Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Neoliberal Bilingual Education for "All"


Olivia Obeso, M.A. TESOL
Guest Education Blogger
“I refuse to entertain the question of whether bilingualism has positive effects. I am convinced that to continue to except this framing of the debate is to continue to be complicit in white supremacy. Bilingualism is not good or bad. It just is.”
-Dr. Nelson Flores[1]

            Bilingual education is reemerging in the state of California, heralded by the same white, monolingual communities who have long marginalized multilingual practices and who pushed for the ban of bilingual programs over twenty years ago. The model of bilingual education that these communities have embraced, however, is one which aligns its value with a neoliberal framework. Harvey defines neoliberalism as a “theory of political economic practices” in which freedom and agency of individuals are inextricable from their economic outcomes.[2] I argue that by centering economic value, the bilingual programs that are being touted and spread across California will fail to serve multilingual students – the very population for which they are purported to be the most important.

Rescued from Multilingualism

            The discursive formation of bilingual education as other, or contrary to a hegemonic norm,[3] allowed dominant communities to argue against such programs as fundamentally incompatible with the goals of mainstream schooling. The “English Only” campaigns of the 90’s and 2000’s built upon the otherization of language practices by positioning dominant monolingual communities as saviors who would rescue multilingual students from a life undominated by English.[4] These campaigns sowed fear in minoritized, multilingual communities, claiming that bilingual programs were failing students by perpetually holding them back from learning English and thus, from finding future academic and economic success. Their result in California was an effective ban on bilingual programs in public schools through California Proposition 227. The ban forced proponents of bilingual programs to search for mechanisms for restoring the political and legal right for students to learn in languages other than English. However, in order to counter the othering discourse of bilingualism, proponents turned to a strategy of interest convergence[5], relying heavily on moves to neoliberalism which is “to some degree associated with the restoration of reconstruction of the power of economic elites.”[6] In this way, the reframing of bilingualism as an economic resource has allowed for linguistic elites to maintain their power, even as it appears they’ve surrendered to the de-centering of monolingualism.

California’s Neoliberal Bilingual Education

            Though I do not wish to minimize the success of the overturning of Proposition 227 in 2016, it is important to understand how bilingualism is now being articulated within a neoliberal framework where resources in “the reservoirs of intelligence and personality”[7] (i.e. language and culture) have been commodified, in order to identify the ways that this interest convergence will do more to serve dominant communities than multilingual students.[8] Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, released his Global California 2030 initiative statement in 2018, shortly after the legal barriers to bilingual education were removed. The principle mission of this initiative is to greatly increase the number of students in dual-language programs[9] in order to “equip students with world language skills to better appreciate and more fully engage with the rich and diverse mixture of cultures, heritages, and languages found in California and the world, while also preparing them to succeed in a global economy” (emphasis added).[10] Though there is reference to the linguistic, social, and cultural merits of bilingualism in this mission statement and throughout the document, consistent parallel references to economic value reveal a logic of neoliberalism, where economic advancement of individuals and society as a whole is what validates a push for more bilingual programs. Other documents such as the English Learner Master Plans of various districts are similarly replete with calls for language as capital.[11]

Neoliberal Bilingual Education for Whom?

            One of the many results of elevating neoliberal globalism as a central program goal means that bilingual programs adopt standardized measures of success – a key component of neoliberal projects.[12] Existing standardized tests of language are monolingual in nature, thereby making them more accurate measures for monolingual students who are becoming bilingual than students who develop their bilingualism outside of school; by this, I mean that monolingual individuals conceptualize and practice bilingualism as if it were the sum of two, distinct languages, whereas multilingual individuals tend to use their full linguistic repertoire as if it were a language in and of itself (think Spanglish).[13] What’s worse, in the English-Spanish bilingual programs of the largest school district in California, the English proficiency test provides educators with significantly more information than the test of Spanish proficiency.[14] This both reflects and reinforces a valuing of English as the most important language in bilingual development. This communicates the message that although students need to be prepared for a global economy, English is, after all, still the language of international business, and a second language can therefore be relegated to a peripheral resource.

Where do We Go from Here?

            Though solutions to the neoliberalization of bilingual education and marginalization of multilingual students in these programs cannot be solved in a three-page blog post,[15] I wish to leave us here with important questions and considerations for educators who wish to push against these developments. Does bilingual education face a return to the English Only era if we argue for recognizing the inherent value of bilingualism as a normalized practice and part of a liberatory educational experience for marginalized students? And, given a school system which is steeped in neoliberal frameworks in almost every aspect, is it even possible to develop spaces free from the reaches of capital and the commodification of linguistic and cultural practices?

A loving reminder that it is not your fault that a language you've ached to speak was long ago taken from you. Whether or not you learn that language, you are already worthy and magnificent.
Dra. Megan Figueroa[16]


[2] David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Reprinted (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
[3] Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 1st Vintage Books ed (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).
[4] Carlos J. Ovando, “Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues,” Bilingual Research Journal 27, no. 1 (April 2003): 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162589.
[5] Derrick Bell, “White Superiority in America: Its Legal Legacy, Its Economic Costs,” in The Derrick Bell Reader, Critical America (New York: New York University Press, 2005), 73–90.
[6] Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
[7] Cathy Eisenhower and Dolsy Smith, “The Library as ‘Stuck Place’: Critical Pedagogy in the Corporate University,” in Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods, ed. Maria T. Accardi, Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier, 2009, 2–3.
[8] Bell, “White Superiority in America: Its Legal Legacy, Its Economic Costs.”
[9] A type of bilingual education which is realized in various forms, but which generally consists of students learning language and content in two languages.
[10] California Department of Education, “Global California 2030, An Initiative of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson” (Sacramento, CA, 2018), https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/globalca2030report.pdf.
[11] For example, Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department, “2018 Master Plan for English Learners and Standard English Learners” (Los Angeles Unified School District Division of Instruction, 2018); “2018-2019 Centinela Valley Union High School District Master Plan for English Language Learners” (CVUHSD, 2018).
[12] Wayne Au, “Meritocracy 2.0: High-Stakes, Standardized Testing as a Racial Project of Neoliberal Multiculturalism,” Educational Policy 30, no. 1 (January 2016): 39–62, https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916; Karen P. Nicholson, “The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries and the Values of Transformational Change,” College & Research Libraries 76, no. 3 (March 1, 2015): 328–38, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.3.328.
[13] Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, “Translanguaging and Responsive Assessment Adaptations: Emergent Bilingual Readers through the Lens of Possibility,” Language Arts 95, no. 6 (July 2018): 355–69; Ramón Antonio Martínez, “Beyond the English Learner Label: Recognizing the Richness of Bi/Multilingual Students’ Linguistic Repertoires,” The Reading Teacher 71, no. 5 (March 2018): 515–22, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1679.
[15] A frequent, comforting refrain of Dr. Caswell, reminding us that exposing and discussing problems which we hope to address can be just as important as finding solutions to those problems.

Monday, March 2, 2020

Critical Race and Black Feminist Theories as frameworks for equitable archival practice, by Claire Gordon


Critical Race and Black Feminist Theories as frameworks for equitable archival practice, by Claire Gordon

I am approaching this topic as a middle-class, white, cis-gender, straight woman. I recognize this means that my standpoint is inseparable from the benefits of white normativity and privilege and the effect they have on my viewpoint and professional work. I am grappling with these issues to identify tools that I can use to minimize the effects of my position as oppressor within the white normativity and supremacy that persists in the archival profession.

The definition of what constitutes records and archives continues to change as perceptions of their nature and significance over time and space expands. Whereas traditional ideas of archival records secure them as authoritative, neutral, fixed, forms of evidence, more recent theories recognize that records and archives are complex entities that can’t be separated from the societal structures that create them.[1] The work of the archivist, therefore, is shaped by their own, individual identity and the dominant culture of white normativity and supremacy. The impact of these structures is greater within archives that represent marginalized communities, particularly as their lived experience may reflect intersectional racism, discrimination, and oppression. In this essay, I explore how the theories of Black feminism and Critical Race Theory can provide powerful insight into how to improve archival practice to better identify discrimination and establish equality and equity within the archive. True equality in the archive would prioritize the collection and description of materials from marginalized communities not as historicized narratives of dominance and oppression, but as dynamic and empowering representations of communities. Equity in the archive openly declares the bias and discrimination embedded within it and seeks to dismantle white normativity and supremacy that prevent equality as “intersectionality is not just about identities but about the institutions that use identity to exclude and privilege.”[2]
Scholar Anthony Dunbar, in his foundational article about the application of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in archival discourse, suggests that the archive can serve as a “democratically negotiated space,”[3] and implores archivists to seek out and recognize the persistent patterns of oppression that are evidenced in the record. He discusses the growing recognition within archival theory of the importance of records’ existence within a continuum of subjective, multi-dimensional time/space that considers how different perspectives exist within a single record. He outlines how a multidimensional approach to process, particularly with respect to the appraisal of records, aligns with the goals of CRT and the concept of multiple truths and counternarratives. Appraising the inherent evidential value of a record, guided by a CRT framework, “positions whiteness as the subject of investigation,” and reveals the ways that white supremacy shapes the archive.[4] Dunbar’s insistence on the importance of the archive is grounded in its potential to enact “evidential rectifying” of racial discrimination by exposing the “narrow framing of disenfranchised groups within institutional and collective memories.”[5]
The legal and cultural effect of using the archive in this way has even greater potential impact when uncovering discrimination against Black women. Lawyer, university professor, civil rights activist and CRT scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw created the term “intersectionality” to describe the synergistic amplification of marginalization and oppression that Black women experience as members of multiple groups of discrimination (race and sex). In her article “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” Crenshaw outlines how Black women are “theoretically erased” by anti-discrimination laws that were nominally created to prevent racism and sexism but ultimately treated “subordination as disadvantage occurring along …a single axis framework.”[6] Detailing several single-axis court rulings against Black women, Crenshaw illustrates how policies and politics designed to combat discrimination fail to account for the multi-dimensional nature of Black women’s experience. The absurdity of requiring Black women to choose a single axis of discrimination for it to be recognized, Crenshaw believes, “reflects the uncritical and disturbing acceptance of dominant ways of thinking about discrimination” as the “privileging of whiteness or maleness is implicit.”[7]
Criticism against the flattening out of narratives within marginalized communities is at the center of Dunbar’s argument as well, as archives connect “the multiple dimensions of records to the notion of multiple truths within CRT.”[8]  Both Dunbar and Crenshaw question how flat and narrow paradigms will ever deliver a “meaningful discussion” about racism, sexism and the patriarchy.[9] Dunbar is convinced that the application of CRT in the archive “has endless possibilities to raise the collective social consciousness about social bias.”[10] CRT and Black feminist frameworks are clearly important tools for grappling with the effects of patriarchal, white normativity on appraisal and practice within the archives and should be centered as foundational approaches to practice.
When discussing the intersectional effects of race and sex I am referring to it within the time and space that Kimberlé Crenshaw’s article, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex” was written;  in 1989, before the terms transgender and non-binary gender were widely used. This blog is only a glimpse at how CRT and intersectionality interact but I think that questions of how gender identity fit into a conversation about discrimination would ideally be a included; asking, where does the experience of a non-binary gender person fit into this discussion, and how do the lived experiences of transgender people become accounted for in discussions of intersectionality? Kimberlé Crenshaw has since written and spoken about transgender women and intersectionality.
 I think it is vitally important for archival professionals, who are mostly white women,[11] to reframe archival practice starting with CRT and Black feminist frameworks. A central goal of the archival profession should be dissecting the ways that oppressive structures work within the practice and the positionality of the archivist, aiming to dismantle the structure of white supremacy in archives. [12] Archivists should strive for equality in the archive, that prioritizes the collection of materials that empower marginalized communities, and equity in the archive, that recognizes the racist structures that exclude marginalized voices from being heard.


[1] Terry Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity, and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms,” Archival Science 13, no. 2–3 (June 2013): 95–120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-012-9180-7.
[2] Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Why Intersectionality Can't Wait.” Washington Post, September 24, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/.
[3] Anthony W. Dunbar, “Introducing Critical Race Theory to Archival Discourse: Getting the Conversation Started,” Archival Science 6, no. 1 (October 31, 2006): 109–29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-006-9022-6. p119.
[4] Dunbar. p113.
[5] Dunbar. p126.
[6] Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” The University of Chicago Legal Forum 140 (1989): 139-167, p. 140.
[7] Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” p.150-51.
[8] Dunbar, “Introducing Critical Race Theory to Archival Discourse.” P. 124.
[9] Crenshaw, p152.
[10] Dunbar, “Introducing Critical Race Theory to Archival Discourse.” p. 126.
[11] Israel, Robin H. and Jodi Reeves Eyre (2017). "The 2017 WArS/SAA Salary Survey: Initial Results and Analysis"
[12] Michelle Caswell, “Teaching to Dismantle White Supremacy in Archives,” The Library Quarterly 87, no. 3 (July 2017): 222–35, https://doi.org/10.1086/692299.