When the 2024-25 year began, the San Francisco Unified School District told parents about a new high school requirement: one year of ethnic studies. All 9th graders were required to take what until then had been an elective.
Over the course of the year, the class attracted controversy. Some complaints were about material: students asked to role-play as Israeli soldiers and Palestinian refugees; an inclusion of “The Red Guard” among historical social justice movements. Other concerns centered on procedure: the school board president at the time had raised flags that the one-year course hadn’t gotten board approval.
As the year ended, and students and teachers went on summer break, the heat grew; even Mayor Daniel Lurie weighed in. Superintendent Maria Su said in late June the district would find a new curriculum for the fall semester, which was starting in less than two months.
The district selected Voices: An Ethnic Studies Survey, from national publisher Gibbs Smith Education, as a one-year pilot. When the board had to vote on Voices in late July and early August, its members complained they hadn’t been able to review the curriculum. The district promised an initial evaluation in November, but that’s been delayed, as The Frisc first reported. “Our auditor had requested more time,” said district spokesperson Laura Dudnick via email. “This will not affect our other milestones.”
At those July and August board meetings, debate reignited. Some commenters worried the new course would have content similar to what previously alarmed them. Others defended ethnic studies from what they saw as a right-wing attack and worried Voices was a watered-down compromise. But few if any people actually knew what was in the new material.
After a two-week delay, the board finally said yes on Aug. 26.
At the start of the school year, the district let people view the Voices textbook for 30 minutes at a time — no photos or videos allowed for copyright reasons. It also gave freshmen the chance to opt out this year. Since then, 43 — about one percent of SFUSD freshmen — have opted out.
There’s now a survey available, and families have until Dec. 19 to submit feedback on the new course.
Soon after the approval, The Frisc submitted a public records request to view the entire book. The district granted our request in late October and allowed us to read all 386 pages at district headquarters.
The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the contents, not a complete transcription, analysis, or criticism. Here’s what we found.
Chapter one: Understanding race and ethnicity
Publisher Gibbs Smith notes on the Voices website that the curriculum focuses on helping students “analyze the impacts of race and ethnicity in U.S. history and the present day.” Some critics have said that a world history class should do this work. Voices keeps its focus on U.S. actions and policies and their effects on various groups within U.S. borders, and sometimes beyond.
The textbook opens by defining race and ethnicity and exploring the limitations of these definitions. It delves into the origins of ethnic studies and ways to examine power and privilege, noting that being biased is “part of being human” and that “awareness” is key to countering it.
The authors write that the United States was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. “Yet even though the country might value equality, inequities are evident in many different areas of U.S. life. This raises a question that is both obvious and complex: what does it mean to be ‘equal’?”
The chapter describes race as a term social scientists use to recognize groups that people are put into based on their real or perceived characteristics, while ethnicity pertains more to shared cultural characteristics. It classifies race as a “social construct” rather than a biological one, noting that there is no clear scientific definition of what it means to be Black or White. (The book capitalizes both.)
It says categories of race have changed over time, and the definitions are largely a moving target. For example, the idea of “whiteness” has widened in the U.S.
“Today we typically view any person of European descent as White,” the authors write. “But in the early 1900s anyone who was not of Anglo-Saxon heritage (or of English descent) was considered an ‘ethnic.’”
The authors ask students to analyze intersectionality: the idea that people can have multiple components to their identities, and how that may affect their experience of privilege, or the lack thereof. It cites Sylvia Duckworth’s wheel of power and privilege as a tool.
The chapter also includes a section on Jewish people in America. It focuses on Jewish immigration to the Western Hemisphere since the 1600s, the important role of Jews in other liberation movements, and discrimination they have faced in the U.S.
It warns against the rise of antisemitism in the 21st century, noting that U.S. antisemitic acts hit record levels in 2022, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The book covers up to about 2023. It only mentions Israel to note that as many Jews live there as in the U.S. There is no mention of Palestinians or conflict with Israel.
Chapter two: Indigenous studies
While acknowledging that there are many more U.S. ethnic groups, the majority of the text is devoted to four types of “marginalized identities.” The first is Indigenous peoples.
The chapter introduces concepts like settler colonialism, manifest destiny, and sovereignty, among others. Students are taught about the ancestral cultures of Native Americans, as well as the impact of both European colonization and U.S. policies on Indigenous cultures.
The chapter also highlights Indigenous activism and resistance movements, including environmental activism and conservation, with examples as recent as the Dakota Access Pipeline and Bears Ears National Monument protests. Students learn about the movement to revitalize Native languages after decades of the U.S. blocking their use.
The book asks students to consider: “Whose responsibility is it to protect public lands? And why should people assume that Indigenous sacred sites are not ‘public’?” It spotlights major issues for Indigenous rights activists today, including generational poverty, disputed land rights, and the disproportionate threat of physical and sexual violence that Indigenous women face.
Chapter three: Black studies
The chapter begins with an analysis of the scope and impact of the transatlantic slave trade. It describes the challenges Black Americans faced before and after the Civil War, including Jim Crow, and dives deeply into the Civil Rights Movement.
“The movement itself was a varied collection of groups, events and ideologies,” the chapter reads. “Today, the Civil Rights Movement is remembered as a mass campaign by Black Americans and their allies to end racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement.”
The text challenges students not just to learn the movement’s history but to evaluate the effectiveness of all its pieces — from coordinated actions like sit-ins and marches, to education and consensus building, as described in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”
The section ends by focusing on the backlash against Black protest, including assassination of key leaders, and the rise of the Black Panthers. The book showcases different forms of Black protest in the new millennium, especially with social media and other modern technology, and questions whether President Barack Obama’s two terms make the U.S. a “post-racial society.”
Chapter four: Latino studies
Chapter four says Latino immigration in the second half of the 20th century has roots in U.S. policy toward Latin America, “a fact often missed in today’s policy debates.” It delves into that policy and history and describes American imperialism and colonization of Latin America.
In the 1800 and 1900s, the book says, “U.S. forces invaded Latin American nations, and […] allowed U.S. corporations to pursue profits across the Western Hemisphere, bolstered by the U.S. military.”
Corporations like the United Fruit Company (purveyor of Chiquita bananas) exploited the labor and natural resources of Central and South America. “Yet today, anti-immigrant narratives refer to immigrants as ‘invaders’ and ‘convoys’ breaching U.S. borders,” the authors write. They also underscore the history of the U.S. southern border: “Latino people lived in the United States before the modern United States existed. So rather than Latino people crossing any border, the border crossed them.”
It also focuses on more present-day immigration issues, saying that in 2021, some 62.5 million Latino people lived in the United States, and roughly 81 percent were U.S. citizens. It doesn’t advocate for specific U.S. policy but wraps up the chapter with a discussion of more recent reforms such as the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Chapter five: AAPI studies
Like the previous section, Voices begins the discussion of Asian American and Pacific Islander cultures with colonization — this time, in the Hawaiian Islands. It provides context around discrimination and violence against Asian Americans starting in the 1800s, from the exploitation of workers during the California Gold Rush and railroad expansion, up to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
It also digs into the origins of San Francisco’s Chinatown, North America’s oldest; the history behind harmful stereotypes about Chinese women; and the immigration history of the Bay Area’s own Angel Island.
The book describes anti-Japanese racism and Japanese Americans’ internment during World War II following Japan’s attack on the U.S. in 1941.
This chapter also delves into the rise in anti-Muslim discrimination following the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and, later, President Donald Trump’s 2017 Executive Order 13769, nicknamed the “Muslim Ban.”
“Islam is not a race, but many characterize Islamophobia as a form of racism,” the authors write, asking students: “Do you think this is fair? Why or why not?”
Chapter six: Race and ethnicity today
The final chapter explores forms of inequality today, especially on a systemic level. “Stereotyping affects more than how we think and feel about other groups,” the authors write. “Along with implicit biases, stereotypes also affect our behavior. They lead to prejudice and discrimination.”
One discussion topic is minority representation in popular media. The book cites depictions of “model minorities” as an example of harmful stereotypes about marginalized ethnic groups. It also discusses discriminatory housing policies such as redlining and asks students to think about how these practices have contributed to racial economic inequality.
The chapter has a section on inequality in the criminal justice system. It discusses how Black people are disproportionately affected by policies such as New York City’s “stop and frisk”; more likely to be arrested, found guilty, and sentenced more harshly than white people for the same crimes; and more likely to die at the hands of police.
The book closes with a discussion of more civil rights issues that are top of mind for many advocates, including poverty, climate justice, and education inequality.
State rules and mandates
Before a single student cracked open Voices in mid-August, parents, students, and teachers crowded SFUSD board meetings to comment on ethnic studies. For some critics, the content was less troubling than the length of the course: two semesters.
“Forcing every student into a yearlong course removes electives, AP classes, and career pathways that we need for college access and future opportunities,” said one George Washington High School student in July.
California only requires one semester of ethnic studies. Los Angeles Unified School District adheres to this, with a choice of eight courses to fulfill the requirement. San Diego, Fresno, and Long Beach all require a full year.
As in other cities across the state, some SFUSD parents are worried about antisemitism in ethnic studies. “The teachers will bring anti-Israel and other agendas into classrooms,” said Rabbi Shimon Margolin, founder of the Russian-speaking Jewish Community of SF Bay Area, at the July 29 school board meeting.
A state law taking effect next month will create a statewide office of civil rights and appoint an antisemitism prevention coordinator within the Department of Education. The bill, which grew out of concerns around ethnic studies, traveled a deeply contentious path to approval, and now faces a lawsuit from teachers and students who say it hampers free speech.
Beyond what’s in Voices, some parents are worried about teachers bringing their own political perspective to lessons, which prompted Superintendent Su to announce in June that the district would monitor extra course materials from teachers.
When asked about the review process, SFUSD spokesperson Laura Dudnick said it’s mostly on teachers to report supplemental material to the district and pointed to the district website: “Teachers are responsible for previewing supplementary materials to determine whether they are appropriate to the grade level taught and consistent with District criteria, based on their professional judgment. If unsure, they must confer with the Superintendent or designee to ensure materials meet District criteria.” (The full policy is here.)
Joseph Vaez, who teaches ethnic studies at John O’Connell High School, said he uses Voices as a supplemental tool and the material he brings to the course is appropriate. Because the textbook is only in English and the majority of his students are Spanish speakers, he continues teaching the curriculum he helped build over eight years. “I’m willing to show SFUSD if they come and ask me,” he said in an interview. “But they haven’t asked me for it.”
He also noted that teachers only received Voices three days before the semester started.
When asked about the English-only version, Dudnick responded that providing translations “is not a universally appropriate strategy” and says the curriculum has other ways to support “multilingual learners.”
The Frisc reached out to several other SFUSD ethnic studies teachers at SFUSD high schools. They did not respond.
Esther Honda is a retired SFUSD teacher who helped develop the old curriculum. Honda said via email that SFUSD often provides new materials, and “for most teachers it just sits on the shelf while you teach whatever you want.”
For Vaez, sticking to the old curriculum isn’t about swaying his students. “I don’t want you to think like me,” he said. “I just want you to think.”