Journal of Free Black Thought:
A Minnesota mother resists Liberated Ethnic Studies
Kofi Montzka
Editors’ note: There are two models of Ethnic Studies curricula. “Liberated Ethnic Studies” (sometimes called “Critical Ethnic Studies”) presents the experiences of various ethnic groups in the USA in terms of “oppression” and endorses “resistance” by way of far-left political activism. In contrast, “Constructive Ethnic Studies” (sometimes called “Inclusive Ethnic Studies”) presents the contributions and accomplishments of ethnic groups without shying away from racism and bigotry but also without advocating any specific ideology or practice as the only appropriate response to such challenges. (For more on these two models of Ethnic Studies, see our discussion here.)
The “liberated” model of Ethnic Studies is currently being considered for adoption in Minnesota. Earlier this year, two bills, HF 1502, authored by Rep. Samantha Sencer-Mura (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party), and HF 1476, authored by Rep. Mary Kunesh (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party), were introduced in Minnesota’s legislature. These bills would mandate Ethnic Studies in elementary schools and middle schools and as a condition for graduation from high school and set up an Ethnic Studies Working Group to devise an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. A third bill, HF 1269, proposed by Governor Tim Walz (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party), would require Ethnic Studies to be integrated into existing K-12 courses or to be the subject of new courses.
All three bills define Ethnic Studies in identical language (see below). This language is taken, with minor adaptations, from a definition supplied to the MN Department of Education by the Minnesota Ethnic Studies Coalition (MESC). MESC along with coalition member Education for Liberation Minnesota support these bills. Among other things, the latter organization publishes a resource for teaching police abolition in K-12, “Teaching Abolition in the Classroom.”