Visioning Multicultural Education

Past, Present, Future

H. Prentice Baptiste, Jeanette Haynes Writer, H. Prentice Baptiste, Jeanette Haynes Writer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367558994
• eBook ISBN: 9781000202373
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Organized by the National Association of Multicultural Education (NAME), this volume explores the organic relationship between the past, present, and future of the discipline. In particular, the book addresses the various forms of recent social upheaval, from educational inequities and growing economic divides to extreme ideological differences and immigration conflicts. Written by a group of eminent and emerging scholars, chapters draw lessons from the past two decades and celebrate present accomplishments in order to ambition a better future through multicultural education.

Section I

Historical Continuity and Movement Toward Change

The five chapters of this section are interrelated in how they uniquely use historical perspectives to inform us. The contributors’ writings in these chapters reflect a passion for a movement toward a positive change.

Geneva Gay’s chapter, “The Reaffirmation of Multicultural Education,” takes us on an exciting journey from the genesis of Multicultural Education to what could be its future accomplishments. Along the way, she suggests two major areas of reaffirmation: (1) that more attention must be given to educational thoughts and practices that are precedents for Multicultural Education; and (2) continuity and change both serve as a natural complement to Multicultural Education precedents. Gay tells us that the vitality and viability of Multicultural Education rests on nuanced refinements of the established precedents, while at the same time balancing the pressures of educational and societal changes.

In Patricia Marshall’s chapter, “The Continuing Multicultural Education of a Black Teacher Educator: Reflections on a Journey Toward My Referent Other-Self,” this dedicated, driven learner explores and shares the self-knowledge insights gained when she made a long-term commitment to study a second language. Unexpectedly, her journey to bilingualism challenged her to examine and critique the substructure over which her own longstanding sense of cross-culture competence had been erected.

In “Challenging Racism and Colonialism through Ethnic Studies,” Christine Sleeter demonstrates how ethnic studies in U.S. schools attempts to combat the historical amnesia schooling perpetuates regarding colonialism and racism. She reviews processes that dilute how many people understand Multicultural Education, and how that diluted understanding is reflected in white dominant curricula. The chapter provides two examples of how ethnic studies praxis has positively impacted students.

Carl Grant’s creatively written chapter, “Imagining: ‘A Letter on Racial Progress’—James Baldwin’s Keynote at the 30th Annual NAME Conference—Evolution of Multicultural Education: 21st Century,” carries us on an imaginary trip with the iconic James Baldwin as the keynote speaker at NAME’s thirtieth anniversary conference in Montgomery, Alabama. Readers become audience members, and envision Baldwin describing the history of racial progress in America, as told through his observations of W. E. B. Du Bois and Martin L. King. Baldwin’s speech imparts important knowledge about the past, signaling there is still much work to be done.

In “Truth, Land, and Sovereignty: Native American Intellectual Activists, Their Critique of Settler Colonialism, and the Unsettling of Multicultural Education,” Jeanette Haynes Writer and Kristen French bring to our attention Gertrude Simmons Bonnin, Charles Eastman, and Luther Standing Bear, three Native intellectual activists of the early twentieth century, and urge us to include them as Multicultural Education antecedents and foundational scholars. Biographical sketches of the three intellectual activists concisely capture their educational and life experiences to explore the harmful nature of settler colonialism. To bring forward Indigenous futurities, the authors make recommendations for Multicultural Education based on the words and work of the intellectual activists.

1

THE REAFFIRMATION OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

Geneva Gay

Introduction

The genesis of present-day Multicultural Education long preceded its origins in the mid-twentieth-century Civil Rights Movements. Like recurrent efforts in the broader society by various marginalized groups to eliminate economic, residential, and political inequities and powerlessness, Multicultural Education was (and is) similarly intended, but specifically targets teaching and learning. In effect, it is a pedagogical civil rights initiative of and for different ethnic, racial, social, and cultural groups within specified nation states. In this way the beginnings of Multicultural Education were a continuation of historical equality efforts among disenfranchised populations, and to advance U.S. democratic ideals within the educational enterprise. It challenges educational systems to fulfill the promises of rights and opportunities embedded in canonical claims that U.S. society and culture are synergies of diversity.

In reaffirming Multicultural Education more explicit attention should be given to its historical foundations. They are deeply ingrained in the “origin story” of the United States. Contrary to tendencies that limit analyses of its demographic imperative primarily to the mid-twentieth and twenty-first centuries this is too myopic. This short-sighted vision overlooks some important information that should be included in shaping Multicultural Education for the future. In fact, ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity (the bedrocks) of Multicultural Education have been prominent in the construction of the United States from its very beginnings (if not before). It has been both productive and problematic (Barber, 1992; Geraghty, 2018; Sowell 1981).

In explaining the continuing presence and power of this plurality in shaping the “American experiment,” Geraghty (2018) said, “Americans who are not ‘white’ … have had an integral role in the country’s victories, breakthroughs, turning points, innovations, and triumphs of history (and indeed, some of its mistakes, failures, and uglier moments, too) …” (n.p.). Sowell (1981) added that “The mixture of unity and diversity runs through American history as through American society today. No ethnic group has been wholly unique, yet no two are completely alike” (p. 4).

Reclaiming these historical legacies and understanding the persistence (and sometimes problems, too) of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity in the U.S. should be much more prominent in future Multicultural Education policies, programs, and practices. So, Multicultural Education is like another chapter in this long history of how to engage diversity most effectively. Such an acknowledgement does not diminish its necessity and significance; it just means that by understanding its historical legacies, contemporary and future efforts can make more worthy contributions to realizing its intentions and potentials.

Multicultural Education initially began in the United States, and targeted formal pre-collegiate education for racial minority groups. In the intervening years its boundaries have broadened to include other identity groups, locations, forms of oppressions, levels of education, and other sites of human engagement. Now Multicultural Education (or some derivatives or facsimiles of it) is being promoted in other countries throughout the world, and in other industries such as health care, social work, religion, media, entertainment, and higher education. This growth itself is a form of reaffirmation.

Like other “civil rights” goals and initiatives that have not been fully accomplished yet, this is also true of Multicultural Education. This alone is reason enough for its reaffirmation, but not necessarily its historical replication. As Gay (2018) explained,

Students … from ethnic, racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds different from the dominant Eurocentric, middle class group still are not receiving proportional, equitable, high-quality educational opportunities and performance outcomes. U.S. society continues to be plagued by resource inequities, and human indignities toward diverse populations and communities. Racism, homophobia, classism, and other forms of inequity and oppression are still rampant.… Attending to ethnic, racial, and cultural differences in schools and society too often involves little more than some cosmetic tinkering, rather than any substantive and significant changes. The traditional status quo and historical centers of power and privilege have not been significantly transformed.

p. xxix

Given these realities if Multicultural Education were not reaffirmed this would be an atrocity for the equity, justice, and human dignity of marginalized ethnically, racially, culturally, and socially diverse students within educational contexts.

Explicating Precedents

Different groups denied their human rights to fairness, representation, justice, and access to quality education directly pertinent to their particularized needs have always resisted associated oppression, exploitation, and exclusion, and have done so in many ways and on many different platforms. Often these efforts have been constituent-specific, in that the leading actors and activities used their primary referent group orientations to give functional or operational meaning to conceptual ideals. Thus, invariably early African American activists referenced their own ethnic group in articulating their advocacy for educational relevance, inclusion, and equality. Mexican Americans did likewise for Mexican Americans, and so did Native Americans for Native Americans, and Asian Americans for Asian Americans. Middle-class Whites crafted educational systems and agendas for middle-class White youth.

As the parameters of Multicultural Education expanded to include other forms of oppression and “minoritization” (such as gender and alternative sexual orientations) their primary advocates were members of these groups, or had a personal affinity towards them. This “self-referencing” in Multicultural Education ideology and actions has become more eclectic over time, but without sacrificing specific group needs and orientations; nor should it. Ethnic, racial, gender, social, and cultural group self-referencing should not be perceived as negative or exclusive. Rather, it should be considered as a normative point of departure in imagining educational transformations, and should continue to be evident in future iterations of Multicultural Education. After all, other education theorists, practitioners, and reformers are often motivated by and speak from the standpoints of strong identity affinities (real, vicarious, or symbolic).

Multicultural Education did not emerge out of osmosis in the early 1970s. Precedents for it existed across time and various constituencies, but their connections to the Multicultural Education we knew then and now are not as explicit as they should be. Making these more so in future iterations will enhance its credibility. Connecting Multicultural Education to historical precedents and concurrent ones in education and other disciplines also will contribute significantly to dispelling assumptions of some that this is a fad or short-term diversion that will not prevail in the long run, or can be accomplished instantaneously.

The fallacy of these assumptions should be clearly dispelled in the reaffirmation of Multicultural Education. The contributing authors to Becoming Multicultural Educators (Gay, 2003) may be helpful in this undertaking. The personal stories of these authors, individually and collectively, present compelling explanations and examples of why becoming and being multicultural educators is a continuing developmental process. While this may be obvious for those experienced in the field, it seems to escape the attention of many novices. The haste to act without adequate prior preparation and to expect immediate “universal” success may indeed compromise the integrity of what Multicultural Education is all about, as well as discourage potential advocates from persisting. Although the needs that Multicultural Education addresses are urgent, too much haste in action could be more problematic than promising. This creates a dilemma that has to be dealt with even if (or when) resolutions are not readily apparent and easily achievable. Hence, reaffirmations need to be unequivocal and crystal clear about the practical realities related to continually building applied multicultural competencies and capacities.

Undoubtedly, parents and communities of various racial and ethnic ancestries routinely teach their children their own cultural heritages, community rules, and regulations, and life skills beyond the boundaries of formal schooling. In addition to being a normal human process, sometimes these teachings were necessary because of limited access to formal educational systems. Other times they were formalized as alternative school structures because different ethnic communities wanted to ensure their cultural survival and address their special needs as they adapted to different living environments in the U.S. The results were the cultivation and perpetuation of “socio-cultural funds of knowledge” similar to those observed by Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti (2005) in the homes and communities of Mexican Americans. And, of course, African, Asian, and Native American families and communities also informally taught their children their cultural heritages and how to navigate marginality in mainstream U.S. society before and during their entry into formal education systems. These ethnically diverse informal educational strategies may be challenging for formal educators to access, but this difficulty does not invalidate their significance. Powerful lessons may be learned from them that can enrich and complement Multicultural Education efforts. But we will not recognize, or know how to benefit from these alternative ethnic educational legacies if we continue to largely ignore them.

Nor did early generations of multicultural educators come to their advocacies with blank scholarly and experiential slates. Prior ideologies, experiences, and actions probably influenced their thoughts and proposals for educating underserved student populations on some level, even if these precedents were not specifically named or deliberately evoked. Just because these individual, institutional, and ideological predecessors did not use the nomenclature (i.e., “multicultural education”) does not mean that the influence was not conveyed through their analyses of the need for a better-quality education and life for individuals and communities pushed to the margins of U.S. mainstream society, and how this might be accomplished. Other times these connections came through advocates’ memories of their own less than culturally validating school days, and a desire to prevent similar experiences from being foisted upon another generation of “marginalized” students. Some more formal precedents existed in the reasoning of scholars of color in other disciplines, such as literature, psychology, sociology, philosophy, politics, and the arts.

One example of anti-oppression and educational equality of various marginalized populations that predated the actual beginnings of Multicultural E...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Name Acknowledgements
• Editors’ Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Section I Historical Continuity and Movement Toward Change
• Section II Limits and Transformation
• Contributors
• Index