San Francisco Under Fire for Mandatory Ethnic Studies Course

This week, we discussed the efforts of San Francisco Board of Education Superintendent Maria Su and the school district to implement a new policy called “grading for equity,” which aims to lower the standards for student grading to artificially improve their performance. While kept secret from the parents, news of the plan led to a public outcry, and Su announced that she would study the policy a bit longer. Now, however, parents have learned of another controversial plan of the San Francisco Unified School District to enroll their kids in a mandatory two-semester ethnic studies class. 

Parents are again rising in opposition. With kids struggling to reach proficiency in basic subjects, the SFUSD  continues to prioritize its social agenda over educational needs.

The two-semester ethnic studies class will now require students to explore topics such as structural racism and colonialism as a condition for graduation. The mandatory course was approved despite objections from Lainie Motamedi, the school board president at the time, that the board had never approved funding for the year-long requirement. Parents are decrying the continued lack of transparency and consultation in the school district.

Previously, parents could opt their children out of the course. That did not sit well with the social warriors at the SFUSD so they have now been told that their children must take the course or not graduate.

The course has long been controversial due to what parents view as highly political and biased material. Some raised reading assignments that equated capitalism with racism and other material viewed as anti-Israeli.  The district later removed some of the material.

Critics also point to the original resolution and its co-author  former school board vice president Alison Collins. Collin was criticized after a series of tweets comparing the Chinese community to a “house n****r.”  We previously discussed how Collins denounced meritocracy: “When we talk about merit, meritocracy and especially meritocracy based on standardized testing … those are racist systems.”

Some teachers defended controversial material like a reading that denigrates white males. Ethnic studies teacher, David Ko of Washington High School, insisted

“there’s definitely moments with that article topic where students might feel uncomfortable. The extreme alternative is to avoid all discomfort, which means, at least potentially, not talking about anything that would make anyone feel uncomfortable. That means there’s a lot of curriculum that’s off the table.”

That is hardly compelling. There are many things that make people feel uncomfortable, but discomfort is not the measure of success. I doubt seriously that Ko or the district would relish the discomfort of assigning blatantly racist or sexist material.

In a school district that has long been criticized for a pronounced political and social agenda, the course is understandably concerning for many parents. Many others simply view it as a distraction from more pressing needs to improve proficiency in core educational areas from English to math to science.

The more pressing question is why it must be mandatory. There would be less outcry if students could opt in or opt out. Many students are trying to prepare for an increasingly difficult work environment. They may be more interested in additional math or science courses. Why not let the students and their parents decide?

Superintendent Su insists, however, that students must be forced to experience something that “honors their lived experiences.”

Some parents, however, are more concerned with the “lived experiences” awaiting their children if they cannot meet and exceed basic proficiency standards in an increasingly competitive job market.