Deculturalization: How American Schools Weaponize Education Against Students of Color
Between news of book bans and an absurdly political battle to scrub public school curricula of historical facts, it might feel like the educational system in the United States is entering a dystopian era. From Japanese internment camps to slavery, white parents across the country are arguing that the histories of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in America are inappropriate topics for classroom education. Unfortunately, this blatant display of white supremacy in the education system is nothing new: Deculturalization has long been a pillar of the American school system.
According to Queens College professor and Choctaw Nation citizen Joel Spring, deculturalization is defined as “the use of schools to strip away family languages and cultures and replace them with those of the dominant group.”
Systemic deculturization on American soil can be traced back to 1879. On November 1, the Carlisle Indian Industrial School opened in Pennsylvania. A government-run boarding school, Carlisle often procured students by coercing parents or unwillingly removing children from their families and communities. Upon entry, students were forced to cut their hair, abandon their birth names, cease speaking their native languages, and convert to Christianity. Students who fought back were met with physical punishment or solitary confinement. Abuse was rampant, treatment was harsh, and ultimately 186 children were buried on Carlisle’s grounds.
Civil war veteran and founder of the school Lieutenant Colonel Richard Henry Pratt once explained the ethos that powered Carlisle: “All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” As the first of its kind, Carlisle modeled deculturization for the 408 indigenous boarding schools that followed in its footsteps.
At the time, white leaders like Pratt believed that systemic deculturalization would “save” non-white children from “savage” cultures and “heathen” religions. While the tactics of deculturalization have evolved over time, this white supremacist view has remained intact over the years, stripping Indigenous, African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other non-white/immigrant students of culture under the guise of “education.”
For the last few decades, the nexus of deculturalization in the United States has revolved around language. From 1998 to 2016, California upheld a law that forbid public school instruction in any language other than English. Since 2000, Arizona has upheld a similar law and remains the only state in the nation to still have laws prohibiting bilingual education.
It seems hypocritical then, that the newest “trend” in white education circles is dual language programs. On the surface, these programs help native and non-native English speakers master bilingualism: typically, half of the students are native English speakers and the other half are native speakers of a partner language (usually Spanish). Half of the school day is then taught in English and the other half in the partner language. The programs woo parents with the promise of language immersion and a cohort of students aiding one other in learning new languages.
However, data reveals that too often these programs are poorly implemented, ultimately providing much more value to native English speakers. Researchers discovered that schools serving students from low-income communities and with a high percentage of students of color are less likely to take part in these programs. Not only that, but non-native English speakers as well as those seeking to gain proficiency in a home or heritage language faced substantial obstacles when trying to enter these programs. This reality means that financially privileged white students have a much simpler path to obtaining the cultural and financial boost offered by bilingual education than their non-white peers do.
In addition, the results of these programs are often measured in English, allowing native English speakers to proclaim these programs a success. Due to a lack of research, less is known about the success of native Spanish or non-English speakers in these programs. Not only that, but when issues arrive, native-English-speaking white parents often (intentionally or unintentionally) utilize their privilege and socioeconomic status to speak over their non-white and immigrant counterparts.
This is a new form of gentrification. As middle-class white families gentrify “up and coming” areas, they price out the very people of color they profess to want to learn language from. Whereas mastering bilingualism is near a necessity for non-native English speakers to benefit fully from the American school system, it is simply a bonus skill for native English speakers. Bilingualism offers native English speakers more opportunities and higher salaries as they move through life. On the flip side, native speakers of other languages who live in America are expected to master English, and their bilingualism is considered par for the course. In this way, these programs commodify non-English languages specifically for the benefit of white Americans.
Today, students of color are still being instructed to avoid their native languages in school. Not until every student feels comfortable bringing their full self into the classroom will our schools be able to ethically offer dual language programs. In order for these programs to work, there needs to be extensive training and oversight to ensure that classroom teaching is truly equitable. Educators, parents, and community members must do the work of actively practicing anti-racist behaviors and tear down the pillar of white supremacy upholding America’s current education model.
