Anthony J. Harris, Sam Houston State University, Edu_ajh@shsu.edu

Abstract

This article presents the case for including multicultural education in the curricula of counseling and educational leadership graduate programs at U.S. universities.  As professions and disciplines, counseling and educational leadership are obligated, ethically, through their respective professional codes of ethics, to ensure that matriculants exit their preparation programs in possession of skills, knowledge, and dispositions that will enable them to behave in a culturally competent manner. While there are different schools of thoughts regarding the most appropriate model for teaching multicultural education, the author argues that there is no incorrect model.  The author offers his views on the topic of multicultural education as one who initially met resistance from colleagues to establish such a course, and who, after the establishment of the course, taught it for nearly fifteen years.

Introduction

The course and many like it at institutions around the country became critical to the profession’s obligation to provide training that included a diversity/multicultural component.  That obligation is mentioned prominently in the Preamble and in Section A.2.c of the Code of Ethics of the American Counseling Association (aca Code of Ethics, 2005).  The National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ncpea), in its Mission Statement, states that one of its goals is to “ensure access and inclusion of under-represented groups into the professorship and administration and promote social justice in education” (ncpea Mission Statement, 2006).  While the goal of ensuring that students and practitioners are culturally proficient is shared by the various social sciences and human development professions, the techniques, strategies, and activities designed to achieve the goal varies with programs, departments, and institutions.  This paper shares techniques, strategies, and activities from academic programs in counseling and educational leadership, which can be effective in producing culturally proficient counselors and educational leaders for the public schools, private practice, and mental health settings.   The author also presents information regarding the philosophical basis for the establishment and promotion of multicultural education courses.

Course Objectives

Objectives for a course in multicultural education are aligned with a generally accepted set of objectives outlined by Sue (1998).  Those objectives include, but are not limited to the following: 1). Learn more about oneself as a cultural being, including one’s own prejudices, biases, and ‘blind spots’.  How does one react or respond to someone who is culturally different in the counseling office, classroom, conference room, or on the street? 2) Learn about groups and individuals who are different than you and your group.  An important caveat is that students not only looking at differences, but also at similarities among groups.  The latter notion is based on the belief that the more humans are aware of how much we have in common, the less likely we are to harm or destroy each other.  3). Learn which theories, techniques, and strategies are appropriate and effective with various individuals and cultural groups. This objective is in sharp contrast to the senior colleague’s belief that counseling is counseling is counseling and that race and culture do not matter.

Course Activities

What’s my group?

The first class meeting in a multicultural counseling or education class is typically fraught with anxiety and uncertainty among students, who are often clueless about what they are about to experience.   Therefore, efforts are made to reduce anxiety but maintain a certain level of creative tension.  Absent an optimal level of creative tension, learning is often blunted and not fully internalized.  Senge (1994) suggested that creative tension is what enables learners to move from current reality to the vision (new learning).

The author also informs students that the objectives of the course require them to avoid focusing exclusively on their cognitions.  Instead, they are expected to explore their feelings, beliefs, and biases about people and groups who are different than they and their groups are.  For some students, anxiety begins to build after hearing that they cannot remain at the cognitive level in order to fully benefit from the course.  The idea of exploring one’s biases and prejudices, which is best done at the feeling level, can be unsettling for some students. Sue (1998) points out that some learners are resistant to exploring such feelings due to their particular stage of racial/cultural identity development. These individuals resist self-exploration of their biases and prejudices for fear that such biases and prejudices (or they as persons) might become exposed for peers and others to criticize.  Others might be intentionally naïve or blissfully oblivious to the presence of biases and prejudices and are, therefore, not ready, developmentally, to give up their color-blind view of the world (Helms, 1990). The anecdotal experience of the author confirms the findings of Rausch (2004) that students in educational leadership courses tend to be resistant to self-exploration of biases and general discussion about culture and social justice.  The opposite has been the author’s experience in teaching counseling students.  This might be due to the tendency for counseling students to operate more comfortably in the affective domain and for teachers to operate more comfortably in the cognitive domain.  It could also be attributed to the legacy of preparation programs that avoid dealing with emotionally charged issues such as poverty, discrimination, and racism.

One of the ways of creating an effective level of tension is to ask each student to identify the group with which he/she typically identifies.  For some, especially white students, that is an unusual request that calls for them to become conscious of something that is normally outside their conscious awareness. The late influential lecturer, scholar, and author R. W. Terry (personal communication, June 1, 1988) in a seminar presentation that the author attended in 1988, explained that phenomenon very succinctly: Being white in American means never having to think about it. Further, because an appropriate level of trust has yet to be established in the class, some students choose a “safe” group, such as “Texan”, “Parent”, or “Christian”.  Others venture a little farther up the ladder of risk and say, “Males”, “Parents”, or “Females”.  Students of color understand the gist of the question and typically respond with, “African American”, “Hispanic”, or “Asian American”.  Students who choose the ‘safe’ response are not penalized or criticized for doing so because not only is it a safe response, but it also a predictable and honest response, lending credence to Robert Terry’s assertion.  All students are, however, asked to ponder why some of them do not identify with a racial, ethnic, or cultural group.  At an appropriate time, that concept is revisited, but for the moment, the professor wants them to simply consider the idea and begin to think more deeply about why some do not identify with a particular racial or cultural group.   A wonderful assignment that helps students begin to make the mental transition from cultural oblivion to cultural awareness is to review Peggy McIntosh’s list of 50 privileges she enjoys only because she is white (McIntosh, 1988).

Journaling

An activity that the students are required to complete is journaling. Journaling allows them to record thoughts and feelings and “aha” moments about themselves and others as they occur and even change over time.  The author warns students that they will not be the same persons at the end of the semester as they are at the beginning, and that their journal will be tangible recorded evidence of those changes.   The notion of recording attitudinal and behavioral changes can be very enlightening, cathartic, and liberating, many students report. They come to realize that thoughts and feelings become clearer when they are expressed, either verbally or in writing. They also report that, as intended, journaling allows them to note changes in their beliefs and behaviors that occur as they progress through the course and as they observe the world around them through a new set of lenses. But the journal is only a tool or medium for memorializing those changes.  The key to sustainable change is a willingness to allow it to occur.

The major caveat to this assignment is that the professor does not read their journal.  He tells them that the journal is for their benefit, not his.  The professor does not want the students to censor or embellish any thoughts or feelings because they think the professor will read the journal.  Moreover, the professor’s decision not to read the journals is an existential belief that places trust in the student’s ability to be responsible for his/her own learning. 

Creative Project

Another activity that is initially met with moans and groans is the assignment to complete a creative project entitled, Multiculturalism As I See It.  The initial consternation regarding this assignment stems from anxiety caused by having to do something creatively.  For many students, operating within their narrow comfort zone is preferable to stretching themselves and exploring their creative side.  The assignment encourages students to conceptualize multiculturalism as a contemporary social, moral, and political construct that affects them personally and professionally. They have the latitude to explore and manage the project from any career perspective they choose, including that of a future educational leader, community improvement agent, counselor, learner, or teacher.  They are instructed to give the project serious thought and consideration and to not rush to get it completed.  The professor wants them to allow time for introspection, synthesis, and reflection, which is best accomplished in an intentionally thoughtful manner (Brown & Irby, 2000).  At the assigned time, typically late in the semester, they present their projects to the class in a variety of formats, including poetry, skits, and drawings.  A secondary benefit of this assignment is that it invites students to expand their comfort zone and to demonstrate their ability to view issues and solutions with imagination and creativity.  The creative project typically achieves the desired results. Students discover that they can be creative and can, therefore, painlessly expand their comfort zone.  Moreover, they also discover a deeper appreciation of the value of diversity and multiculturalism and how much they are personally and professionally impacted by them.

Setting the tone

In an effort to set a tone in the class that is conducive to self-exploration at the feeling level, the professor assures students that no one will be penalized or “zapped” for saying something that might be considered culturally insensitive. The professor strives to make the class a safe place for students to verbalize what they are thinking and feeling, especially if they think their views might offend someone in the class.  The professor lets students know that the he will model such decorum by not penalizing or “zapping” someone who says something with which the professor has strong disagreements.  This philosophy is based on Carl Rogers’ belief (1951) that significant learning takes place when the learner’s perceived threat to self is reduced or eliminated by the facilitator (teacher).

Philosophical Considerations

Ensuring that students become more culturally proficient should not rest solely with a single course, as important as such a course is.  To effectively convey the importance of cultural proficiency, academic programs must ensure that all courses include the principles of multicultural education and training.  The value of a dedicated multicultural class is that it focuses primarily on cultural proficiency.  However, students take many other courses in their academic program.  And those other courses should be as dedicated as a stand-alone course to encouraging students to view themselves and course content within a cultural context.

A point of contention among some in the field of multicultural education is which groups should be included or excluded in a course.  Sleeter (1996) describes five distinct but similar approaches to multicultural education:

1. Teaching the Culturally Different - focuses on teacher being culturally relevant and appropriate in terms of teaching technique, style, and philosophy.  Advocates of this approach believe that students from culturally different backgrounds learn best when they are presented with material that affirms their culture.

2. Human Relations - focuses on teaching about the common attributes and characteristics that exist among all humans.  Advocates of this approach support the notion that humans have more that unites them than divides them.

3. Single Group Studies – focuses on individual groups and their experiences as an oppressed group.  Such groups include women, the poor, the differently able homosexual groups, and groups of color.

4. Multicultural Education - focuses on an egalitarian approach that views education as reflective of democracy, i.e., it is pluralistic; it values differences; and it promotes the dignity and worth of all humans.  

5. Social Reconstructionist – focuses on teaching students how to become agents for improvement in their profession and their communities.  Advocates of this approach believe that social justice requires teachers and learners to participate actively in creating change in society that results in greater equity and equality among all groups.

From the experience of the author, the argument of which groups are included or excluded in a multicultural education course centers on two contemporary points of view. One point of view is that only the four major cultural/racial/ethnic groups – African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and Native American – should be included.  This point of view advocates a more narrow view of culture to include only the four major racial and ethnic groups at the exclusion of other oppressed groups such as women, homosexuals, and persons with disabilities. The principal argument for this point of view is that America has never satisfactorily dealt with racism or its race problems and that race and culture are the dominant issues that continue to divide the nation.  Advocates of this perspective point to the recent debacle resulting from Hurricane Katrina and the emotionally charged debate over immigration as examples of how America continues to struggle with issues of race, culture, and ethnicity. Therefore, advocates argue, race, culture, and ethnicity involving those four groups should occupy the majority of class instruction.  Further, this point of view argues that given the duration of a regular semester, there is only a minimum amount of time available to devote to those groups, and that the inclusion of other groups reduces the amount of available time to deal adequately with the dominant racial, cultural, and ethnic issues.

The counter view is that other groups that have a history of experiencing oppression, such as women, homosexuals, and persons with disabilities should be included in a course on multicultural education.  The argument in support of this view is that there is no hierarchy of oppression.  No group’s oppression is more important than another, and that all oppressed groups should be included in a multicultural class, in part, as a means of helping end such oppression.  The more enlightened the general public and educational leaders and counselors are about those groups, the more likely the oppression will end or diminish.  This point of view takes a broad view of culture and is more inclusive of groups other than the dominant racial and ethnic groups.

As a professor of both educational leadership and counseling, the author has found that the challenges are similar for students in both disciplines, although as previously mentioned, educational leadership students tend to be more resistant to engaging in meaningful discussions about race and culture. In each of the two disciplines, however, students bring to the multicultural education class their unique multicultural or monocultural experiences that have helped to shape their world view.  Students’ world views range from oblivion to a heightened sense of awareness and appreciation of different cultural groups.  Their level of awareness of cultural issues covers the gamut from very little to highly enlighten.  Whether a professor teaches a separate multicultural course or incorporates multicultural principles into other courses, the goal should be to move students along a continuum from where they are when they joined the class to a more proficient level of cultural understanding and behavior at the conclusion of the course.  A concomitant goal is for professors to move themselves along a similar continuum as well.  After all, teaching is learning. From there, we try to equip students with a set of skills that will guide them through the remainder of their coursework and into their careers as counselors and educational leaders.   

Evidence, however, shows that university faculty are resistant to engaging in that very important role (Rusch, 2004).  Persons of color enrolled in educational leadership programs tend to believe that their professors are not committed to teaching multicultural or cross-cultural leadership material (Rusch, 2004).  Further, they believe that educational leadership faculty members tend to have very narrow or non-existent views regarding social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism (Rusch, 2004).  Such situations, if unchanged, will diminish the effectiveness of preparation programs that purport to prepare leaders for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural world.

The need to assist teachers, counselors, principals, and superintendents to become more culturally proficient is also magnified when one considers the fact that as the ranks of educators becomes increasingly non-minority, student enrollments in public schools in many parts of the country are becoming increasingly non-white.  Such an imbalance can lead to conflict between largely white teachers and administrators on one hand and largely non-white parents and students on the other, especially in racially charged environments. The percentage of white students in the nation’s public schools decreased during the period of 1993-2003 from 66.1 to 58. 7; African Americans increased from 16.6 to 17.2; and Hispanics increased from 12.7 to 18.5 (NCES, 2005).  Today, slightly more than one in ten of all public school teachers are racial minorities (Banks, 2001).  In 2006, 46 percent of superintendents of urban school districts that comprise the Great City Schools were white, 45 percent black and 9 percent Latino (GCS, 2006).  In contrast, in 1997, 37 percent were white and 47 percent were black, and 16 percent were Latino. These data suggest that the ranks of white superintendents in the GCS are increasing while those of black and Latino superintendents are decreasing. Such a disparity in the racial composition of school enrollments and that of teachers and school leaders makes it increasingly critical for teachers and school leaders to be culturally proficient. 

Moreover, professors and students must understand that the presence of racial, cultural, ethnic and other oppressed groups in the general population is not likely to diminish in the foreseeable future.  According to 2000 Census Data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), the African American percentage of the total population rose from 12.1 percent to 12.9 percent between 1990 and 2000.  During the same period, Latino percentage of the total population rose from 9.0 percent to 12.5 percent.  The white population, (alone and not in combination with another race) as a percentage of the total population, declined from 80.3 to 75.1.  Clearly, the presence of racial minorities in the nation’s schools, communities, worksites, and shopping centers will likely continue to increase, making cultural awareness, acceptance, and proficiency even more critical within the general population; and it will make it even more so within the human development and social sciences professions that are charged with the task of ensuring success among growing numbers of marginalized students of color, families, and communities. 

Those charged with such a daunting task, especially teachers, counselors, and educational leaders have a special obligation to ensure that they possess the requisite culturally proficiency in order to make a meaningful difference in the lives of children, families, and communities.  And professors who help prepare teachers, counselors, and educational leaders have an even greater responsibility to ensure that their students (and they) have the skills and the ability to: a. know self as a cultural being, b. know other groups beyond assumptions, caricatures, and stereotypes, and c. select the most culturally appropriate technique, theory, or strategy that will result in the success of our students or clients.  To expect and to do less represents failure on the part of preparation programs to ensure that counselors and educational leaders in training are culturally proficient and competent.  To wit, if we fail in that effort, we become unwitting enablers of what C.Gilbert Wrenn (1962) called, culturally encapsulated individuals – persons who are immersed in a monocultural environment and are unwilling or unable to make adaptations in their worldview, especially  for diverse cultures.

References

American Counseling Association, ACA Code of Ethics, (2005). Retrieved December 1, 2006 from www.counseling.org/Files/ FD.ashx?guid=ab7c1272-71c4-46cf-848c-f98489937dda

Council of Great Schools, (June 2006) Urban school superintendents: characteristics, tenure, and salary. Retrieved September 22, 2006 from http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/Superintendents%202006.pdf

Frankenberg, E. Race in American Public Schools: Rapidly Resegregating School Districts (August 8, 2002).  Retrieved September 28, 2006 from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/reseg_schools02.php

Helms, J. (1990).  Black and white racial identity: theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers

Irby, B., Brown, G. (2000). The career advancement portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

J.A. & Banks, C.A.M. (2001). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives (4th ed.).  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McIntosh, P. Working Paper 189. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies (1988)

National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, (2006): NCPEA Mission Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://www4.nau.edu/cee/orgs/ncpea/missionstatement.asp

Rogers, C. R. (1951) Client-Centered Counseling, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin

Rusch, E.A. (February 2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: a constrained discourse, Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1 (February 2004) 14-46

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, New York, New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State University of New York Pres 

Sue, D.W., (1998)  Multicultural counseling competencies: individual and organizational development, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

United States Census Bureau, (August 2001), The Black Population 2000.  Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf

United States Census Bureau, (May 2001), The Hispanic Population 2000.  Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf

United States Census Bureau, (August 2001), The White Population 2000.  Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdf

United States Department of Education – National Center for Educational Statistics (June 2006), Digest of Education Statistics: 2005. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_038.asp

Wrenn, C.G. (Fall 1962). The culturally encapsulated counselor. Harvard Educational Review, Volume 32, p. 444-449.