Dear [Legislator Name; look up yours here],

As [state] considers the subject of Ethnic Studies for K-12 schools, I would like to share my concerns about a particular, damaging brand of this important topic.

There are two major approaches to Ethnic Studies (ES). This analysis by Bill Honig, former California State Superintendent, clarifies the significant differences between an Inclusive (Constructive) approach and a Liberated (Critical) approach. 

Inclusive/Constructive ES focuses on building bridges of understanding, confronting racism through a variety of means, celebrating ethnic accomplishments, and teaching civic responsibility. In contrast, Liberated/Critical ES promotes a narrow ideological agenda, divides students into Oppressor and Victim boxes, elevates violent role models and militant movements, and trains teachers that they “must be rooted in the right politics” in order to teach ES. This contrast chart summarizes differences between the two main ES approaches.

We support efforts of inclusion and diversity. Ethnic Studies provides students the opportunity to build understanding and appreciation for the contributions of multiple cultures, while seeing diverse representation in curriculum. 

These efforts went entirely awry in California, where activists from universities (who identify themselves as “scholar-activists”) developed the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (LESMC), based on the rejected initial draft of California’s model curriculum. 

Alarm about the draft was raised by countless public figures, including Dr. Clarence Jones, Speechwriter and Advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his open letter, Dr. Jones wrote of “blatant and reprehensible falsification of historical fact” and his “great dismay and great concern for the perversion of history that is being perpetrated by the [draft]. If this model curriculum is approved, it will inflict great harm on millions of students in our state.”

 After two years of controversy and over 75,000 public comments of complaint, the LESMC-based model was roundly rejected by the California State Board of Education. In reaction, the activists founded the LESMC Consortium, explicitly to preserve and promote the material and ideological agenda rejected from the ESMC. The Liberated activists are currently encouraging educators around the country to hire them as consultants to shape courses and infuse their content.

The first federal lawsuit against the LESMC and a district implementing it has already been filed in California’s Central District. (May 12, 2022)

Ironically, the same Liberated activists that are pushing an agenda contrary to legislation and the State Board of Education, are claiming to be the “experts.” However, they are experts in a very particular, politicized version of ES – the version that has proliferated in universities. Recognizing the risks of infusing political dogma into classrooms, California's approved model curriculum  clarifies that “At the college and university level, Ethnic Studies and related courses are sometimes taught from a specific political point of view. In K–12 education it is imperative that students are exposed to multiple perspectives, taught to think critically and form their own opinions.”

Many Inclusive/Constructive versions of ES are available to school districts. We do not want the California controversy to take root in [state]. Our schools have enough important issues to deal with, catching up after the Covid detours.

We appreciate the work you do on behalf of our children, and thank you for taking time to understand quality ethnic studies programs that serve the needs of our students and society.

Respectfully,

[Your name]

[Your city, state]