Battling Implicit Racism in Science Curricula & Classes
This question graces the homepage of this site. It is not just a cutesy phrase, but a question I constantly ask myself as I plan and execute lessons in my classroom. This question is my guiding light because it challenges me to look beyond the surface level requirements of my state standards to the assumptions and biases that underlie what is required to be taught to students, what is not, and why those choices were made.
In other subject areas, the bias and racist assumptions underlying curricula are often more blatant. For example, the social studies standards recently released in Florida state instruction should include:
“acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans” with respect to events when Black communities were massacred
“how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit”
“Identify political figures who strove to abolish the institution of slavery (e.g., Thaddeus Stevens, Abraham Lincoln, Zachariah Chandler)” - all white men
These standards are obviously biased and it is easy to recognize that each one implies that Black people were party to and benefited from their own enslavement and that they depended on white people to dev
elop skills and knowledge. The biases and assumptions in science, however, are more difficult to ascertain unless we are intentional about doing so.
Science standards rarely mention race. If we take them at face value, we can believe that our instruction is not reinforcing any negative stereotypes or upholding white supremacy. However, if we ask ourselves what stories we are telling, who is included, and who is not, the underlying premise that knowledge production has primarily come from white people becomes clear.
Which scientists are most often mentioned in our textbooks and curricular documents? For biology, the most common players are Gregor Mendel, Charles Darwin, Lamarck, Watson & Crick, and maybe Rosalind Franklin for a little razzle dazzle. What do you notice about the people whose stories are selected to be included? The universal whiteness is glaring to me as well as the presence of only one woman.
A reasonable person might respond to this assertion that the curriculum is only reflecting the established history of the pioneers of each field. This response itself reveals the underlying assumption that only one person can have ‘discovered’ something. Reveals the assumption that to be a pioneer or innovator, one must publish and share their findings in a very specific manner and forum.
But if we ask ourselves what stories are we missing, a broader, more inclusive narrative reveals itself. We credit Gregor Mendel as the father of genetics but do not acknowledge that the successful domestication of plant life by indigenous peoples suggests that those cultures hold communal knowledge of genetics even though it may be called another name.
We credit Charles Darwin with developing the theory of evolution without acknowledging the labor and expertise of enslaved people and the Indigenous peoples who guided European naturalists and shared their cultural knowledge with them. This knowledge became a part of scientific conversations and publications that Darwin used in part to develop the theory of evolution.
These are but a few examples of ways we can disrupt the underlying message science curricula communicate: that science belongs to white people and primarily white men.
As science teachers, we may feel safe from the uproar about ‘wokeness’ in schools. But this is a shortsighted point of view. We should be looking at our own curricula with a critical eye and stand in solidarity with our colleagues across subject matters. Just as they do, we have to make a choice to stand for truth in our classrooms and actively disrupt the insidious ways racism leeches into our curriculum. Regardless of if we are located in Florida, Georgia, or Vermont.
Can our students see themselves in our classes? Can our students see how diverse cultures have contributed to science?
Whose stories do we tell?
With encouragement and gratitude,
Dr. J
