Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools

319 Pages·2002·1.66 MB·English

by  Amy J. Binder

CONTENTIOUS CURRICULA
PRINCETON STUDIES
IN CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY
EDITORS
PaulJ.DiMaggio
Miche`leLamont
RobertJ.Wuthnow
VivianaA.Zelizer
OriginsofDemocraticCulture:Printing,Petitions,
andthePublicSphereinEarly-ModernEngland
byDavidZaret
BearingWitness:Readers,Writers,andtheNovelinNigeria
byWendyGriswold
GiftedTongues:HighSchoolDebateandAdolescentCulture
byGaryAlanFine
Offside:SoccerandAmericanExceptionalism
byAndreiS.MarkovitsandStevenL.Hellerman
ReinventingJustice:TheAmericanDrugCourtMovement
byJamesL.Nolan,Jr.
KingdomofChildren:CultureandControversy
intheHomeschoolingMovementbyMitchellL.Stevens
BlessedEvents:ReligionandHomeBirthinAmerica
byPamelaE.Klassen
NegotiatingIdentities:StatesandImmigrantsinFranceand
GermanybyRivaKastoryano,translatedbyBarbaraHarshav
ContentiousCurricula:AfrocentrismandCreationism
inAmericanPublicSchoolsbyAmyJ.Binder
CONTENTIOUS CURRICULA
AFROCENTRISM AND CREATIONISM
IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Amy J. Binder
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD
Copyright2002byPrincetonUniversityPress
PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet,
Princeton,NewJersey08540
IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress,
3MarketPlace,Woodstock,OxfordshireOX201SY
AllRightsReserved
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Binder,AmyJ.,1964–
Contentiouscurricula:afrocentrismandcreationisminAmerican
publicschools/AmyJ.Binder.
p.cm.—(Princetonstudiesinculturalsociology)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-691-09180-3(alk.paper)
1.Curriculumchange—UnitedStates.2.Socialmovements—United
States.3.Afrocentrism—Studyandteaching—UnitedStates.4.Crea-
tionism—Studyandteaching—UnitedStates.I.Title.II.Series.
LB1570.B522002
375′.001′0973—dc21 2001058001
ThisbookhasbeencomposedinSabon
Printedonacid-freepaper.∞
www.pup.princeton.edu
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Preface vii
One
IntroductiontoAfrocentrismandCreationism,
ChallengerstoEducational“Injustice” 1
Two
TheChallengers 29
Three
HistoryoftheThreeAfrocentricCases:
Atlanta,Washington,D.C.,andNewYorkState 53
Four
Cultural,Political,andOrganizationalFactors
InfluencingAfrocentricOutcomes 104
Five
HistoryoftheFourCreationistCases:
LouisianaState,CaliforniaState,Vista,California,
andKansasState 136
Six
Cultural,Political,andOrganizationalFactors
InfluencingCreationistOutcomes 194
Seven
MakingMoreInstitutionaltheStudyofChallenge 216
Appendix 245
Notes 249
References 285
Index 297
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
THISISAbookabouttwogroupsofcitizenswho,inthelasttwentyyears
ofthetwentiethcentury,feltincreasinglyestrangedfromtheroutinecur-
riculataughtinAmericanpublicschools,andwhotriedtodosomething
about their sense of alienation. Members of these groups despaired that
theirchildrenmarchedintoschool,dayafterday,onlytobefeda‘propa-
gandistic’mealof‘half-truths’and‘outrightlies.’Theyagonizedoverthe
thought that students were suffering diminished self-esteem and under-
achievingacademicallyasaconsequenceofreceivingthesestate-approved
falsehoods.Parentsandothersactiveinthesecausesfearedthattheirval-
ues, and their children’s very personhood, were being stripped away by
arrogant teachers and administrators in oppressive educational systems.
Who were these challengers? On one side of the social spectrum were
Afrocentrists—African Americans critical of what they called the Euro-
centric emphasisin social studiesand history classes,in particular—and
ontheothersideofthesocialuniversewerecreationists—Christiancon-
servativestroubledbytheteachingofevolutioninscienceclasses.Finding
themselvesonthemarginsofmainstreamAmericanthoughtandpolitics,
thesetwogroupsofAmericansfoughtbackagainstwhattheyconsidered
tobeanoppressiveinstitution.Thisisanaccountofthechallengesthey
presentedtoAmericanpublicschoolsystems.
IfthisisastudyoftwogroupsconfrontingAmericanschools,itisalso
an examination of how the public education system responded to these
twosetsofchallengers,andoftheoutcomesofthosechallenges.Schools,
asweknowfrompersonalexperienceandfromdecadesofacademicre-
searchinto theirmanydetailsas formalandinformal organizations,are
places with complex and multiple responsibilities, with both the obliga-
tiontorespondtotheiruniqueconstituentsandthemandatetodelivera
credible,recognizable,and,foremost,legitimate,educationalproductto
all of their diverse patrons. Because schools are so often contradictory
and complex, and because they have limited funds and personnel, the
multiple tasks and responsibilities of education systems land their deci-
sionmakersinabreathtakingwebofconflictwhenitcomestodetermin-
inghowtoeducatechildren,whomtoprioritizeaseducablestudents,and
what to teach at any particular time, in any particular school system.
Conflictiseverpresentinschoolsystemsaroundsuchissues,complicating
educators’effortstoreachconsensusonpreferredactivitiesandgoals.
One of the most trying issues educators confront is what to do when
challenged by outsiders—like Afrocentric or creationist groups. Chal-
viii PREFACE
lengersoftencomefromfactionsofaschoolsystem’sconstituency,whose
members believe that some activity occurring in classrooms is not fair,
academically defensible, or otherwise beneficial to children. School offi-
cials face colliding demands when challenges occur, and ask themselves
whether they should allow outsiders into educational decision-making
circlessince,afterall,publicschoolsarecommunityorganizations,largely
paid for by the very “clients” who are demanding change? Or, should
schools attempt to fortify their boundaries against intrusion, since these
“outsiders” may be composed of only a minority of the school system
whorepresentnon-mainstreamopinion,andsinceschoolsareresponsible
for teaching a standard set of substantive facts and specific pedagogical
processes? Do schools take route A at one time and route B at another,
depending on the identity of the challenger movement and the type of
changesbeingproposed?Howdoschoolsknowwhentouseonealterna-
tiveortheother?
Theseareimportantquestions—bothaboutschools,inparticular,and
aboutlargesocialinstitutions,generally.Andbecausetheyareimportant
questions, with significant consequences for understanding contentious
challenges in the wider world, they are best answered using a varied set
oftoolsfromanumberofsociologicalfields.Inthisbook,Iwillcombine
insights from educational research, the study of social movements, and
organizational theory in an effort to capture the cultural, political, and
structural elements of these battles, and to provide an explanation for
whythesestrugglesproceededastheydid.
Studying Marginal Challenges
But why these specific challenges, of all the school reform battles going
oninthepasttwodecades?The1980sand1990swereastrangelyplacid
time for large-scale politics and social activism in the United States, af-
fectedbyaconservativepoliticalenvironmentbeginningwiththeReagan-
BusheraandcontinuingthroughtheeconomicprosperityoftheClinton
presidency.Buttheywereatimeoffoment,aswell,amongsmallergroups
from both the Left and the Right who felt disaffected from politics as
usual.Althoughthey,bynomeans,cameclosetorepresentingthemajor-
ity of U.S. citizens, clusters of the disaffected expressed alienation from
“thewayoftheworld”inthoseyears.Thiswasparticularlytrueforthose
whofelt,ontheonehand,thattheirethnic/racial/gender/sexualgroup
wassociallyunderappreciated,orpoliticallyandeconomicallyoppressed;
andthose, ontheother hand,whofelt thatAmerica hadlostits wayby
cateringtothoseverygroupswhohadbecome“tooradicalized,”ortoo
PREFACE ix
“politically correct,” in their claims of oppression.1 Many of these com-
plaints on both the Right and Left took place at the local level, rather
thanonanationalstage,andoftenthesewereinschools.Membersofthe
alienateddemandedincreasedrepresentationintheday-to-dayactivities
of school life, such as in the right to post the Ten Commandments in
theirschoolrooms,ortherightto havetheirAfricanAmericanchildren
schooledinEbonics.2
InchoosingtostudyAfrocentricandcreationistchallengestoAmerican
schools,Imadeachoicetolookmorecloselyatthisdisaffection,tofocus
onthestormbeneaththecalm,associologistsareoftenwonttodo.Call
itanoccupationalhazard,callitadesiretoseewhattheunderdogisup
to—whoeverthoseunderdogsare,andwhateveroursympathiesfortheir
particularassertionsofdispossession.Idecidedtolookatthesetwoself-
proclaimed disenfranchised groups because they presented such a fine
comparison—theywereonoppositesidesofthesociopoliticalcontinuum,
and both despised the center; they felt disenfranchised, but both found
waystoexertsomepowerintheirschoolsystems.Theywere,aboveall,
expressive challengers: impassioned, worried about their children, and
concernedaboutthefutureoftheircountry.
Among those whose work is a model for synthesizing vast theoretical
literatures and massive amounts of archival data (not to mention work
that concerns discourses about children), I have turned to Nicola Beisel
againandagainforfreshintellectualinsights,emotionalsupport,andan
invaluable friendship. Although our work departs from each other’s in
significant ways, it would be good for my ego to think that there are
similarities,too.Nicki’sresearchhaslongrepresentedformeanexample
ofthehighestformtoaimfor.Shewasmyadvisorduringthedissertation
phaseofthisproject(andbefore),andhasbeenatrustedfriend,confidant,
andteachertothisday.Sheismuchlovedandrespected.
I owe an enormous amount of gratitude to the two other fine human
beings on my dissertation committee: Art Stinchcombe and Christopher
(Sandy)Jencks. Imposingfigures onpaper,these twovery decentpeople
weregenerouswiththeirtimeandtheirastoundinglysmartideas.Having
a quantitative sociologist who expressed skepticism about the precision
of cultural sociology and interpretive methods (as Sandy did) was the
right kind of challenge for working out my ideas. It wasn’t easy, but it
was rewarding. Art, a prodigious critic, frequently amazed me with the
depth of his knowledge and his feel for data and theory. I often left his
officebothinagiddydazeandwithaslightlyupsetstomach—thesewere
reactionstobeinginthepresenceofdeepsociologicalwisdom.Themem-
oryofthedayArtwrotetheword“stunning”onmydissertationtheory