A Tribute to Dr. James A. Banks — The Father of Multicultural Education: In These Troubling Anti-EDI Times

A few days ago, I went to my office to get one of my students a book of great interest. In searching the shelves, I came across Dr. James A. Banks’ An Introduction to Multicultural Education. I had an immediate epiphany: How timely Banks’ book is in these most troubling anti-EDI times (EDI – Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) I must not only continue to proactively teach my students the goals of multicultural education, but I must also remind larger audiences. What better place than Diverse: Issues In Higher Education.

For unfamiliar readers, Banks is highly regarded as the father of multicultural education. A review of his bio shows that he has earned this tribute.

Dr. Donna Y. FordIn these anti-EDI times, I think it is essential to re-familiarize ourselves and to inform others about the goals of multicultural education. Far too many opposers are misguided and ill-informed. I want to help set the record straight about the purpose of multicultural education and will use Banks’ work to do so. In the broadest sense and to set the context, Banks contends that multicultural education:

·     “assumes that diversity enriches a nation and increases the ways in which its citizens can perceive and solve personal and public problems” (p.1). Further,

·      “individuals who know the world only from their own cultural perspectives are denied important parts of the human experience and are culturally and ethnically encapsulated” (p.1).

These assertions are grounded in goals that include educational reform, cultural understanding of self, cultural understanding of others, discrimination reduction, curricular transformation, global citizenship, and intergroup education.

1.     Multicultural education is a reform movement designed to make some major changes in the education of students. Banks is clear in stating that this movement is for all students; every racial and ethnic group benefits in some way, such as enhanced racial and ethnic pride, cultural competence (attitudes, knowledge, and skills), and better capacity to live positively with others from different backgrounds. Banks specifically states: “… a major goal is to provide all students with the skills, attitudes, and knowledge needed to function within their community cultures, within the mainstream culture, and within and across other ethnic cultures” (p. 2). I just cannot understand why any parent/caregiver would not want this nor why educators would push back against this for their students.

2.     Multicultural education is designed to reduce the pain and discrimination that members of some ethnic and racial group experience because of their unique racial, physical, and cultural characteristics. Students should not have to reject themselves and others as cultural beings to achieve in schools and society. This includes not being forced to assimilate as opposed to accommodate — to be bicultural or multicultural. Per Banks, “It thus is in the best interests of a political democracy to protect the rights of all citizens to maintain allegiances to their ethnic group and to the nation-state” (p. 4).

3.     Multicultural education is designed to help students to acquire the reading, writing, and math skills needed to function effectively in a global and “flat” technological world. STEM is given major attention in schools so that students can be competitive in academic and work settings in the U.S. and world. Thus, it must be recognized that multicultural education aligns with many national standards and priorities of employers, businesses, and organizations.

In addition to these overarching and foundational goals, Banks discusses his five dimensions of multicultural education:

·      Content Integration. Educators use information from a variety of cultures to illustrate the central concepts, principles, generalizations, and theories in their subject area and discipline. Multicultural education content and materials are not viewed as irrelevant and trivial. Banks’ four levels of multicultural content integration excellently delineate the pros and cons of each level on students’ learning, perceptions of self, and views of others. I encourage readers to become familiar with the lowest to highest levels, in this order: contributions, additive, transformation, and social action. Many readings and resources can be found at my personal website. When students are educated at the transformation and social action levels, they are rigorously taught and empowered. Rigor and problem-solving are highly regarded in academic settings. Therefore, I do not understand how caregivers and educators would not want this for students. How can anti-EDI supporters be opposed to rigor? To problem-solving?

·      The Knowledge Construction Process. This pertains to the degree to which teachers help students to understand, investigate, and determine how the implicit cultural assumptions, frames of references, and biases within a discipline influence how knowledge is constructed within it. With this dimension, I am mindful of Bloom’s Taxonomy and how important it is to teach at the highest levels — applying, evaluating, and creating. Again, it is baffling — how can anti-EDI supporters be opposed to rigor? To problem-solving?

·      An Equity Pedagogy. This pedagogy exists when teachers modify their teaching to facilitate the achievement of marginalized students – minoritized students and low-income students. This includes modifying teaching styles and strategies to accommodate the cultural styles of students. When educators are equity-oriented, they are responsive to their students’ needs to help their achieve at higher levels. This consists of being inclusive — being culturally responsive to enhance the academic experiences of minoritized students. The ‘E’ and ‘I’ (equity and inclusion) in EDI are purposeful.

·      Prejudice Reduction. The focus here is on students’ racial attitudes. Multicultural curriculum and instruction enhance racial and ethnic pride, along with relationships among students from different backgrounds. I am a staunch advocate for racial and ethnic identity development and pride. I view racial and ethnic identity as culturally based SEL. This goes hand-in-glove with social and emotional learning (SEL) and development. They are inseparable. Since COVID-19, schools have increased considerably their SEL efforts. This SEL standards document provides a solid overview of SEL, including resources and benefits:

o   A 62% reduction in violence

o   51% fewer bullying incidents

o   Absenteeism reduced by 28%

o   A 73% shrinkage in suspensions

o   85% fewer disciplinary referrals

·      An Empowering School Culture and Social Structure. The school structure and culture are evaluated and then changed where necessary to empower students of color. Empowerment includes closing racialized achievement and opportunity gaps. I want to be clear — empowering minoritized students is not a zero-sum game. This is a major misguided perception of those who oppose EDI.

I want to end with a most timely quote. Referencing Parekh (2006), “Multicultural education is an education for freedom that is essential in today’s ethnically polarized and troubled world” (p.7). That was 2006; now, look at the state of affairs in 2024. I urge us all to revisit the goals of multicultural education, to become refreshed and reinvigorated to continue to do what is right by our students in P-12 and higher education. To do otherwise is a major disservice to all students. Banks was ahead of his time in founding multicultural education, and I am pleased to honor him, to recognize how the goals are timeless and worthy of renewed attention and commendation.

Dr. Donna Y. Ford is a Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology in the Department of Educational Studies within the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.