Challenges

About

There continues to be significant challenges that not only Ethnic Studies programs face, but also efforts to increase the number of students of color in colleges and universities through policies like Affirmative Action. In California, the creation of its high school Ethnic Studies graduation requirement sparked celebration and resistance among communities and policymakers. In Arizona, the backlash was more severe, with the enactment of House Bill 2281 in 2010 leading to the dismantling of Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American Studies program. Institutions of higher education also experience multifaceted opposition following the successful implementation of Ethnic Studies curricula. From the Third World College that was never realized at UC Berkeley, to backlash against Ethnic Studies programs in secondary and post-secondary education, to efforts to do away with Affirmative Action in higher education, this page will help you learn about challenges to policies and programs that are part of the legacy or in the spirit of the Third World Liberation Front. Despite these significant challenges and setbacks, communities are organizing and pushing back.

Tucson Unified School District

In 1998, TUSD launched a Mexican-American Studies program. Similar to the original vision of TWLF, the program aimed to provide a critical education to a predominant segment of its student population that was of Mexican heritage. The program stood out for its culturally relevant curriculum, which not only engaged students significantly but also led to improved graduation rates.

In 2010, the Mexican-American Studies program at Tucson Unified School District became the epicenter of a national controversy following the passage of Arizona House Bill 2281. This legislation, which effectively dismantled the program, banned courses designed for students of specific ethnic groups or that promoted ethnic solidarity instead of individual treatment.

In 2017, a U.S. District Judge ruled that Arizona' acted with discriminatory intent in its enactment of the law banning TUSD's Mexican-American Studies program, violating students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The judge issued a permanent injunction against the law, marking a significant legal victory for advocates of the program.

However, the future of this ruling remains somewhat uncertain. Arizona may seek to remove the injunction in 2024, seven years from the ruling date. This case illustrates the complex nature of legal battles surrounding state education laws and the enduring challenges faced by Ethnic Studies programs.

California’s Ethnic Studies High School Graduation Requirement

The path to establishing an Ethnic Studies requirement in California high schools has been marked by significant legislative efforts and subsequent backlash. The journey began with the passage of California Assembly Bill 2016 in 2016, initiated by Assemblymember Luis Alejo. This law, signed as Chapter 327, mandated the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) to develop an Ethnic Studies model curriculum, which was later adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE).

In an effort to further cement Ethnic Studies in the educational framework, AB 331 was introduced in 2020, outlining a traditional Ethnic Studies framework to guide schools in creating Ethnic Studies courses. This bill aimed to make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement across California high schools. However, despite the progress and advocacy supporting the bill, it faced considerable opposition, culminating in a gubernatorial veto of AB 331.

Following the veto, the SBE revisited the curriculum and presented a revised version as AB 101 in March 2021. This bill, which ultimately passed and was signed by the governor later that year, made Ethnic Studies a mandatory graduation requirement. This legislative outcome was a milestone, yet it did not mark the end of the controversy. The development and implementation of the curriculum continue to attract debate among educators, parents, and political figures, illustrating the ongoing challenges in integrating Ethnic Studies into the educational system. These debates often center around the curriculum's perspectives, the adequacy of teacher preparation, and the allocation of educational resources.

This backdrop of legislative action and backlash underscores the complexities of successes and pushbacks involved in advancing Ethnic Studies curricula at the state level. The story of California's Ethnic Studies curriculum reveals how educational reform, especially concerning courses that address race, ethnicity, and culture, remains a contentious and ongoing struggle at the public level.

Challenges to Ethnic Studies Programs also extend into higher education, where demands for better-resourced and fully recognized Ethnic Studies programs, at institutions like Stanford University and Harvard University, are met with administrative resistance and budgetary constraints. From legislative hurdles and budgetary constraints to institutional reluctance and societal debates, Ethnic Studies programs continue to navigate a path forward, striving to transform educational environments while confronting the multifaceted opposition that accompanies change.

California State University System (CSU)

In 2016, students and faculty across the California State University (CSU) system successfully campaigned for the creation of a CSU-wide Ethnic Studies graduation requirement. By 2020, this advocacy culminated in Governor Newsom signing AB 1460 into law, mandating the requirement across all CSU campuses. Despite this legislative support, the implementation of the requirement has encountered institutional resistance. CSU administration has expressed concerns about the feasibility of implementing the mandate, citing budgetary and administrative capacity concerns. This scenario highlights the challenges campus communities face in attempting to advance educational reform by seeking external legislative pressures. Read more

Stanford University

During the 1980s, students at Stanford University organized and repeatedly called for the establishment of an Ethnic Studies department. In 1996, student activists and faculty researchers united to establish Stanford University's Center for Comparative Studies in Race & Ethnicity (CCSRE), the university’s most comprehensive race and ethnic studies program. In 2007, students under the collective "Who's Teaching Us" campaigned for more faculty diversity and the expansion of Ethnic Studies, highlighting issues including the low number of faculty of color and the marginalization of Ethnic Studies. Students demanded the expansion of the African and African-American Studies program to a full department and the secured sustainability of CCSRE. The students argued that the university had not adequately invested in these programs, highlighting limited resources, insufficient course offerings, and a lack of permanent faculty positions at CCSRE. Read more

University of Arizona

Following the controversy over the Mexican-American Studies program in Tucson public schools, Ethnic Studies at the University of Arizona also came under increased scrutiny. There were concerns about potential spillover effects from the state law that banned K-12 Ethnic Studies programs, demonstrating how legislative actions can impact higher education settings. Read more

Harvard University

For decades, students and faculty at Harvard have called for the establishment of a dedicated Ethnic Studies department. Despite these ongoing efforts, the university has been slow to respond, citing various academic and bureaucratic hurdles. Today, Ethnic Studies only exists as a field of study through Harvard's History & Literature Program, which critics argue reflects a lack of institutional commitment to Ethnic Studies. Read more

Bans on Affirmative Action

Admission, academic assistance, and financial aid for all Third World people who applied to UC Berkeley were some of the demands of the Third World Liberation Front Strikers that were not met. Affirmative Action, a series of policies and practices that sought to benefit marginalized groups, including people of color, was a stepping stone towards that goal. Affirmative Action on college campuses sought to address the systemic barriers that students of color faced in admissions processes, which often favored white students who overwhelmingly attended well-funded public schools, had access to advanced coursework as well as other non-academic factors that benefitted them in the admissions process.

President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in 1965, the first of its kind, which ensured that government contractors must “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This was where the term ‘affirmative action’ came from.

In the November election of 1996, California voters voted to ban affirmative action practices in all state-funded institutions including the University of California system, ensuring that sex, race, or ethnicity could not be used as criteria for admission, employment, or contracting services, as part of Proposition 209. As a result, people from marginalized identities were 31% less likely to be admitted to UC Berkeley after Prop 209 passed. The same year that the ban on affirmative action took effect, enrollment of Black and Latino students at the top UC’s, UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%.

Prop 16 In 2020, Affirmative Action was on the November ballot again after tremendous efforts to repeal Prop 209. Black student activists at UC Berkeley were among the leading advocates of this bill, who pushed the UC Student Association to make the repeal of Prop 209 a top priority. Unfortunately, these efforts failed in 2020 when California voters voted 57.23% to 42.77% to uphold the ban on affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College, was the Supreme Court case that struck down race-based admissions policies at both public and private colleges and universities. The court ruled that these policies violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, thus overturning the court’s previous ruling in Grutter v Bolinger which had upheld the use of race-conscious admissions decisions.

Lack of a Third World College at UC Berkeley

One of the demands of the Third World Liberation Front strikers that was never met was the creation of a Third World College. This demand for a Third World College that was to be run by and for people of color was realized at San Francisco State University, but never at UC Berkeley. Instead, what was achieved as a direct result of the strikes was the creation of The Department of Ethnic Studies. The Department of Ethnic Studies and its programs continue to experience funding issues despite being one of the top programs for this discipline in the country. Students remain committed to upholding the original TWLF vision and continue to organize for The Department of Ethnic Studies and its programs to be fully funded.