Students fought hard to establish Ethnic Studies because their histories and lived experiences were excluded from traditional education. During the 1968 Third World Liberation Front strike, students demanded courses that reflected their communities and challenged racial inequality in schools (Espinoza-Kulick 2.4). Many students felt disconnected from a curriculum that focused mainly on Eurocentric perspectives.
Ethnic Studies is important because it helps students understand race, identity, and power in society (Rethinking Ethnic Studies 9). This is why it is required at Foothill College and across the UC and CSU systems. However, Ethnic Studies is often under attack because it challenges dominant narratives and exposes systems of inequality, which makes some people uncomfortable (Espinoza-Kulick 1.1).
Students fought so hard to establish Ethnic Studies because their histories, cultures, and lived experiences were missing from traditional education. During the 1968–1969 Third World Liberation Front strike, students demanded courses that reflected their communities and challenged racism within the education system (Espinoza-Kulick 2.4). Many students felt disconnected from what they were being taught because the curriculum focused mainly on Eurocentric history. They believed education should help students understand who they are and how power and inequality shape society. This is why students were willing to risk arrest, suspension, and expulsion during the longest student strike in U.S. history.
Ethnic Studies is important because it helps students understand race, identity, and social justice in meaningful ways. It teaches students to think critically about history instead of accepting one dominant narrative (Rethinking Ethnic Studies 9). Because of these benefits, Ethnic Studies is now required at Foothill College and across the UC and CSU systems. However, Ethnic Studies is constantly under attack because it questions systems of power and challenges ideas that have long gone unexamined. Some people fear this kind of education because it exposes inequality and encourages students to speak up, which can feel threatening to those who benefit from the current system (Espinoza-Kulick 1.1).
