Ethnic studies are a good thing. And they’re a subject that when viewed from the lens of historically marginalized people, even opponents of the curriculum may agree allows for far more diversity of opinions rather than the traditional white-European/Western model.
Which doesn’t make it right to castigate different groups or populations when developing ethnic studies courses. And that’s what some curriculum, now required for students in grades 9-12 starting in the 2025-26 school year and required for graduation in the 2029-30 school year, does and why critics are insisting that the Pajaro Valley Unified School District not restore a contract with a controversial ethnic studies consultant.
As we noted in our July 14 Editorial, we support the legislation under consideration that would codify much more inclusive reviews of instructional materials and locally developed ethnic studies courses. Under Assembly Bill 2918, parents would also have to receive a written notice before a course is presented for approval, and school boards would be required to determine a course doesn’t promote any bias, bigotry or discrimination.
Ethnic studies curriculum has drawn criticism since legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom said the original content, written primarily by academics, was ideological and biased. After the state Board of Education changed the framework in 2021, the first draft’s authors disavowed the revised version and formed the Coalition for Liberated Ethnic Studies. Its member organizations have contracted with districts including the PVUSD to buy their versions of ethnic studies, which stress the challenges of white supremacy and an oppressive capitalist system, and solidarity with Palestine’s battle with Israel, a topic that has taken on a lot more passion since the Hamas attacks and the Gaza War.
The PVUSD controversy began in 2021 when consultant Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, a Liberated Ethnic studies contractor and a professor at San Francisco State University, was hired. The district’s contract with Tintiangco-Cubales was not renewed last fall after protests the curriculum she presented was antisemitic and discriminatory, allegations Tintiangco-Cubales has denied. PVUSD paid her firm $172,000 at the outset, with another $110,000 due for the now-suspended coursework.
The PVUSD school board has said it will be reviewing the contract again with new Superintendent Heather Contreras, who, in a recent meeting with the Sentinel Editorial Board, was non-committal on the curriculum. The board’s second thoughts about renewing the contract have brought on protests, with one supporter writing in a Letter to the Editor, “How does one teach U.S. history if you exclude colonialism, white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, etc?” and that opponents are engaging in conservative fear mongering.
So what exactly is this curriculum that has supporters insisting that opponents are essentially racists and right-wing zealots?
A review of the course materials that were proposed read as mostly your basic university 2024 teaching models, from the same academics who devised the disliked designation “Latinx” for people of Latin-American heritage. The content has an undisguised radical left-wing bias and a divisive tone that wouldn’t sound right to many parents. For instance, some reading materials focus on “decolonization,” a concept common in many higher-ed circles to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians including the Zionist movement that brought Jews back to their Biblical homeland. It’s also applied in some of the course materials to the U.S., with an emphasis on white supremacy and classism.
In other recommended reading, the focus is on forms of oppression attributed to “Men, whites, Christians, and heterosexuals,” along with “European ancestors, ‘WASP ethnicities,’ ‘proper English speakers’ and corporations.” This is contrasted with “‘transformational resistance’ (i.e. womxnism, Black/Brown/Red/Yellow Power, Religious Freedom/Regenerating Indigenous Spiritual Traditions, and Pride/Queering).”
As we said earlier, students need to be exposed to different views and non-Eurocentric curriculum. But not like this. The district would be well served in quickly distancing itself from content that in seeking to brand “oppressors” is oppressive in its own right.