Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethnic Studies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge board to reject 'Voices' ethnic studies textbook, raise concerns about 'dismantling privilege' language
Summary
Several public speakers criticized the proposed 'Voices' ethnic studies curriculum, quoting passages they said call for students to 'dismantle privilege' and asserting the material is ideological. Staff noted the state allows local decision‑making and recommended focus on local ethnic groups; board did not take an immediate action on curriculum during the meeting.
During public comment, multiple residents urged the board to reject or revise the recommended 'Voices' ethnic studies curriculum, saying the text advances a framework of 'privileged oppressors' and uses language they consider indoctrination rather than education.
Ellen Swally asked that the board return the curriculum for deeper review; Jamie Howan read passages from the text that describe identifying groups that are 'privileged' and the role of resistance and demands by marginalized people to effect change. Howan said those passages amount to 'radicalization' and asked whether Christian students or others would be 'dismantled' by the materials. Howan also cited the California Healthy Youth Act in passing as a statutory point of concern when discussing course content.
District staff and board members responded during the agenda‑item discussion by noting the state provides broad local decision authority for ethnic studies and suggested the curriculum should focus on local ethnic groups as recommended by the state model. Staff asked the board to consider the course catalog and registration timing; board members said the item would be taken up on the non‑consent agenda later.
No formal board vote or policy change on curriculum occurred during this meeting; public commenters asked for additional review and transparency.
Next steps: The board indicated the ethnic studies item would be addressed on the non‑consent agenda and encouraged the public to engage with the curriculum review process.
