Eyes Wide Shut: AB 101 Bill Poses Danger for California Students

“High school students want to see themselves reflected in history,” said Assemblymember Jose Medina, as he introduced his signature ethnic studies graduation requirement bill, AB 101, to colleagues on the Assembly floor.

Several of the bill’s numerous co-authors expanded on Medina’s sentiments in championing the bill: “It’s important that our students have every opportunity to learn about the history, accomplishments and contributions of diverse communities and leaders that call California home,” stated Assemblymember Robert Rivas. “It’s going to strengthen the diversity in our state,” affirmed Assemblymember Evan Low. “This bill,” promised Assembly member David Chiu, “is the next step to a more inclusive society, one that is reflective and supportive of students of all backgrounds and communities in our state.” And after noting that California is the most diverse state in the nation, Assemblymember Akilah Weber pleaded, “Let us prepare our children for a better future by empowering them with the knowledge of their history and the history of their classmates.”

After hearing these impassioned and moving speeches, one could hardly disagree with Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who wondered incredulously “why anyone would vote against this bill.”

What gives many Californians pause, however, is that the multicultural and inclusive vision of ethnic studies praised by lawmakers and embraced by the vast majority of Californians—one that celebrates the state’s diversity and offers students a non-politicized, fact-based understanding of the history, accomplishments and challenges of all Californians—is a far cry from the vision of ethnic studies proposed by the educators responsible for developing the curricula most likely to be used in schools.

No one understands this better than AB 101’s own author. In August 2019, after an enormous controversy erupted over the first draft of the state-mandated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), Medina immediately joined 13 members of the Legislative Jewish Caucus in publicly opposing this draft. He stated that its antisemitic bias would “marginalize Jewish students and fuel hatred and discrimination against the Jewish community.” He understood that the first draft, which included overtly anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist material, would inevitably incite bigotry and hostility, especially antisemitism, in California classrooms. He also decided to postpone his graduation requirement bill, the precursor to AB 101, in the hope that a re-do of the ESMC would be consistent with the author’s desire for “a curriculum that is inclusive of all of our cultures and backgrounds.”

Medina understood that the first draft of the ESMC—rooted in a narrow conceptualization of “critical” ethnic studies that limited its focus to four racialized groups and promoted partisan political ideologies and activism that equated capitalism with racism, lionized violent revolutionaries and pushed students to engage in “tactics of resistance” that included anti-Israel boycotts—was clearly at odds with the inclusive and politically-neutral intent of his bill.

And Medina’s strategy worked. In March of this year, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved a less politicized, more inclusive version acceptable to lawmakers—just in time for the introduction of the latest iteration of Medina’s bill.

But a far more serious problem remains.

Although AB 101 recommends school districts adopt the SBE-approved curriculum, it also allows for the use of any curriculum approved by a local school district, even the extremely controversial, highly politicized and overtly antisemitic first draft that Medina vigorously opposed. And there is considerable evidence that the rejected draft—or a more extreme version—will be used by most school districts if AB 101 becomes law.

Although AB 101 recommends school districts adopt the SBE-approved curriculum, it also allows for the use of any curriculum approved by a local school district, even the extremely controversial, highly politicized and overtly antisemitic first draft that Medina vigorously opposed.

Soon after their curriculum was rejected, authors of the first draft launched a petition demanding that education officials reverse their decision and adopt the first draft as the state-mandated curriculum. Signatories on the petition included California’s two largest teachers’ unions—the California Teachers Association and United Teachers of Los Angeles—as well as a large majority of the ethnic studies departments at the University of California and California State University, and more than a dozen local school districts.

More recently, original ESMC drafters established the for-profit Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Institute (LESMC) to further promote the main elements of the rejected first draft and offer school districts their educational expertise in implementing the “liberated” curriculum in their schools. While the group has yet to publish their final curriculum, several webpages under “Preparing to Teach Palestine: A Toolkit” suggest the “liberated” curriculum will be even more politicized, divisive and antisemitic than its predecessor.

One webpage smears Israel with false charges of “settler colonialism” and “apartheid” and uses classic antisemitic tropes of Jewish wealth and power to vilify Jewish organizations speaking out about antisemitism; another encourages teachers to “create a space within your school” to engage in anti-Zionist activism and to fight the “Zionist backlash,” identified as “white supremacy”; and a third offers “a few resources” that vilify Jewish organizations, promote anti-Zionist groups calling for Israel’s destruction, and provide “skill-building” and “training” on “how to start your own BDS campaigns.”

Alarmingly, the California Teachers Association endorses the LESMC’s work, urging members to “[v]isit liberatedethnicstudies.org for ideas about K-12 #EthnicStudies curriculum.” Even more concerning is that the CTA is a proud co-sponsor of AB 101, whose endorsement of the rejected first draft of the ESMC and the more extreme “liberated” curriculum is surely known to the bill’s author and co-authors.

Even more concerning is that the CTA is a proud co-sponsor of AB 101, whose endorsement of the rejected first draft of the ESMC and the more extreme “liberated” curriculum is surely known to the bill’s author and co-authors.

Indeed, considering the open support of the state’s major teachers unions, higher education ethnic studies community and local school districts for the statewide adoption of exclusionary, politicized and bigoted curricula clearly at odds with the bill’s intent, the Assemblymembers’ statements can only be viewed as a kind of willful blindness. California legislators must open their eyes to the unintended but inevitable consequences of AB 101, and the dangers they pose for California students.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.