(NAME-MCE) How Inclusive Is Multicultural Education?

[Warren Blumenfeld]

How Inclusive Is Multicultural Education?

A Commentary by Warren J. Blumenfeld
Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
wblumen at iastate.edu

"Multicultural education is a philosophical 
concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, 
equality, equity, and human dignity as 
acknowledged in various documents, such as the 
U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions 
of South Africa and the United States, and the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by 
the United Nations. It affirms our need to 
prepare students for their responsibilities in an 
interdependent world. It recognizes the role 
schools can play in developing the attitudes and 
values necessary for a democratic society. It 
values cultural differences and affirms the 
pluralism that students, their communities, and 
teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of 
discrimination in schools and society through the 
promotion of democratic principles of social 
justice" (National Association for Multicultural Education, emphasis added).

Within the discipline of Multicultural Education, 
discussions, often heated, are currently underway 
regarding the place (or non-place) of 
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender and 
heterosexism/homophobia/biphobia/transphobia 
issues. I have heard many rationalizations for 
not including these issues (as well as issues 
around people with disabilities/Ableism) within 
Multicultural Education circles, and specifically 
within the National Association for Multicultural 
Education (NAME). I am including below my thoughts on these discussions.

The themes around which some people rationalize 
their exclusion of LGBT issues within the context 
of multiculturalism center around the following:


1. LGBT People Do Not Have a Culture


In truth, all social identities are socially 
constructed. Some assert that sexual and gender 
identities do not comprise cultures, and, 
therefore, do not fall under the category of 
Multicultural Education. “Those who hold this 
view, according to Sleeter & Grant, (2007), 
[Begin] with the premise of diversity rather than 
justice [, which] can lead to addressing only 
diversity, and ignoring justice issues (p. 184).

Koppelman (2008) adds that [some] say 
multicultural education includes recognition of 
women, gays and lesbians, people with 
disabilities, and other minority groups; 
opponents to this idea argue that such groups do 
not constitute distinct cultures and therefore 
should not be included (p. 311).

2. Multicultural Education is Based on a Single Focus:

While the multicultural education movement, in 
its formative years, focused primarily on issues 
of racial and ethnic exclusion in the school 
curriculum, over the years, the field has 
expanded to encompass other identity categories 
and forms of oppression in addition to racial and 
ethnic identities and racism. Though many 
theorists and practitioners (critical 
multiculturalists) are making the connections, 
some theorists and practitioners, however, 
continue to assert that there is a hierarchy of 
oppression, and that, for example, race and 
racism trump all other identities and forms of 
oppression. Others see gender or socioeconomic 
class as the primary lens of analysis.

According to Sleeter & Grant (2007), Many ethnic 
studies educators view race as the basic form of 
oppression [w]hile radical feminists insist it is 
gender and class analysts argue that it is the 
economic structure. (p. 177). They continue:

”Studying multiple forms of diversity is seen as 
superfluous, a waste of time, and is said to 
weaken the study of the form of diversity that is 
of greatest concern. Moreover, many educators 
tend to view race, gender, and other social 
markers of difference as unitary, often failing 
to address the nonsynchronous or complex and 
contradictory nature of experience within groups 
as well as the way in which multiple 
characteristics intersect in shaping social life 
(reference to McCarthy, 1990 in Sleeter & Grant, 2007, p. 177).

Kincheloe & Steinberg (1997) critique what they 
see as this “left-essentialist multicultural” 
position, which they view as focusing primarily 
upon a set of fixed properties that defines a category of people.

"The narrowness of essentialist multiculturalism 
is further exemplified by the tendency of its 
proponents to focus their attention on one form 
of oppression as elemental, as taking precedence 
over all other modes of subjugation. Instead of 
struggling to articulate and act on the basis of 
a democratic politics, the various identity 
groups that constitute the ranks of essentialist 
multiculturalism have confronted one another over 
who can claim greater victimization and 
oppression privilege. Thus, essentialist 
multiculturalism has concerned itself more with 
self-assertion than with the effort to build 
strategic democratic alliances for social justice” (p. 22.)

3. LGBT people are jumping on the backs of the 
Civil Rights Movement, and they need to form their own movement instead!

Yes, it is indeed unfortunate that some members 
of the LGBT community have positioned the issues 
of LGBT rights and liberation in identical terms 
as past movement struggles, specifically the 
Civil Rights struggles of people of color in the 
United States. While only concentrating on the 
similarities of the various forms of oppression, 
they have neglected to understand and acknowledge 
the very real differences, especially the ways in 
which specifically While LGBT people maintain 
benefits and privileges based on their Whiteness. 
White lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
people do not experience individual, 
interpersonal, institutional, and societal forms 
of heterosexism in the same manner as people of 
color experience the numerous forms of racism. In 
fact, the oppression of a White lesbian from that 
of a White gay man can and often is very 
different as well, and the oppression of 
transgender people varies in form from that of a 
bisexual, gay, or lesbian person.

With the very real differences acknowledged, I 
also believe that the various forms of oppression 
(e.g., racism, ethnocentrism, religious 
oppression, sexism, heterosexism, ageism and 
adultism, classism, ableism, and others) run 
parallel and at various points intersect. It is 
at those points of intersection where alliances 
and coalitions may form to combat the many spokes 
on the wheel of oppression; for if we somehow are 
able to dismantle one of the spokes while 
neglecting to concentrate on those remaining, the 
wheel of oppression will continue to trample over the lives of many.
In actuality, all the major movements for 
progressive social change have gained from the 
theorists, activists, and movement leaders that 
have preceded them. The first wave of the 
Feminist movement in the 19th century of the 
Common Era gained its inspiration from the 
leadership and strategies of the Abolitionist 
movement. The workers and union movements built 
on the strengths of the Abolitionist and Feminist 
movements. The Civil Rights movements continued 
to build on those who went before. In fact, Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. gained inspiration for 
his philosophy of non-violent resistance not only 
from his religious faith, but also from Mahatma 
Gandhi in South Africa and India, and Leo Tolstoy 
in Russia. The second wave of the Feminist 
movement recharged from previous 
movements­reflecting back to the first wave and 
also to the movements during the intervening 
years. The counter cultural youth movements, the 
environmental movements, movements for peace, the 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
movements, the movement for intersex equality and 
rights, the disability rights movement, the 
movement for patients rights, indeed, the 
movement for all oppressed people somehow connect and draw from one another.

Speaking to a packed audience at the Creating 
Change Conference, sponsored by the National Gay 
and Lesbian Task Force in Atlanta, Georgia, 
November 2000, Coretta Scott King talked of these connections.

"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 
'We are all tied together in a single garment of 
destiny... an inescapable network of 
mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be 
until you are allowed to be what you ought to 
be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes 
in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at 
the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

In addition to political movements, academic 
discourses also align. Critical multiculturalism, 
critical race theory, critical feminist theory, 
post-colonialism, queer theory, and others 
synergize, reflect upon, and enhance one another.

4. My religious leaders preach that 
homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgerderism are sins.

Everyone has the right to hold any, or no, 
religious beliefs as they consider appropriate to 
suit their lives. This is a basic constitutional 
privilege, and more importantly, a basic human 
right to which all are entitled. Accordingly, one 
is not compelled psychologically to embrace a 
people in order to work for their rights and to 
dismantle the oppression that surrounds them.

Today, many progressive people continue to cite 
religious texts that may call into question their 
support for LGBT people. It must be acknowledged, 
however, that various faiths, with their many 
denominations, interpret same-sex sexuality, 
same-sex relationships, and transgressive 
expressions of gender very differently, for there 
is no monolithic religious view on these topics.

History records a number of religious texts that 
individuals and organizations have employed 
throughout the ages to justify and rationalize 
the marginalization, harassment, denial of 
rights, persecution, and oppression of entire 
groups of people based on their social 
identities. At various historical periods, people 
have applied these texts, sometimes taken in 
tandem, and at other times used selectively, to 
establish and maintain hierarchical positions of 
power, domination, and privilege over individuals 
and groups targeted by these texts. For example, 
specific texts have been used to justify the 
construction and maintenance of the institution 
of slavery, the persecution and murder of Jews, 
male domination and denial of rights of women, 
adult domination and persecution of young people, 
and marginalization and denial of rights of LGBT people.

So a number of questions remain: 1. How can one 
include LGBT/Heterosexism issues as an integral 
thread in the tapestry of multiculturalism, even 
when one struggles with some religious 
interpretations of same-sex sexuality, same-sex 
relationships, and transgressive expressions of 
gender?, and 2. Is it possible for one to 
separate one’s specific religious interpretations 
from overriding religious mandates to treat 
others with respect, and to work to end oppression toward everyone?


5. Inclusion of LGBT Issues Would Jeopardize 
Incorporation of Multiculturalism into Schools


Some maintain that since heterosexism is so 
widespread and visible throughout U.S. society, 
possible inclusion of LGBT issues and discussions 
around heterosexism within an overall context of 
multiculturalism could potentially jeopardize 
incorporation of multicultural education 
curricular issues in educational institutions. 
Grant and Sleeter (2007) acknowledge that 
Although a growing number of books for children 
and adolescents address sexual orientation, 
textbook publishers have avoided referring to 
people who are not heterosexual because of 
backlash when schools have attempted to do so (pp. 60-61).

Failing to incorporate LGBT issues in 
multicultural education in this context is based 
on a paradoxical foundation and upon circular 
reasoning: We cannot discuss LGBT and 
heterosexism issues within overall topics of 
multiculturalism and social justice prejudice 
reduction because there is too much prejudice 
against LGBT people. What is wrong with this logic?


6. LGBT Issues Inappropriate for Young People


Discussions of LGBT/heterosexism topics have not 
been included in discussions of overall 
multicultural topics by some under the assertion 
that these issues are unsuitable for young 
children, and should be left to parents to 
discuss with their children. This reasoning is 
grounded on the assumption that LGBT concerns are 
based primarily around topics of sexuality and 
sex acts, rather than on broader issues of 
relationships, culture, history, identity, and social oppression.

In addition, Sleeter and Grant (2007) point out a 
major problem in the area of multicultural 
education remains a bias against lesbian and gay 
parents. Ryan and Martin (2000) point out that 
many educators are ignorant of and prejudiced 
against gay and lesbian parents. They argue that 
schools need to implement anti-bias training for 
teachers and policies that specifically invite 
both partners in sexual minority families into the school (p. 170).


7. Heterosexual Privilege and/or Bias


Some theorists and practitioners involved in 
multicultural education and social justice refuse 
to engage with queer theory (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 
57, in Sleeter & Grant, 2007, p. 193) because it 
may expose the ways in which heterosexuals 
perpetuate oppression of sexual minorities, 
resulting in a narcissistic injury to 
heterosexual multicultural theorists and 
practitioners and to the larger field of multicultural education.

Concluding Thoughts

In truth, 
heterosexism/homophobia/biphobia/transphobia 
(prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] people) is 
pervasive throughout the society and each of us, 
irrespective of sexual or gender identity and 
expression, is at risk of its harmful effects.

First, heterosexist conditioning compromises the 
integrity of people by pressuring them to treat 
others badly, which are actions contrary to their 
basis humanity. It inhibits ones ability to form 
close, intimate relationships with members of 
ones own sex, generally restricts communication 
with a significant portion of the population and, 
more specifically, limits family relationships.

Heterosexism locks all people into rigid 
gender-based roles, which inhibits creativity and 
self expression. It often is used to stigmatize, 
silence, and, on occasion, target people who are 
perceived or defined by others as gay, lesbian, 
or bisexual, but who are, in actuality, heterosexual.

In addition, heterosexism is one cause of 
premature sexual involvement, which increases the 
chances of teen pregnancy and the spread of 
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Young 
people, of all sexual identities, are often 
pressured to become heterosexually active to 
prove to themselves and other that they are normal.

Societal heterosexism prevents some LGBT people 
from developing an authentic self identity, and 
adds to the pressure to marry someone of the 
other sex, which in turn places undue stress and 
oftentimes trauma on themselves as well as their 
heterosexual spouses and their children.

Heterosexism combined with sexphobia (fear and 
revulsion of sex) results in the elimination of 
discussion of the lives and sexuality of LGBT 
people as part of school-based sex education, 
keeping vital information from all students. Such 
a lack of information can kill people in the age 
of AIDS. And homophobia (along with racism, 
sexism, classism, sexphobia) inhibits a unified 
and effective governmental and societal response the AIDS pandemic.

With all of the truly important issues facing the 
world, heterosexism diverts energy and attention 
from more constructive endeavors. It also 
prevents heterosexuals from accepting the 
benefits and gifts offered by LGBT people, 
including theoretical insights, social and 
spiritual visions and options, contributions in 
the arts and culture, to religion, to education, 
to family life, indeed, to all facets of society. 
Ultimately, it inhibits appreciation of other 
types of diversity, making it unsafe for everyone 
because each person has unique traits not 
considered mainstream or dominant. Therefore, we 
are all diminished when any one of us is demeaned (Blumenfeld, 1992).

The meaning is quite clear. When any group of 
people is scapegoated, it is ultimately 
everyone’s concern. For today, lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, and transgender people are targeted. 
Tomorrow, they may come for you. Everyone, 
therefore, has a self-interest in actively 
working to dismantle all the many forms of 
bigotry, including 
heterosexism/homophobia/biphobia/transphobia. I 
believe that we are all born into an environment 
polluted by heterosexism (one among many forms of 
oppression), which falls upon us like acid rain. 
For some people, spirits are tarnished to the 
core, other are marred on the surface, and no one 
is completely protected. Therefore, we all have a 
responsibility, indeed an opportunity, to join 
together as allies to construct protective 
shelters from the corrosive effects of bigotry 
while working to clean up the homophobic 
environment in which we live. Once sufficient 
steps are taken to reduce this pollution, we will all breathe a lot easier.

References

Blumenfeld, W. J. (1992). Homophobia: How we all 
pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2007). Doing 
multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York: Routledge.

Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, Shirley, R. (1997). 
Changing multiculturalism. Philadelphia: Open University Press, p. 22.)

Koppelman, K. L., & Goodhart, R. L. (2005). 
Understanding human differences: Multicultural 
education for a diverse America. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer 
activism and antioppressive pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

National Association for Multicultural Education, 
(2003). Definition of multicultural education 
(excerpted), http://www.nameorg.org/aboutname.html.

Ryan, D., & Martin, A. (2000). Lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, and transgender parents in the school 
systems. School Psychology Review, 29(2), 207-216.







Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Assistant Professor
Multicultural and International Curriculum Studies
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
wblumen at iastate.edu
515.294.5931 office
515.232.8230 home