Katherine Kersten

WHERE WOULD YOU EXPECT to hear a statement like the following: "Race is an invented system, … an arbitrary classification created by Europeans using themselves as the model of humanity for the purpose of establishing their power and privilege?"

Would it be a cultural anthropology class at an elite East Coast university? Perhaps a rally of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam? Or a child-care facility? The third answer, strangely enough, is the right one. Welcome to "Building Cultural Connections," a curriculum for licensed child care workers brought to you by the state of Minnesota.

"Building Cultural Connections" is the state's response to a 1990 law requiring "cultural dynamics" training for all licensed child-care workers, from staff at large centers to moms caring for a few kids in their living room. After passing the law, the legislature handed off responsibility for designing a training curriculum to a public/private group called the Cultural Dynamics Education Project, which spent seven years in the effort. This fall, after using "Building Cultural Connections" to train 3,000 providers at pilot sites across the state, project officials asked Commissioner Christine Jax of the Department of Children, Families, and Learning to approve the curriculum's final draft.

"Building Cultural Connections" portrays America as a truly horrific place to live. It depicts this country as dominated by a nefarious "non-disabled European American culture," which systematically withholds power from minorities and disabled people. (White people, it seems, "got the power first and then made sure they didn't have to give it up.") Non-disabled European Americans lead lives of privilege, defined as "an unearned entitlement to and attitude of superiority and advantage." They use their power to "perpetuate their cultural heritage and impose it upon others, while at the same time destroying the culture of non-European Americans."

According to "Building Cultural Connections," "European American culture in this country has defined 'normal, beautiful, right or able' with the help of powerful institutions (schools, media, business and economic institutions) …" Accordingly, "bias has been built right into the development of all our identities."

The result? American children—alienated from their authentic cultural traditions—are psychological basket cases. European-American children fall prey to "mindless conformity" and learn to "hate and fear" children who look different. They develop "identities built on confusion" and struggle with "psychological problems of moral hypocrisy." Minority and disabled children fare even worse. They "internalize" the dominant culture's "unjust and cruel oppression," "believe [its] lies," and grow up mired in "shame, hopelessness" and "chronic depression."

It's up to Minnesota's child-care providers to save the day. "Building Cultural Connections"—taught as a six-hour workshop—aims to prepare them for this revolutionary work. Not surprisingly, the curriculum warns that its content is likely to make some providers "uncomfortable." Because participants may feel "strong emotions," trainers should "prepare themselves mentally and physically" before each session, and be ready to "assist participants who may feel stress."

"Building Cultural Connections" re-education bootcamp starts off with some good, old-fashioned consciousness-raising. First, child-care providers fill out a questionnaire that helps them identify their biases. (Sample question: "I am clear about my own biases regarding culture, race, and ability …" Possible answers: "Very aware, somewhat aware, have very little awareness.")

Armed with this self-knowledge, the group proceeds to a series of exercises that focus on "Culturally Appropriate Care" and "Stereotypes and Prejudices." In one session, for example, participants form small groups, each of which takes on a hypothetical child's identity. The groups craft a life story for their child, and then circulate among displays of pictures from newspapers, catalogues, greeting cards, and coloring books "that represent the mainstream culture's ideas of 'normal' or 'typical.' " Their object is to "see" these (presumably nefarious) images through the eyes of their new persona. When participants reassemble to discuss the experience, the trainer—ever vigilant—is on hand to flag "any stereotypes" they may inadvertently utter during the discussion.

Next up is a workshop on "The Costs of Racism, Ableism, and Discrimination." Here, participants confront the day's central question: "What has prevented an anti-bias and culturally appropriate approach from becoming commonly accepted as a way of caring for young children?"

The first exercise in this workshop is entitled "Recognizing Racism." In this activity, the trainer instructs participants to close their eyes and put their heads on the table. Then she asks them to "think carefully about whether they think European Americans are superior to people of color." (She is to ask the question several times.) If participants think European Americans are superior, she instructs, they should raise their hands. After a few moments, according to the instruction manual, she should "ask the group to put down their hands and tell them to open their eyes."

Next, the trainer asks participants to help her make a list of America's major institutions ("organized religion, banking, sports," etc.). For each institution, the group must indicate who "has the power": European Americans or people of color. ("If there is confusion about the fact that there are a number of people of color earning good money in sports or entertainment, ask who has had the power to hire, fire, manage, and control.") Subsequently, participants divide into small groups to discuss how to explain the fact that "few people in the group thought that European Americans were superior to people of color, but European Americans seem to have control of all or almost all of the major institutions in our society."

What is the object of this exercise? According to "Building Cultural Connections," there are two. First, trainers should "[f]ocus the group's attention on how it feels to a child to grow up the 'race' you are, or with a disability, in a country in which the power and control are this unequal." Second, trainers should make clear that "the effects of Internalized Racism are internalized superiority and internalized oppression …"

After half a day of this sort of ideological brow-beating, "Building Cultural Connections" shifts its focus to social action. What steps must child care workers take "to change ideas and behaviors [their own and others] which oppress and exclude?" The curriculum urges a four-step action agenda.

First, child-care workers must commit themselves to providing "culturally appropriate care." In other words, they must treat the children in their care differently, based on the color of their skin or their ancestors' country of origin. Providers' task is daunting: to "reflect [their charges'] home culture in such areas as nurturing and discipline approaches, the physical environment, role models, and use of the home language, food, etc." (Imagine preparing tortillas, stir fry, and peanut-butter sandwiches while juggling two babies.) Only culturally tailored care of this kind can ensure that children develop "authentic" identities.

How are providers to determine what "culturally appropriate care" is, in the case of any given child? Oddly, they can expect no help from "Building Cultural Connections" in this regard. In fact, during the workshop, trainers are directed to stress that "this six hours of training is not designed to teach about different cultures."

Instead, "Building Cultural Connections" insists that child-care providers—who generally make $6 an hour and drag home exhausted—spend their off-hours studying their charges' "cultural communities" firsthand. Specifically, they should "spend time in [each] community," "participating in activities," and "getting to know other members of the child's cultural group." They should also contact relevant organizations and "seek out appropriate resource materials to inform you of cultural customs and values." As they carry out these investigations, providers must strive not to offend others with their questions. When speaking to members of other groups, they must "avoid the impression that they believe they have 'an inherent right' " to the information they seek.

But day-care workers' responsibilities go beyond providing culturally appropriate care. They must also shield the minority children in their care from the ravenous "non-disabled European American culture" that surrounds them. In many cases, this may mean promoting racial and ethnic separatism. For example, providers should consider grouping children to "encourage the home language," and reject the "assumption that English is the most important language." In like vein, they must strive to foster group identity. Where children of color are concerned, "the earlier [they] are exposed to mainstream culture, the more likely they are to reject their home culture.… When strong group identity occurs, [they] have more strength to challenge" prejudice.

Child-care workers have another weighty responsibility. They must "routinely assess" their day-care environment and materials to "eliminate bias and counter stereotypes." This means, among other things, that they should examine "sensory materials" like play-doh, to ensure that colors are properly "integrated." ("Includ[e] dark shades of brown and black" to counter stereotypes of "dirty" and "evil.")

When it comes to stereotypes, however, books present the gravest danger. Thankfully, "Building Cultural Connections" provides a handout entitled Ten Quick Ways to Analyze Children's Books for Sexism, Racism, and Ableism. This handout includes a detailed checklist that providers can use to screen books before children see them. Books published before 1970 are to be viewed with particular suspicion, since they appeared before "liberation movements" began forcing publishers to "weed out … insulting passages."

According to the handout, providers should start by checking illustrations for stereotypes. (Disabled people should be shown, not in "subservient and passive roles," but in "leadership and action roles.") Next, they must carefully analyze a book's story line. ("Does it take European-American behavior standards for a person of color to 'get ahead'?" "Are the reasons for poverty and oppression explained, or are they accepted as inevitable?") Heroes come in for especially tough scrutiny. ("Whose interest is the hero really serving? The interests of the hero's own culture and people? Or the interests of non-disabled European Americans?") Finally, providers must probe into the author's background, analyzing biographical information to determine "what qualifies" him or her to "talk about the [book's] subject."

Finally, providers must constantly monitor their own language. For example, they must "avoid evaluating [children's] ideas by saying 'good idea' or 'good solution.' " (The proper phrase is "interesting idea.") On the other hand, they must quickly admonish children guilty of stereotyping, a sin apparently limited to European Americans. ("Mariah, I took the book you brought to school today off the shelf because it has pictures of people that are untrue and unfair.")

To assist child-care workers unsure of proper usage, "Building Cultural Connections" provides lexicons of approved terminology. For example, if providers see a person in a wheelchair unable to get into a building, they should say, "There is a person with a disability who is excluded by an inaccessible building," not "There is a handicapped person unable to find a ramp." Likewise, it's verboten to describe kids as "normal" or "healthy"; the proper term is "non-disabled." Also off limits are formerly acceptable terms like "quadriplegic" (say "has quadriplegia"), "minority" ("outdated, inaccurate, and offensive"), and even "people of color" ("minimizes the unique history and culture of each cultural group"). The new and approved term for darker-skinned people, it seems, is "people from various cultures." "European American," however, remains acceptable.

According to "Building Cultural Connections," the most onerous challenge that day-care providers face may be caring for bi-racial or disabled children who are being "raised by non-disabled European-American parents." These children live "separated" from their true culture, without mentors or positive role models." As a result, more than any of their peers, they are in danger of developing inauthentic identities.

Who, exactly, do Minnesotans have to thank for bringing us "Building Cultural Connections"? One would think professional "victim groups" on the ideological fringes would bear responsibility. Surprisingly, however, the Cultural Dynamics Education Project—which supervised curriculum development—was largely composed of establishment organizations, ranging from the Minnesota Child Care Resource and Referral Network to the St. Paul Foundation. Several years ago, Robert Wedl, education commissioner for former Republican governor Arne Carlson, gave the curriculum's content a green light. (He held off approval, however, because he believed better organization was necessary.)

Thus far, "Building Cultural Connections" has cost Minnesota taxpayers at least $700,000. Though cultural dynamics training for day-care providers remains voluntary, it will become mandatory at some point after CFL's Commissioner Jax signs off on a curricular plan. When the Cultural Dynamics Education Project submitted the curriculum's final draft for Jax's approval this fall, it had ninety trainers ready to go.

Is "Building Cultural Connections" training likely to usher in an era of social harmony and understanding, as planners hope? Quite the opposite. The curriculum's muddle-headed notion that culture and ethnicity determine "who we are"—coupled with its push for racial separatism and its sneering analysis of "European American" culture—can only be divisive and counterproductive. Curriculum designers aim to "make all cultures equal," and inspire children to "revel" indiscriminately in cultural differences. Perhaps they don't know that the principle of equal rights—their supposed touchstone—is exclusively the product of Western Civilization. Perhaps they haven't heard that various other cultures practice slavery, slice off criminals' hands, and perform female genital mutilation.

Fortunately for Minnesota, Jax has voiced reservations about "Building Cultural Connections." In her view, the curriculum is guilty of some of the same stereotypes, mean-spiritedness, and narrow-mindedness of which it so glibly accuses European Americans. For now, the approval process is on hold, as Jax gathers reactions from a variety of cultural organizations throughout Minnesota. Will the state's latest foray into political correctness succeed? Only if common sense doesn't come to the rescue, and fast.

Katherine Kersten is a Senior Fellow at the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis, MN.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/het/1999/kersten12-10-99.htm