With regard to the two articles by Boutte and Hyland about social justice in early childhood environments:? Why does Bo

ABSTRACT. Whereas professional organizations recognize the centrality of diversity in school curricula and instruc- tional practices and most educators con- ceptually agree, little of this information and ideology is translated into class- rooms. When examining the ethos in most schools, the valuation of diversity is not readily apparent in teacher atti- tudes, instructional practices, curricula, and school policies. Although rapidly changing demographics and accompa- nying negative performance trends of students from nonmainstream back- grounds implore educators to consider issues of diversity and equity, teachers give little or no substantive attention to sociocultural and sociopolitical issues that mediate teaching and learning in an increasingly diverse world. In this article the author encourages educators to envi- sion and enact new legacies on behalf of humanity. The author discusses issues

of social justice along with pedagogical strategies and includes examples from micro and macro levels of society.

Keywords: diversity, early childhood, pedagogy, social justice

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

—Martin Luther King Jr.

n this article, I explore what we as teachers can do to ensure that “the

arc of the moral universe continues to bend toward justice.” I summon us to collectively envision and teach peda- gogies that can potentially positively change the world beyond what our cur- rent worldviews permit us to imagine. Presenting examples from the micro to the macro levels, I pose the follow- ing questions: Why should educators candidly address issues such as race, discrimination, hate, and oppression in early childhood classrooms? Which pedagogical approaches should be used? How do we create a more inclusive rath- er than exlcusive social order?

“Freedom and love,” according to historian and author Robin D. G. Kel- ley, “may be the ‘most revolutionary ideas’ available to people, but academ- ics have ‘failed miserably’ in under- standing their significance” (qtd. in

Frank 2000). In general, we are doing a grave disservice to prospective and practicing teachers if we provide little or no substantive attention to socio- cultural and sociopolitical issues that mediate teaching and learning in an increasingly diverse world (Freire 1999; Nieto 2003). I am concerned that many teacher educators are not well versed on issues of diversity and the corresponding knowledge bases and, thus, will bequeath this legacy to our charges. Few of us have developed tools to address difficult issues such as discrimination and oppression, and we likely naïvely believe that if we respect the individual child, all will be well. I wonder who will provide children with the necessary critical skills and knowl- edge base that they will likely need.

In this article, I consider two four-letter words—hate and love—that are largely ignored in teacher education programs. In educational settings, love connotes that all humans deserve the right to dig- nity, freedom, and equal opportunities. On the other hand, hate in educational settings is defined as a lack of compas- sion and lack of respect for the rights of others. Like hatred in the social sense, it is usually not intentional but often results from lack of knowledge. Pro- fessing love for children and humanity

Beyond the Illusion of Diversity: How Early Childhood Teachers Can Promote Social Justice GLORIA SWINDLER BOUTTE

GLORIA SWINDLER BOUTTE is an asso- ciate professor of early childhood educa- tion and the Schuyler and Yvonne Moore Child Advocacy Distinguished Chair at the University of South Carolina. She is the author of Multicultural Education: Raising Consciousness, Resounding Voices: School Experiences of People from Diverse Ethnic Backgrounds and numerous other publica- tions related to diversity.

THE SOCIAL STUDIES JULY/AUGUST 2008 165

I

Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

without reflective and collaborative action is inadequate.

Educators face the challenge of pre- paring students from diverse populations and backgrounds to live in a rapidly changing world in which some groups have greater societal benefits than oth- ers because of race, ethnicity, gender, class, language, religion, ability, or age. Approximately 40 percent of students in U.S. schools are from African, Asian, Latino, and Native American ethnic groups. In urban schools, 63 percent of the student population consists of students of color; in areas on the fringe of cities, 36 percent; and in small towns and rural areas, 20 percent (National Center for Education Statistics n.d.a). Extending the demographic lens beyond the United States, the majority of the world’s population consists of people of color, with Asians and Africans com- posing nearly 75 percent of the world’s population, 60 percent and 14 percent, respectively (World Almanac Education Group 2006). Yet, the vast majority of students in U.S. schools know little or nothing about people and culture in the eastern hemisphere.

The knowledge base on culture, diversity, and equity issues is volumi- nous and has existed for decades (Banks 2006; Pak 2005; Woodson 1990), but the language of culturally relevant pedagogy and cultural diversity—used heavily in accreditation reports, course syllabi, and policy statements—is often rhetorical in classrooms (Boutte 2002a). Although the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and other profes- sional/accrediting organizations recog- nize the centrality of diversity in school curricula and instructional practices and most educators conceptually agree, classroom practices that substantively address diversity are more illusionary than real (Villegas and Lucas 2002).

There is much that we could and should do in teacher education programs to better prepare early childhood edu- cators to address complex issues such as discrimination and hatred. Notwith- standing some of the important efforts to make antibias instruction an integral

part of early childhood classrooms (Der- man-Sparks and the A.B.C. Task Force 1989; Derman-Sparks, Ramsey, and Edwards 2006), current events indicate there is still much work to be done. Edu- cators need to develop and institutional- ize programs and practices that “make attention to diversity, equity, and social justice centrally important” (Banks et al. 2005, 274). In the following sections, I present personal and societal examples that point to the need for early child- hood educators to increase the vigilance of their efforts. I also detail pedagogical strategies to address some of the associ- ated concerns.

Why Should Educators Candidly Address Issues Such as Race, Discrimination, Hate, and Oppression in Early Childhood Classrooms?

There is no other profession in the world that directly or indirectly touches the lives of people at the same level as teachers do. While educators are not responsible for all that is good, bad, or indifferent in schools and society, they can certainly take a more active stance to fight for good (Nieto 2003). While acknowledging the structural inequi- ties in society and schools that limit educators’ impact and simultaneously recognizing the need to collaborate with like-minded individuals, this article is a call to action. Assuming that the vast majority of teachers enter the profes- sion to make a difference in the lives of their students does not negate the fact that without guidance and appro- priate knowledge bases, educators are likely to inadvertently contribute to oppression—despite good intentions. Without a knowledge base in critical pedagogy and corresponding strategies for addressing issues of oppression and discrimination, many teachers are over- whelmed by the rapidity of changing demographics. Inherent in many con- ventional educational knowledge bases and teaching methods is a deficit per- spective that “functions as an instru- ment that is used to facilitate the inte- gration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring

about conformity to it” (Shaull 1999, 16). We have the right to remain silent, but silence on issues of oppression and discrimination connotes agreement.

The following sections present two illusions that educators may have, with examples that demonstrate the need to actively address social justice issues with young children. Appendix A shows comments made by my son when he was four; appendixes B–D present com- ments from university students. Appen- dix B is used to emphasize worst-case scenarios of unresolved diversity issues. At the end of each section, I offer some advice for educators.

Illusion 1: Young Children Are Colorblind and Do Not Think about Issues of Race and Racism

As appendix A points out, young children are continuously internalizing messages about people who are differ- ent than they are—even when parents value diversity. It is thus important that children receive ongoing messages from several sources that convey a commit- ment to social justice and equity.

The first part of my conversation with Jonathan is characterized by his mono- syllabic responses indicating his general disinterest in my “lecture.” Neverthe- less, I wanted to emphasize that it is a privilege to have a home, so I contin- ued. His comments that people from different racial backgrounds could not live together surprised me, and I tried presenting information that countered these notions. It intrigued me that he classified people from the Asian dias- pora as white (when he said he did not know any Asian people). Although I had actively taught Jonathan that people from different backgrounds can coex- ist, the larger societal message of racial divisions remained somewhere deep in his consciousness.

Jonathan is not unlike most other children who very adeptly internalize social divisions they see around them. Recently, my friend’s eleven-year-old daughter queried, “Mom, why do you always move your mouth like this [illus- trating her mother’s grimace] when you talk?” I chuckled because her comments

166 JULY/AUGUST 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

THE SOCIAL STUDIES MAY/JUNE 1996 167 THE SOCIAL STUDIES JULY/AUGUST 2008 167

The residual effects of living in a racially stratified society do not escape children’s detection.

reminded me of my daughter’s constant “social criticism” and commentaries of my every move and nuance. What par- ents and educators do not say or do is as powerful as what we do. We often inadvertently teach children how to behave, and since they are programmed to survive in the settings and culture into which they are born, they are very proficient at studying adults’ actions and unspoken values.

Returning to my dialogue with Jona- than leads me to examine how other influences may have contradicted and undermined my efforts at home. The book collection at his preschool was typical. The books were primarily Euro- centric or portrayed animals with char- acteristics and values of mainstream lifestyles. Presenting an occasional book about an ethnic or cultural group does not teach children to view diversity as the norm rather than the exception. Most of the books in Jonathan’s class- room focused on whites. Reading only a few books here and there on people of color (often historical folktales) sends strong messages about what is normal and what is not (Boutte 2002b). Exam- ples of people living and working across cultural lines are virtually invisible in many classroom book collections—even in fairytales. Likewise, other media (i.e., television, movies, videos) depictions of living and working together across racial lines are often absent.

In terms of Jonathan’s perspective regarding cross-racial relationships, I had to reexamine ways that I may have presented contradictory information at home. I queried myself about val- ues that I may have covertly or overtly taught Jonathan about how to treat and view people different from us. How do I approach people from different ethnic groups in public (e.g., grocery store)? Do I make eye contact? Do I smile and greet them or suddenly find something to look at in the opposite direction? Do I send ever-so-slight nonverbal messages that do not go unnoticed by my astute child whose primary job is to figure out what is appropriate and inappropriate based on my actions? What is the eth- nicity of the children who sleep over at our house or who are invited to birthday

parties? These questions can lead each of us to think deeply about how we teach children to accept or reject others who differ from us.

On careful reflection, I recognized that even though I tried to teach Jona- than to appreciate diversity, my efforts were small in comparison to societal realities beyond our home. For example, even simple observations of families in

Jonathan’s childcare settings would lead him to conclude that families are seg- regated by race. That is, parents and children at his childcare center were matched by race. Therefore, Jonathan’s conclusions were logical.

Revisiting my own efforts at home, although we vacillated between attend- ing a church with an interracial congre- gation and an all-black one, I am certain that Jonathan detected unspoken sub- texts that escaped my radar. For exam- ple, it is likely that I conveyed more enjoyment, relaxation, and serenity at the black church. Moreover, despite our attempts to expose Jonathan to an inte- grated church setting, observations of the larger society reveal that most places of worship remain racially divided.

Reflecting on what Jonathan very astutely inferred based on his obser- vations and experiences, it is appar- ent that the social structures children observe do not frequently lend them- selves to high-quality cross-cultural interactions. The residual effects of liv- ing in a racially stratified society do not escape children’s detection. While my cross-racial friends and I generally believe in basic principles of respect for humanity and seek to extend our social justice efforts beyond our professional lives into our personal lives, we never quite reach the same level as my same- race friends. For example, I often find myself explaining intricate details of my cultural existence to my cross-racial friends to help them more fully under-

stand a particular context or instance. At times, my role is more like an infor- mant than a friend—especially when we are in the company of others. One- on-one, our connections are generally fine, albeit more guarded and formal. My closest white friend, Susan, and I worked hard to become bi-directionally integrated into each other’s lives. Our families (children, mothers, spouses)

know one another. Our children attend each other’s birthday parties. We invite each other to parties and informal set- tings. Yet, the realization that there are important things that we do not know about one another or the realization that some of our friends are quite uncom- fortable when we are all together places limits on our friendship. For example, once Susan confessed that she never got a chance to speak when we were play- ing games at my house. I laughed and tried to explain African American con- cepts of co-narration and overlapping, which permit more than one person to talk at once or one person completing another’s sentences (which is distinctly different from the linear, one-person-at- a-time convention). I added that in my family the speaker has the responsibility of being able to gain and hold the audi- ence’s attention. Susan’s culture, on the other hand, guided her to wait for a turn to speak—which never happened at my house. When she tried to assert herself in her soft, courteous voice, others who could engage listeners often overtook her (we did not consider this to be rude from our cultural perspective).

Another poignant example occurred when one of my African American friends and her husband invited several white couples from their neighborhood to their annual Christmas party. It was interesting to observe the African Amer- icans as they arrived and to notice the ever-so-slight shock at the mixed com- pany (which was atypical). The tone of

168 MAY/JUNE 1996 THE SOCIAL STUDIES168 JULY/AUGUST 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

the party was somewhat artificial and stilted. Interestingly, all of the white couples left first after spending what must have seemed to be the appropri- ate amount of time to be polite. The tone of the party changed considerably after they left—becoming more relaxed, more sustained, and filled with louder laughter—even though all the black couples did not know one another.

So what can educators learn from all of this? First, we have to question how and why it is possible for us to coex- ist and not be familiar with our class- mates’, neighbors’, and fellow citizens’ various cultural communication styles. As educators, we have an opportunity to extend the currently limited defini- tions of humanity so that a wide range of lifestyles and perspectives are seen as acceptable. This requires careful exami- nation of our instruction, curricula, and resources to determine which ideologies and worldviews are central and which are invisible. Educators can also provide and reinforce strategies and tools for commu- nicating and adapting in cross-cultural situations. Herein lies the depth of the opportunity that early childhood educa- tion teachers have. I am hopeful that we can begin to change the hearts, minds, and behaviors of our young charges. While young children often eagerly play cross racially (Delpit 2007), they have “an unstated but nonetheless sophisti- cated understanding of issues of race and power” (Tenorio 2007, 20). Countering discrimination and inequities should involve thoughtful, ongoing efforts from several sources since children learn covert and overt messages from many sources, including television, home life, literature, and peers.

Illusion 2: Multiculturalism and Diversity Are Valued in Today’s Society

Although the ethos of appreciation of diversity is frequently espoused, most Americans have few opportunities to discuss issues and take actions that work toward the appreciation of both unity and diversity among people. The messages in appendixes B–D were copied from a women’s and men’s restroom at a mid- size, mostly white university. The mes-

sages were written on the walls of the three stalls, with most of the writing in the second stall. While early childhood educators cannot fathom young chil- dren holding strong beliefs and opinions such as the ones recorded in appendixes B–D, the thoughts developed over time and did not start at adulthood. Addition- ally, young children live among adults and are socialized by people who hold varying values about diversity.

These scribbled writings on taboo topics, which young adults in college wrote within the secrecy of restroom stalls, likely convey antidiversity sub- texts in society. Based on the handwrit- ing and colors with which the comments were written, it appears that a different person wrote each comment.

On reading the first comment (see appendix B), I was compelled to docu- ment the apparent need for discourse on the topic. Although it probably loses some of its impact when trans- ferred from the bathroom wall to paper, I immediately sat down and recorded it all—staying in the bathroom for an extended period of time and returning the next day to take photos, fearing the graffiti would be painted over. Was the restroom the only allowable outlet for these adult women (presumably) to express their suppressed feelings?

Interestingly, the initial comment elicited a thread of comments in this “bathroom chat room.” The first writer seems to have a need to talk about rac- ism—a taboo topic in society. The sec- ond person responded by questioning social and political racial categories. The third writer discouraged this dia- logue, seemingly intimating that writing on bathroom stalls is foolish and that the topic does not warrant discussion. As the comments continued, another per- son chimed in by recognizing the beau- ty of differences among humans and resisting categorical divisions of race but expressing discontent that whites cannot openly celebrate some aspects of their culture. This is followed by a person, perhaps in jest, promoting hate and divisions among groups. The next commenter made an attempt to express love for humanity, albeit, laced with stereotypes. Finally, an acknowledge-

ment that American Indians are indig- enous people is met with a distinction between eastern and western Indians (concepts that have undoubtedly been overtly taught).

Wondering whether these university students had ever been given the oppor- tunity to write about their latent emotions surrounding race, I continued to read the comments. One writer tried to distin- guish between institutional and individ- ual acts of racism—an important dis- tinction to learn about when discussing racial issues. A member of the “fashion police” felt compelled to tell the writers to “shut up,” while inserting a pejora- tive label for females. Another woman’s question, “Why fight?,” seems to imply that we are all humans and are more similar than different. The coup de grâce came from an African-centric “essay” laced with sexist language (“ho”) and divisiveness. The final single-word com- ment (“STOP”) nicely truncates the con- versation, although there seems to be a need for open dialogue.

Having recorded every word in stall 2, I moved to the next stall where I found a few brief comments about reli- gion (appendix C). This brief discussion about religion begins with an expression of atheism, which leads to the classic creation versus evolution dialogue. The Christian comment about heaven seems to suggest unity, while at the same time negating any non-Christian religious choices.

Racial epithets and accompany- ing remarks were also made in stall 3 (appendix D). Having the opportunity to write the dreaded “n-word” in public, the first writer provides an etymological analysis. There is no evidence of what prompted the comment. The second comment is an example of racism dis- guised as empathy. The third comment is simply hateful. While racial epithets are not permitted or tolerated in schools, many teachers do not know how to handle them when they occur in class- rooms (Boutte 1999; Tatum 2007). As an African American parent, I warned my daughter that she may hear the word nigger one day. When she was in third grade, one day she eagerly rushed home to report that a white child had called

her best friend (and the only other black child in the classroom) a “nigger.” My daughter was excited that she had actu- ally heard someone use the word and did not concentrate on the word’s hurt- ful intent. I was pleased to learn that the teacher handled the situation in a com- mendable manner. She first took care of the victim’s feelings and then repri- manded the child who made the offen- sive comment and contacted his parents. She also spoke to the class about the issue. The drawback of the situation is that discussions of racism, classism, sexism, and other forms of discrimi- nation were not part of the classroom dialogue. Although dealing with these topics is undoubtedly complicated and difficult, when left unaddressed, faulty beliefs and stereotypes develop and can potentially fester.

Race can even define children’s games (e.g., a child might say something like, “You can’t be the queen. There are no black queens.”) As teachers, it is impor- tant to recognize racism’s effect on children, address the issue directly, and give children the skills they will need to combat racism in their lives (Tenorio 2007). Omitting the word race obscures the issues at hand.

Returning to the graffiti in the bath- room, one writer artistically wrote in huge, two-dimensional colored letters, “Love each other.” This message, while sweet, is naïve and simplistic, missing the mark as does much of the typical commentary on race relations in early childhood classrooms. The writer urges readers to see our larger connection as humans and to seek harmony among dif- ferent ideologies, cultures, ethnic groups, and economic and political systems.

The comments obviously reflect issues about race and racism that need to be discussed. I wondered how many of the students revisited the dialogue and what purpose it served in their lives. Did they think about their comments before writing them? Did they strategi- cally go to the restroom when they had time to write undetected? What prompt- ed the first comment? Did any of the women discuss what they had written with others or in classes? Would they feel comfortable doing so? How many

of these women were going to be or were already teachers?

Without venues to discuss issues surrounding diversity, actions and dis- course will continue in subversive ways. Teachers need guidelines and profes- sional development on these topics. Multiculturalism is often valued con- ceptually versus practically and efforts to address diversity issues are frequently superficial.

Many may think that acts of hatred are few and do not affect our daily lives. Examining acts of genocide around the world, the January 2006 issue of Nation- al Geographic reported that an alarm- ing 50 million people have been killed during the twentieth century (Simons 2006). In many cases, the perpetrators of these heinous acts were following orders. Readers in the United States may feel relieved and disconnected because the genocide accounts cited were from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and instances in the United States were conspicuous- ly missing. However, approximately 5,000 people—mostly African Ameri- can men—were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968 (Walker 2003). Additionally, the number of hate groups continues to escalate each year, and there were 844 hate groups in the United States in 2006 (Southern Poverty Law Center 2007). Children from fami- lies who teach hate attend our schools. In many cases, teachers may be the only people who have a realistic chance of countering such indoctrination by pre- senting other perspectives.

National Geographic posed the fol- lowing question to readers: “Will humans ever overcome the ethnic hatreds and other factors that contribute to genocide?” (Simons 2006, 35). The results were close: 52 percent of 12,987 respondents said “yes” and 47 percent said “no” (National Geographic n.d.). As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel notes, “Only human beings can move me to despair. But only human beings can remove me from despair” (Simons, 35).

Despite worldwide protests, wars such as the one in Iraq continue to erupt and result in the loss of lives of innocent

people. As long as hatred dwells in the human mind, real peace is impossible (Vreeland 2001). So we have to learn how to fight hatred and to attack its roots. But first we have to be able to recognize it—even when it is disguised as education or socialization.

While genocide represents extreme acts of hatred and divisiveness, most societies inadvertently teach division and ethnocentrism early on. It starts with seemingly benign and common instances: girls versus boys, us versus them (these poles can represent any groups), the Lakers versus the Suns, the Deltas versus the non-Deltas, my state versus other states, east side versus west side, Bloods versus Crips, and so on. While these polarities are not hate- ful per se, the sense of competition is embedded and becomes second nature. People often become so vested in the divisions that they forget that most of them are contrived and not originally intended to be taken beyond a healthy level of amiable competition.

It is important for children to begin to understand the social, environmen- tal, and situational roots of the hostility that leads to hatred and genocide (Zinn 2007). Children can learn that these events are not inevitable and adults need to show them how such antagonisms divide people, thus making it difficult for them to solve their problems.

For many early childhood teacher educators and teachers, the thought of addressing issues of hate and oppres- sion is daunting because most of us tend to be most familiar with and asso- ciate with people who are similar to us. It may also be difficult for us to conceive of relinquishing some of our favorite dichotomies since these are a part of our identities. Additionally, conventional wisdom regarding what young children are capable of process- ing makes many teachers understand- ably leery about venturing into such …

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Social Justice in Early Childhood Classrooms What the Research Tells Us Hyland, Nora E YC Young Children; Jan 2010; 65, 1; ProQuest One Academic pg. 82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.