to the board members' chairs.[63] A student protest group, UNIDOS (United Non-Discriminatory Individuals Demanding Our Studies), has remained active speaking out before legislators and school board members on behalf of the program.[64] In a separate case, two students and 11 teachers sued the state, contending that the law is unconstitutional. The teachers, however, have been denied standing in the lawsuit as public employees.[65]

Appeal of Arizona ban

[edit]

The Mexican American Studies course was first brought under attack after the Deputy Superintendent of Public Education gave a speech to students, countering an allegation that "Republicans hate Latinos."[66] The students walked out of the speech, and Tom Horne, the Superintendent, blamed the rudeness of the students on the teachers from their Mexican American Studies courses. He called for removal of the courses. When his call was not answered, he made an effort for a bill to be put into law banning Mexican American Studies courses.[66]

House Bill 2281,[67] which prohibited the Mexican American Studies courses, was approved in December 2010. In an effort to enforce the bill, the district court gave the Superintendent of the school district the right to withhold funding to schools that continue to teach the ethnic studies course.[68] Judge Kowal ruled the course "biased, political, and emotionally charged," and upheld both the bill and the withholding of funding from schools.[68]

An appeal was filed in October 2010.[66] The initial appeal was challenging House Bill 2281[67] for violation of First Amendment (for viewpoint discrimination) and Fourteenth Amendment (for void-for-vagueness) rights.[66] This initial appeal was filed by 10 teachers, the director of the Mexican American Studies program, and 3 students and their parents.[66] Once the students graduated, 2 dropped their appeals, and the teachers and program director were dismissed for want of standing in January 2012.[66] This left one student and her father on the appeal.

In March 2013, the appeals court ruled only in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that there was a First Amendment overbreadth violation to House Bill 2281.[67] The plaintiffs decided to further appeal the case.[66]

On July 7, 2015, the appeal on the ban of the Mexican American Studies, Maya Arce vs Huppenthal, reached a federal appeals court.[69] Overseen by Judge Rakoff, the court reversed part of what the district court had ruled on banning the course. Judge Rakoff looked at the 4 categories (listed above) that constitute which classes are prohibited.[69]

Rakoff's statement said that House Bill 2281 was created with the Mexican American Studies course in mind.[66] Since the Mexican American studies course was the only course in Arizona to be banned, it became clear that the bill had targeted the one course. This led the court to find the bill to be partially unconstitutional as it did not require similar Mexican American Studies courses outside of the Tucson Unified School District to cease teaching the courses. The bill also did not ban African American Studies courses that were being taught.[69]

Rakoff's final ruling affirmed part of the bill to be unconstitutional regarding the plaintiff's First Amendment right.[66] However, Rakoff upheld the district court's ruling that the bill is not over broad.[66] Rakoff sent part of the appeal back to the district court to review the claim that the bill is discriminatory.[66]

In August 2017, a different federal judge found that the bill was motivated by discriminatory intent, and struck down the ban on ethnic studies as unconstitutional.[70] The judge ruled that the ban had been passed "not for a legitimate educational purpose, but for an invidious discriminatory racial purpose and a politically partisan purpose."[71]

Criticism

[edit]

Ethnic studies has always been opposed by different elements. Proponents of ethnic studies feel that this is a reactionary movement from the right. They note the rise of the conservative movement during the 1990s in the United States, in which the discipline came increasingly under attack. For proponents, the backlash is an attempt to preserve "traditional values" of Western culture, symbolized by the United States. For some critics, this is a slant by proponents to disparage criticism by false association to right-wing ideology. They have no objection about African, Latino or Native American culture being legitimate topics of academic research. What they object to is the current state of ethnic studies which they see as characterized by excessive left-wing political ideology, postmodernist relativism which, in their view, greatly undermined the scholarly validity of the research. However, ethnic studies is accused of promoting "racial separatism", "linguistic isolation" and "racial preference".[72]

In 2005, Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder, came under severe fire for an essay he wrote called "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", in which he claimed that the September 11 attacks were a natural and unavoidable consequence of what he views as unlawful US policy, and referred to the "technocratic corps" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns".[73] Conservative commentators used the Churchill affair to attack ethnic studies departments as enclaves of "anti-Americanism" which promote the idea of ethnic groups as "victims" in US society, and not places where serious scholarship is done.[74]

In the face of such attacks, ethnic studies scholars are now faced with having to defend the field. In the media, this takes form of characterizing the attack as right wing reactionary movement. For example, Orin Starn, a cultural anthropologist and specialist in Native American Studies at Duke University, says: "The United States is a very diverse country, and an advocate would say we teach kids to understand multiculturalism and diversity, and these are tools that can be used in law, government, business and teaching, which are fields graduates go into. It promotes thinking about diversity, globalization, how we do business and how we work with nonprofits."[75]

In reaction to criticisms that ethnic studies academics undermine the study of a unified American history and culture or that ethnic studies are simply a "colored" version of American Studies, defenders point out that ethnic studies come out of the historically repressed and denied presence of groups within the U.S. knowledge-production, literature and epistemology. Efforts to merge ethnic studies with American studies have been met with fierce opposition as was the case at UC Berkeley. While the field is already decades old, the ongoing creation of new ethnic studies departments is fraught with controversy. Administrators at Columbia University attempted to placate student protests for the creation of an Ethnic Studies Department in 1996 by offering American Studies as a compromise.[76]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Ethnic studies is an interdisciplinary academic field focused on the critical examination of race, ethnicity, indigeneity, and the experiences of historically marginalized groups, particularly people of color in the United States, encompassing their histories, cultures, and social dynamics. The discipline originated amid civil rights-era activism, most prominently through the 1968-1969 strike at San Francisco State College, where students from the Third World Liberation Front protested for curriculum reforms to address Eurocentric biases, resulting in the establishment of the first College of Ethnic Studies in 1969, which integrated programs in Black, Asian American, Chicano/Latino, and Native American studies. This event, the longest student strike in U.S. higher education history, marked a shift toward including non-dominant perspectives in academia, influencing the creation of similar departments nationwide. Key characteristics of ethnic studies include its emphasis on intersectional analyses of power structures, often critiquing systemic inequalities through frameworks that highlight , resistance, and , though this approach has drawn scrutiny for prioritizing over detached empirical inquiry. Proponents credit the field with illuminating overlooked narratives and promoting inclusivity in , yet empirical assessments reveal scant that ethnic studies courses enhance achievement or broader outcomes, undermining assertions of their pedagogical value. Controversies persist, particularly regarding ideological conformity within the discipline, where curricula in both higher education and emerging K-12 mandates have faced accusations of embedding divisive elements, such as anti-capitalist rhetoric or selective portrayals that exclude certain groups and foster grievance-based identities rather than rigorous historical analysis. These debates underscore tensions between the field's origins in activist demands and expectations for objective scholarship, amid broader concerns about academic toward interpretive lenses that privilege causal narratives of perpetual victimhood over multifaceted causal realism.

Definition and Scope

Core Concepts and Objectives

Ethnic studies is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to the critical analysis of race, , indigeneity, and their intersections with factors such as gender, class, sexuality, and nationality, primarily focusing on the experiences of historically marginalized groups in the United States, including Native Americans, , Latina/o/x Americans, and /Pacific Islanders. The discipline emphasizes the social construction of racial categories and the mechanisms of racial formation, examining how these influence access to resources, cultural representations, and social inequalities. Core concepts also encompass , institutional power dynamics, and the role of in shaping group identities and relations, often employing to understand compounded oppressions. A foundational objective is to provide culturally relevant that bridges academic content with students' lived experiences and community contexts, thereby enhancing access to systems traditionally excluded from mainstream curricula. This includes challenging dominant historical narratives through -centered perspectives, which research links to improved academic outcomes such as higher engagement, , grade point averages, and graduation rates, particularly among students of color—for instance, participants in San Francisco's Ethnic Studies program outperformed peers on state exams by up to 21 percentage points in some metrics. Further aims involve cultivating about structural inequalities and fostering civic agency, with programs designed to reduce intergroup biases—evidenced in 52 of 73 higher education studies reviewed—and promote cross-cultural understanding without assuming uniform group experiences. While proponents highlight these empirical benefits, the field's integration of activism-oriented frameworks, such as critiques of institutional , reflects its origins in addressing educational inequities, though outcomes vary by rigor and teacher preparation.

Distinction from Multicultural Education and Area Studies

Ethnic studies diverges from primarily in its analytical depth and orientation toward critique rather than celebration. While seeks to foster inclusivity by integrating diverse cultural perspectives into curricula to promote empathy, equity, and social cohesion across all students, ethnic studies concentrates on the specific histories, oppressions, and resistances of racial and ethnic minority groups, often employing a lens that interrogates systemic power imbalances and dominant narratives. This distinction traces to their origins: ethnic studies emerged from 1960s demanding self-determination and counter-histories for groups like and Chicanos, as seen in the first program at in 1968, whereas evolved as a broader influenced by civil but prioritizing pedagogical adaptations for diverse classrooms without equivalent emphasis on group-specific empowerment. Critics note that multicultural education's celebratory approach can sometimes dilute the transformative urgency of ethnic studies by framing diversity as additive rather than a site of contestation over resources and representation. In relation to area studies, ethnic studies prioritizes thematic examinations of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity within national or diasporic contexts—frequently U.S.-centric—over the geographically delimited, policy-oriented analyses of regions like or characteristic of . , formalized post-World War II through initiatives like those funded by the and Ford Foundations, aimed to cultivate expertise in foreign languages, histories, and politics to support U.S. diplomatic and strategic interests, drawing on traditional disciplines such as and . Ethnic studies, by contrast, adopts an interdisciplinary, often comparative methodology that challenges Eurocentric epistemologies and foregrounds intersections of race, class, and in minority experiences, as evidenced by programs like Asian American Studies that transcend single-country boundaries. Although overlaps exist—such as shared interests in non-Western cultures—ethnic studies' activist roots in domestic equity struggles set it apart from ' external, hegemonic focus, with the former producing knowledge for community empowerment rather than governmental utility.

Historical Development

Origins in Civil Rights Era Activism

Ethnic studies emerged from student-led activism in the late 1960s, amid the broader and parallel efforts like and the , which sought to address perceived Eurocentric biases in higher education curricula. Activists argued that traditional academic programs marginalized the histories and perspectives of non-European groups, demanding dedicated departments to study racial and ethnic experiences from within those communities. This push aligned with separatist ideologies in , which rejected assimilation and advocated through culturally specific education. The pivotal catalyst occurred at (then San Francisco State College) in November 1968, when the Black Student Union (BSU), numbering around 100 members, initiated a strike protesting the dismissal of English instructor George Murray, a affiliate, for alleged inflammatory statements. The BSU coalesced with the Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), a multi-ethnic coalition including Latin American, Asian American, and Native American students, expanding demands to include the establishment of a department and increased hiring of minority faculty. The strike, lasting 133 days until March 21, 1969—the longest campus strike in U.S. history—involved mass protests, teach-ins, and clashes with police, resulting in over 700 arrests and the campus closure for extended periods. The strike concluded with university concessions, including the creation of the nation's first College of Ethnic Studies on March 20, 1969, encompassing programs in Black, Asian American, (Chicano/Mexican American), and American Indian Studies. Concurrently, a TWLF strike at the , from January to March 1969 demanded similar Ethnic Studies and African American Studies departments, yielding partial victories like new hiring commitments despite administrative resistance. These events marked the institutional genesis of ethnic studies, driven by confrontational tactics that pressured universities to diversify faculty and curricula amid national unrest over and civil rights. The , peaking in the 1960s with actions like the 1968 East walkouts involving 10,000 students, reinforced these demands by highlighting educational neglect of Mexican American history and culture.

Establishment of Academic Programs

The first dedicated ethnic studies programs emerged in California universities during the late 1960s, driven by student-led strikes demanding departments focused on the histories and experiences of racial and ethnic minorities. At San Francisco State College (now San Francisco State University), the Black Student Union and the Third World Liberation Front initiated a strike on November 6, 1968, which lasted 133 days until March 21, 1969, marking the longest student strike in U.S. higher education history. The protests involved over 1,000 arrests, police clashes, and a hunger strike by student leaders, pressuring administrators to establish the nation's first College of Ethnic Studies, which opened in fall 1969 and encompassed Black Studies, La Raza (Chicano) Studies, Asian American Studies, and American Indian Studies. Concurrently, (Cal State LA) launched the first program in fall 1968, initiated by a small group of Mexican American students advocating for courses on their community's history and culture, with initial funding from student government and taught by faculty like Julian Nava. This program predated broader ethnic studies colleges but aligned with parallel demands at other institutions, such as UC Berkeley, where a 1969 strike by the Third World Liberation Front resulted in the creation of an Ethnic Studies department that year. These establishments often followed concessions to activist demands amid broader civil rights unrest, with universities facing enrollment pressures from underrepresented groups and threats of further disruption. By 1971, over 500 programs or departments had formed nationwide, many expanding into or alongside ethnic studies frameworks, though sustainability varied due to funding challenges and academic scrutiny. Early programs emphasized community relevance over traditional disciplinary rigor, leading to debates on their integration into university curricula.

Expansion and Institutionalization

Following the pioneering programs established in the late 1960s, ethnic studies experienced significant expansion in the 1970s, as universities responded to ongoing student demands and broader societal shifts toward recognizing racial and ethnic histories in academia. By 1971, over 500 African American studies programs, departments, and institutes had been created across U.S. postsecondary institutions, marking a rapid proliferation driven by post-civil rights momentum. Early to mid-decade growth included the formalization of interdisciplinary units at multiple campuses, such as the University of Utah's Ethnic Studies Program in 1973, which consolidated prior efforts in Black, Chicano/a, and Native American studies. This period saw ethnic studies transition from marginal offerings to more structured curricula, often with dedicated faculty hires, though many remained vulnerable to administrative scrutiny and funding constraints. Institutionalization advanced through the creation of scholarly infrastructure, including the National Association for Ethnic Studies, founded in 1972 as the oldest U.S. organization dedicated to interdisciplinary ethnic studies research and activism. Professional associations like this facilitated peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and tenure-track positions, embedding the field within university structures. For instance, UC Berkeley's ethnic studies graduate program, established in 1984, became the first U.S. PhD program focused on comparative race and ethnicity, building on earlier undergraduate initiatives from the 1969 strike. By the late 1970s, ethnic studies had reached a peak in course offerings, reflecting widespread adoption at over 700 programs and departments nationwide by the early 1990s. The 1980s brought challenges to this momentum, with a decline in the number of ethnic studies courses from their late-1970s high, attributed to economic recessions, reduced federal support for humanities, and a campus shift toward vocational majors like business and engineering. Political opposition during the Reagan administration further strained programs, framing them as overly ideological and prompting cuts or mergers in some institutions. Despite these setbacks, core departments endured and evolved, incorporating critical frameworks while facing critiques for limited empirical rigor in favor of advocacy-oriented scholarship—a tension rooted in the field's activist origins rather than traditional academic standards. By decade's end, institutional footholds persisted, setting the stage for renewed growth in the 1990s amid demographic changes and multiculturalism debates.

Theoretical Frameworks

Major Schools of Thought

emerged as a foundational school in ethnic studies during the late , emphasizing the affirmation of distinct ethnic identities, , and community as strategies for liberation from systemic oppression. This paradigm, prominent in early and Chicana/o Studies, viewed assimilation into mainstream American culture as a to group survival and advocated for separatist models to foster pride and autonomy. Influenced by movements such as , it drew on thinkers like , who developed Kawaida philosophy in 1965 to center African cultural principles in scholarship and activism. The internal colonialism framework, articulated by sociologist Robert Blauner in 1969, represents another core school, conceptualizing U.S. racial minorities—particularly , Chicanas/os, and Native Americans—as internally colonized populations subjected to economic extraction, territorial dispossession, and cultural domination by the white settler majority. Unlike traditional assimilation models, this theory rejected notions of voluntary immigrant integration, arguing instead for structural parallels to European imperialism, including forced labor systems and ghettoization as mechanisms of control. Blauner's analysis, grounded in post-World War II urban unrest data, posited that required dismantling these internal hierarchies rather than mere civil rights reforms. Comparative and relational paradigms gained traction from the onward, shifting focus from isolated ethnic group histories to cross-group analyses of racial formation, solidarity, and differential power dynamics. This school, evident in programs like Stanford's Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity established in 1996, employs intersectional lenses to examine how race intersects with class, , and migration, often challenging earlier nationalist insularity by highlighting shared oppressions and strategic alliances. Such approaches prioritize empirical patterns of across contexts, as seen in scholarship on pan-ethnic coalitions during the involving Black, Latino, and Asian communities. Critical ethnic studies, a more recent school formalized through the Critical Ethnic Studies Association in 2013, critiques foundational s for their potential accommodation of neoliberal state structures and calls for decolonial, abolitionist orientations that interrogate ethnicity's role in global and . Drawing on postcolonial and Marxist influences, it rejects celebratory in favor of analyzing how ethnic categories sustain hierarchies, with proponents arguing that earlier frameworks underemphasized intra-group class conflicts and transnational flows. This has faced methodological scrutiny for prioritizing ideological over falsifiable hypotheses, though it has spurred interdisciplinary work on topics like settler colonialism's persistence in Indigenous studies.

Integration of Critical Theories

Critical theories, particularly (CRT) and postcolonial theory, have been integrated into ethnic studies to frame analyses of race, ethnicity, and power dynamics through lenses of systemic oppression and historical . CRT posits that racism is embedded in legal and social structures rather than merely individual prejudice, emphasizing concepts like interest convergence—where racial equity advances only align with dominant group interests—and the permanence of racism in society. This integration shapes ethnic studies curricula by prioritizing narratives of marginalized groups' resistance and , where race intersects with class, gender, and sexuality to perpetuate inequities. Postcolonial theory complements this by examining the enduring cultural and psychological legacies of , focusing on hybrid identities and subaltern agency in decolonizing knowledge production. In practice, these frameworks inform qualitative methodologies, such as Critical Race Praxis, which combines CRT with decolonizing approaches to critique health disparities as outcomes of racialized power structures. Integration often occurs via interdisciplinary methods that challenge liberal multiculturalism, arguing it masks underlying racial hierarchies. For instance, ethnic studies programs incorporate CRT tenets—like the critique of colorblindness as a tool for maintaining white supremacy—into course syllabi and research, as seen in analyses of U.S. ethnic literature and policy. Postcolonial influences extend this to global ethnic contexts, applying concepts from thinkers like Edward Said's Orientalism to dissect how Western scholarship constructs non-European ethnicities as "other." However, tensions arise in blending these with empirical traditions; CRT's reliance on storytelling and counter-narratives over falsifiable data has drawn methodological critiques for prioritizing ideological critique over causal verification. Critics argue that such integrations risk reducing complex ethnic histories to deterministic oppression models, influenced by postmodern skepticism of objective truth, which can undermine Ethnic Studies' empirical rigor. For example, CRT's framework has been faulted for framing societal structures as inherently racist without sufficient quantitative evidence of causal mechanisms beyond correlation, potentially fostering division through identity-based essentialism. Despite these, proponents maintain that integrating critical theories equips scholars to address structural inequalities overlooked by traditional . Empirical assessments remain limited, with few longitudinal studies isolating these theories' impacts on understanding ethnic dynamics versus reinforcing prior beliefs.

Educational Implementation

In Higher Education

Ethnic studies in higher education is implemented primarily through interdisciplinary departments, programs, or centers at universities, offering bachelor's majors, minors, certificates, and graduate options focused on the historical, cultural, and socioeconomic experiences of racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. These programs emphasize comparative analysis across groups such as , , Latina/o Americans, and Native Americans, often integrating perspectives on power dynamics, inequality, and identity formation. Curricula typically require core courses in ethnic studies theory, research methods, and foundational histories, supplemented by electives addressing specific communities, , and contemporary issues like migration and policy impacts. For instance, at the , students complete requirements in ethnic studies theory alongside electives from content groups covering global indigenous studies, race and ethnicity, and social movements. Many institutions mandate ethnic studies coursework as part of general or diversity requirements to promote awareness of racial and ethnic dynamics. The system, for example, approved a requirement in 2021 for all undergraduates to complete at least one ethnic studies course starting in the 2023-24 , aiming to foster understanding of race and ethnicity's role in U.S. . Similarly, programs at institutions like incorporate interdisciplinary approaches drawing from , , and to examine racial and ethnic group cultures. Enrollment in ethnic studies majors remains limited relative to other fields; nationwide, approximately 9,231 bachelor's degrees in ethnic studies were awarded in the 2020-21 , with the granting 67 such degrees in 2023. Implementation often involves pedagogical methods such as community-engaged learning, critical reflection, and activism-oriented projects, guided by principles like the "7 Cs" (respect, reflection, , hope, solidarity, community, transformation). Proponents argue this approach enhances student engagement and , though empirical support is drawn largely from studies within academia, which exhibits systemic ideological leanings toward progressive frameworks. Critics, including analyses of department activities, highlight instances where curricula and events prioritize political —such as anti-capitalist or decolonial narratives—over empirical , potentially introducing and reducing programs to vehicles for ideological programming rather than neutral . This tension reflects broader debates in higher education, where ethnic studies' focus on and resistance can overlap with contested theories like , prompting scrutiny over academic objectivity.

In K-12 Settings

Ethnic studies curricula in K-12 education have primarily emerged at the high school level, often as elective or required courses focusing on the histories, cultures, and contributions of racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, including African American, Asian American, Latino, and Native American perspectives. Implementation varies by state and district, with early programs like Tucson Unified School District's Mexican American Studies (MAS) initiative, launched in 1998, serving as a model before its 2010 dismantling under Arizona's HB 2281, which prohibited courses deemed to promote racial resentment or solidarity based on race. The Tucson program emphasized interdisciplinary content such as , , and , achieving higher test scores and graduation rates among participants prior to the ban, which a federal court later ruled unconstitutional in 2017 due to discriminatory enforcement. California pioneered a statewide mandate through AB 101, signed into on October 8, 2021, requiring public high schools to offer at least one ethnic studies course starting in the 2025-26 school year and making it a graduation requirement for the class of 2030. The State adopted a model on March 18, 2021, structured around four disciplines—African American, Asian American, /Latino, and —with optional units on other groups; it emphasizes comparative historical analysis but has faced criticism for incorporating elements of , such as concepts of systemic oppression and . Districts must certify compliance, often through teacher professional development and adaptation, though implementation costs have exceeded $17 million nationwide for materials and training as of 2025. Other states have adopted varying approaches, with 26 incorporating ethnic studies into statutes as of 2024, though few mandate standalone high school courses like . requires inclusion of Asian American history in social studies curricula since 2021, while mandates teaching on the Indian residential school system and other ethnic histories starting in 2022-23. and offer high school electives, and some districts in Washington and integrate ethnic studies into existing frameworks without dedicated mandates. In , the mandate faced delays in 2025 due to budget shortfalls, with Newsom's revised proposal omitting promised , leaving full rollout uncertain amid debates over balance and . K-12 programs typically prioritize high school for maturity reasons, with elementary and efforts limited to infused lessons rather than full courses, aiming to foster cultural awareness while aligning with state standards. focuses on culturally responsive , though evaluations highlight challenges in teacher training consistency and avoidance of partisan content.

State-Level Mandates and Variations

enacted Assembly Bill 101 on October 8, 2021, becoming the first state to mandate a one-semester ethnic studies course as a high school requirement, applicable to the class of 2030 onward, with districts required to offer the course beginning in the 2025–26 year. The law specifies that the course must examine the histories, cultures, and contributions of , , Chicano/Latino Americans, and Native Americans, developed through a model adopted by the State in March 2021. Implementation has faced setbacks, including funding shortfalls and debates over content, leading to potential delays in the graduation mandate as of September 2025 unless addressed by lawmakers. Other states primarily mandate ethnic studies through curriculum integration rather than standalone graduation requirements. As of 2024, 26 states have statutes requiring elements of ethnic studies in K-12 instruction, often embedding content on ethnic group histories and contributions within or history standards. For instance, requires schools to include Asian American and Pacific Islander history starting in the 2022–23 school year, building on earlier mandates for Black and education. mandates instruction on Asian American contributions since 2021 and added Latino and history requirements in September 2025, integrated into elementary and secondary curricula. Colorado's House Bill 21-1199, passed in June 2021, directs the State to incorporate ethnic studies into standards by 2022, emphasizing comparative racial and ethnic group experiences without a separate course mandate. Variations in mandates reflect differing emphases: some states, like and , require broad multicultural content across grade levels, while others target specific groups, such as Florida's longstanding requirement for since 1994 or Nebraska's inclusion of . Standalone courses are rarer outside pilot programs; for example, and compel ethnic studies classes in select districts, but statewide enforcement varies. No national mandate exists, and requirements typically allow local flexibility in delivery, with 37 states incorporating related content standards without formal mandates. These differences arise from legislative priorities, with progressive-leaning states prioritizing intersectional analyses and others focusing on factual historical contributions to avoid perceived ideological framing.

Empirical Assessments

Evidence of Positive Outcomes

A in from 2010 to 2013 assigned ninth-grade students to ethnic studies courses, finding that exposure increased attendance by approximately 21 percentage points in the short term and sustained improvements in chronic absenteeism rates over three years. The same intervention raised grade point averages by 1.4 points and credits earned by 23%, with effects persisting into later high school years. Follow-up analysis of the cohort through 2019 revealed that ethnic studies assignment boosted four-year high school graduation rates by 7.9 s overall, with gains of 16 to 19 points for Asian and Latino students, alongside a 3.5 increase in enrollment probability. These outcomes were attributed to enhanced with course content centered on cultural and historical narratives of marginalized groups. Other evaluations, including a review of multiple U.S. programs, reported ethnic studies participation correlating with higher academic engagement, improved , and better performance in core subjects like English and , though causal mechanisms varied by implementation. A 2024 study of high school students in a Midwestern found enrollment in ethnic studies courses led to statistically significant gains in critical reflection skills, a component of involving analysis of social inequities. Cross-cultural understanding metrics in some programs showed reduced and increased toward out-groups, with qualitative data from student surveys indicating stronger ethnic identity and . However, these non-academic benefits were often measured via self-reports, limiting generalizability across diverse student populations.

Methodological Critiques and Limitations

Empirical assessments of ethnic studies programs, particularly in educational settings, frequently encounter challenges related to self-selection , as participation is often voluntary rather than randomized, complicating causal attribution of outcomes to the itself. For instance, in evaluations of elective ethnic studies courses, students who enroll may already possess higher or academic , inflating apparent effects without adequate controls for these baseline differences. A prominent example is the 2016 study by Thomas Dee and Emily Penner on a pilot ethnic studies curriculum in San Francisco high schools, which reported substantial gains in attendance (21 percentage points), GPA (1.4 points), and credits earned using a fuzzy regression discontinuity design based on lottery-like assignment thresholds. However, subsequent analyses have highlighted methodological flaws, including a muddled implementation where not all assigned students received the treatment uniformly, small effective sample sizes (around 200-300 students), and implausibly large effect sizes that suggest unaddressed confounders such as teacher enthusiasm or contemporaneous interventions. Legal scholar Richard Sander and data scientist Jonathan Wyner described the experiment as "fundamentally flawed," arguing that ambiguities in the quasi-experimental setup render causal claims unreliable and the results more suggestive of selection effects than curricular impact. Many studies suffer from limited generalizability due to small, non-representative samples, often focusing on specific ethnic groups in urban districts like Latino students in or small cohorts of college participants, which preclude extrapolation to broader K-12 populations. Reliance on self-reported measures of engagement or identity, qualitative narratives, or short-term outcomes further weakens rigor, as these are prone to subjective bias and fail to capture sustained effects or alternative explanations like Hawthorne effects from novel programming. Conflicts of interest exacerbate these issues, with researchers frequently evaluating curricula they developed or advocate for, introducing absent independent replication. Broader scholarship in ethnic studies grapples with causal inference challenges inherent to racial and ethnic disparity research, including difficulties in measuring constructs like "cultural relevance" or structural factors without confounding by socioeconomic variables, and an overemphasis on associational patterns over falsifiable hypotheses. Quantitative studies often employ limited proxies for outcomes, such as scores or , while neglecting long-term metrics like postsecondary persistence, and qualitative approaches prioritize interpretive depth over replicability, limiting empirical robustness. These limitations collectively undermine confidence in claims of unequivocal benefits, necessitating more randomized, large-scale trials to disentangle ideological from evidence-based effects.

Broader Societal Impacts

The implementation of ethnic studies curricula has significantly influenced educational policy at the state level, often sparking intense public debates that reflect broader societal tensions over racial narratives and . In , House Bill 2281, enacted in 2010, prohibited public schools from offering courses deemed to promote resentment toward a race or class of people or designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group, leading to the dismantling of the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American Studies program. This action resulted in protests, legal challenges, and a 2017 federal court ruling finding discriminatory intent in the law's enforcement, which underscored divisions between those viewing the program as empowering marginalized voices and critics who argued it fostered ethnic . Similarly, California's Assembly Bill 331, signed into law in 2021 after an initial veto, mandated a one-semester ethnic studies course for high starting in the 2029–30 school year, but by September 2025, implementation stalled amid funding shortfalls and disputes over content, including accusations of ideological bias in draft models emphasizing elements. These policy battles have amplified national discussions on curriculum control, with proponents citing potential for greater and opponents warning of indoctrination that prioritizes group grievances over shared civic values. Empirical assessments of ethnic studies' effects have primarily documented short- to medium-term academic benefits for participants, such as improved graduation rates and attendance, particularly among low-income and minority students in pilots like San Francisco's 2010–2013 program, where exposure increased high school completion by up to 6 percentage points and enrollment probabilities. However, evidence on spillover to broader societal outcomes, such as social cohesion or reduced intergroup at the community level, remains limited and inconclusive, with most studies confined to individual-level metrics like rather than aggregate cultural or policy shifts. General research on ethnic diversity indicates a negative with social trust and cohesion in diverse settings, potentially exacerbated if curricula emphasize historical oppressions without balancing integrative perspectives, though no peer-reviewed studies directly attribute long-term societal fragmentation to ethnic studies programs. Critics, including policy analysts, argue that ethnic studies contributes to societal fragmentation by institutionalizing identity-based pedagogies that heighten perceptions of irreconcilable group differences, as seen in drafts criticized for omitting contributions of non-minority groups and promoting narratives of perpetual victimhood. This has manifested in heightened cultural conflicts, such as book bans in response to program materials and resistance to diversity initiatives in workplaces and media, potentially undermining efforts toward color-blind assimilation in favor of equity-focused policies. Proponents counter that such programs build and historical awareness, fostering long-term reductions in bias, but these claims lack robust causal evidence beyond self-reported student attitudes, leaving open questions about net societal utility amid observable policy gridlock and public polarization.

Controversies and Criticisms

Claims of Ideological Indoctrination

Critics of ethnic studies programs contend that they often function as vehicles for ideological indoctrination rather than neutral academic inquiry, embedding contested frameworks such as and as unquestioned truths while marginalizing empirical evidence or alternative perspectives. These claims posit that curricula prioritize narratives of systemic oppression, , and capitalist exploitation, encouraging students to adopt activist stances against perceived power structures rather than fostering critical analysis or historical nuance. For instance, proponents of this view argue that the emphasis on "dismantling privilege" and viewing societal issues through an oppressor-oppressed binary suppresses dissenting viewpoints and trains students in grievance-based thinking over factual scholarship. In K-12 settings, particularly in California following the 2021 mandate under Assembly Bill 101 requiring ethnic studies for high school graduation, detractors highlight specific curricular elements as evidence of bias. Early drafts of the state's model curriculum, released in 2019 and revised after rejection in 2020, were accused of glorifying figures like convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and fugitive Assata Shakur while omitting contributions from figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Navajo code talkers, thereby promoting radical activism as heroic without contextualizing legal convictions or broader achievements. Critics further note the inclusion of anti-capitalist themes, such as framing economic systems as inherently exploitative, which they argue diverts instructional time from core skills like literacy toward ideological mobilization, as seen in Salinas Unified School District's 2021-2022 implementation where ethnic studies supplanted half of health education. Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed an earlier bill (AB 331) in September 2020 citing concerns over "inaccurate and divisive" content that risked narrowing history to a single perspective. Lawsuits and parental complaints have amplified these allegations, pointing to opaque development processes that embed partisan views. In Santa Ana Unified School District, a 2024 lawsuit by the Louis D. Brandeis Center alleged that a steering committee for "liberated" ethnic studies courses, led by board members Carolyn Torres and Rigo Rodriguez, fostered antisemitic biases by classifying Jews as "white oppressors" and excluding balanced representation, with members deriding Jewish participants as "colonized" or "pretenders" in private communications. The described the as imparting "damaging, biased views" through a secretive process violating open-meeting laws, reflecting a broader pattern where ideological conformity overrides scholarly rigor. Similarly, in San Francisco Unified School District, parents in 2025 criticized proposed for instructing students to create "" and reflect on personal in , viewing such assignments as politicizing youth into anti-capitalist and unsuitable for public education. In higher education, where ethnic studies originated amid , claims extend to departmental practices that allegedly enforce ideological uniformity, such as syllabi requiring endorsement of decolonial or anti-hegemonic theories, potentially grading or hiring based on alignment with these views rather than evidence-based . Observers argue this stems from the field's roots in advocacy scholarship, which blurs lines between analysis and , leading to curricula that reframe national through a lens of perpetual victimhood and resistance, sidelining data on intergenerational mobility or policy successes among ethnic groups. While defenders maintain these approaches empower marginalized voices, critics counter that without rigorous empirical testing or exposure to counterarguments, they risk inculcating a rigid that prioritizes narrative over verifiable causation.

Specific Bias Allegations

Critics have alleged that ethnic studies curricula often incorporate ideological biases rooted in and decolonial frameworks, portraying systemic oppression primarily through lenses of race, class, and capitalism that emphasize victimhood among certain groups while downplaying individual agency or historical complexities. For instance, Arizona's House Bill 2281, enacted on May 11, 2010, prohibited public school courses that promote resentment toward a race or class of people, advocate ethnic over treatment of pupils as individuals, or promote the overthrow of the U.S. , directly targeting Tucson Unified District's Mexican-American studies program after state officials, including Superintendent , cited textbooks like "Occupied America" by Rodolfo Acuña for language depicting European settlers as inherently oppressive and fostering racial resentment. Although a 2017 federal ruling found parts of the law motivated by discriminatory intent against Latino students, a 2024 U.S. decision upheld core prohibitions on classes advocating ethnic , affirming concerns over divisive content. In , the Ethnic Studies Model (ESMC), first drafted in 2019, faced revisions after allegations of antisemitic bias, including omission of Jewish American historical contributions and framing of in decolonial narratives that critics argued equated with settler colonialism, prompting objections from groups like the . State investigations in 2025 substantiated bias claims in Bay Area districts; for example, the found two Sequoia Union High School District teachers violated Education Code Section 51501 by assigning materials that discriminated against Jewish students, such as portraying Jewish success as exploitative and linking to , leading to mandated removal. Similarly, the "Liberated Ethnic Studies" framework, promoted by certain groups and adopted in some districts, has been accused of embedding anti-capitalist and anti-Western ideologies, framing U.S. history as irredeemably oppressive and prioritizing narratives of resistance over balanced empirical analysis. Broader allegations include selective that amplifies grievances against dominant groups while minimizing intra-ethnic conflicts or achievements outside paradigms, potentially fostering ethnic resentment rather than mutual understanding, as evidenced by parent complaints and lawsuits in districts like Unified, where mandatory courses were criticized for injecting partisan views on topics like solidarity. These claims are supported by state oversight reports highlighting enforcement gaps, though proponents counter that such critiques stem from resistance to addressing historical inequities. In 2010, enacted House Bill 2281 (HB 2281), which prohibited public schools from offering courses that promote resentment toward a race or class of people, advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment as individuals, or are designed for a particular . The targeted the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican American Studies program, leading to its dismantling after state officials deemed it noncompliant. Students and educators challenged the ban in federal court, arguing it violated the due to discriminatory intent; in 2017, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled that state officials acted with racial animus in enforcing the against Latino-focused curricula, though the Ninth Circuit later vacated parts of the ruling on procedural grounds, leaving the ban's core provisions intact. Following the 2020 national debates over (CRT), at least 18 states passed laws by 2023 restricting K-12 instruction on "divisive concepts" such as inherent racial oppression or assigning guilt based on ancestry, often overlapping with ethnic studies content on systemic and ethnic identity. Florida's 2021 Individual Freedom Act (HB 1), for instance, barred schools from compelling students to view actions in U.S. history as motivated by race and prohibited concepts implying members of one race are inherently racist, prompting revisions or cancellations of ethnic studies pilots in districts like Broward County. Similar measures in (SB 3, 2021) and (HB 377, 2021) withheld funding from programs promoting race-based guilt, affecting ethnic studies integration into curricula. These policies faced First Amendment challenges, with courts in some cases upholding restrictions as viewpoint-neutral regulations on , while critics argued they stifled legitimate historical inquiry. In , the 2021 ethnic studies mandate (AB 101) requiring a high school graduation course sparked disputes over approval and content neutrality, with implementation stalled in 2025 due to withheld funding amid debates on ideological balance. Lawsuits have targeted specific programs for alleged and procedural violations; in February 2025, Santa Ana Unified District settled a suit brought by the Brandeis Center, , and , agreeing to drop courses developed in closed sessions that included materials portraying as oppressors or denying Israel's right to exist, in violation of state education code against hate promotion. A 2025 California appeals court ruling further enabled Jewish parents and students to sue districts for adopting "Liberated Ethnic Studies" curricula accused of anti-Zionist bias and ethnic essentialism, citing equal protection and free exercise violations. These cases highlight tensions between mandates for ethnic studies and prohibitions on curricula fostering division or targeting protected groups.

Interdisciplinary Relations

Connections to Sociology and History

![Hunger strike participants during the Third World Liberation Front strike at San Francisco State University][float-right] Ethnic studies maintains close ties to sociology through shared emphases on social structures, power dynamics, and the construction of racial and ethnic identities within societal contexts. Sociologists have long examined race and ethnicity as social constructs influencing inequality, prejudice, and group relations, as evidenced in foundational works analyzing post-Holocaust ethnic dynamics and economic disparities. Ethnic studies extends these inquiries by centering marginalized perspectives, critiquing mainstream sociological knowledge for overlooking non-Western epistemologies and systemic exclusions, much like sociologists of knowledge challenge sanctioned forms of inquiry. This overlap is apparent in interdisciplinary programs combining sociology with ethnic studies to explore intersections of race, class, and gender hierarchies. In relation to history, ethnic studies reframes narratives traditionally dominated by Eurocentric , incorporating counter-histories, oral traditions, and experiences of colonized or minority groups to address historical erasures. Emerging from student movements, such as the Third World Liberation Front strikes at from November 1968 to March 1969, ethnic studies demanded curricula that included the struggles and contributions of people of color, challenging the exclusionary focus of conventional historical scholarship. It draws methodological tools from history, including archival analysis and chronological reconstruction, but prioritizes decolonized approaches that highlight resistance and agency over assimilationist or triumphalist accounts. These connections underscore ethnic studies' interdisciplinary nature, borrowing empirical frameworks from and history while advocating for transformative rooted in rather than detached observation. Critics within traditional disciplines argue that this activist orientation can compromise objectivity, introducing ideological priors that diverge from sociology's functionalist or conflict-theoretic neutrality and history's evidence-based . Nonetheless, the field has influenced both by prompting reevaluations of source materials and broadening the scope of inquiry to include indigenous and diasporic viewpoints.

Overlaps and Distinctions with Other Disciplines

Ethnic studies shares methodological and thematic overlaps with , particularly in analyzing social inequalities, , and institutional affecting ethnic minorities. For instance, both fields employ qualitative and quantitative approaches to study phenomena like residential segregation and labor market disparities among racial groups, drawing on empirical data from records and surveys. However, ethnic studies often extends sociological inquiry by prioritizing narratives from marginalized communities, integrating oral histories and community-based research that sociology may treat as supplementary to broader statistical models. In anthropology, ethnic studies overlaps through examinations of cultural identity formation, kinship systems, and symbolic practices within ethnic groups, frequently utilizing ethnographic methods to document traditions and adaptations under external pressures. This convergence is evident in shared interests in communities and cultural resilience, as seen in studies of indigenous rituals or immigrant enclaves. Yet, ethnic studies distinguishes itself by critiquing anthropology's historical ties to colonial frameworks, advocating for decolonized methodologies that center indigenous epistemologies over outsider observations. Political science intersects with ethnic studies in exploring ethnic mobilization, voting patterns, and policy impacts on minority groups, such as gerrymandering's effects on representation documented in electoral data from the 1965 Voting Rights Act onward. Both disciplines analyze power asymmetries, but ethnic studies emphasizes intersectional analyses of race with class and in political exclusion, often framing outcomes through lenses of systemic oppression rather than neutral game-theoretic models. Cultural studies overlaps with ethnic studies in deconstructing media representations and popular discourses on , incorporating textual analysis of films, , and artifacts to reveal ideological underpinnings. Distinctions arise in ethnic studies' foundational commitment to comparative racial formation across U.S. groups—African American, Asian American, /Latino, and Native American—rooted in civil rights activism, whereas adopts a broader, sometimes global postmodern approach less tethered to specific ethnic . Relative to critical race theory (CRT), ethnic studies encompasses CRT's tenets—such as interest convergence and counter-storytelling—as analytical tools but predates and exceeds them as a field, originating from 1968 San Francisco State University strikes demanding ethnic curricula, while CRT formalized in the 1980s within legal scholarship. Ethnic studies integrates historical, literary, and economic dimensions beyond CRT's primary focus on law and policy as racial battlegrounds, though academic sources note CRT's influence in amplifying ethnic studies' critique of liberalism's limits. Institutions embedding CRT in ethnic studies curricula, as in California's 2021 model, highlight overlaps but also distinctions, with ethnic studies requiring empirical grounding in group-specific histories over CRT's more abstract theorizing. Academic bias toward progressive frameworks in both fields warrants scrutiny, as peer-reviewed outputs often underemphasize causal evidence from economics or psychology favoring individual agency in ethnic outcomes.

Professional Landscape

Key Associations and Organizations

The Association for Ethnic Studies (AES), founded in 1972, is the oldest professional organization in the United States dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of race and ethnicity, functioning as a non-profit forum for scholars, educators, and activists to advance research, curriculum development, and dialogue on ethnic groups' historical and contemporary experiences. It organizes annual conferences, publishes the Journal of Ethnic Studies, and promotes publications and professional standards in the field. The National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS), established in , supports academic programs, departments, and research centers focused on Mexican American and Chicana/o issues, including history, culture, politics, and social conditions, through annual conferences, scholarly publications, and advocacy for community-engaged scholarship. NACCS maintains regional sections across the U.S. to facilitate localized networking and has grown to include over 1,000 members by emphasizing interdisciplinary approaches to Chicana/o studies within broader ethnic studies frameworks. The Association for Asian American Studies (AAAS), formed in , promotes excellence in teaching, research, and service related to Asian American communities, hosting annual conferences that draw hundreds of participants and awarding grants and prizes for scholarly work on topics such as , identity, and policy impacts. With a membership exceeding 800, AAAS publishes the Journal of Asian American Studies and collaborates on public outreach to document Asian American contributions and challenges. Other notable groups include the Critical Ethnic Studies Association (CESA), which emerged in the to critique mainstream ethnic studies for potential assimilationist tendencies and advocate for decolonial, intersectional analyses of power structures affecting marginalized ethnic groups. These organizations collectively shape ethnic studies by funding research, influencing curricula in over 100 U.S. universities with dedicated programs, and responding to demographic shifts, such as the U.S. Census Bureau's projection of ethnic minorities comprising 56% of the population by 2060.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.