Diversity in the Classroom

Teaching for Social Justice:

Recent Considerations

Teachers have long been aware of their need to address social justice issues in their classrooms. Core
Curriculum was developed, in part, to address these issues through the components and initiatives of Core
such as Aboriginal Content and Perspectives, Multicultural Education, and Gender Equity. The research now
suggests that rather than treat these issues separately, teachers approach social justice in a more holistic
manner and focus on making students aware of the oppression that results because of issues such as racism,
sexism, and ableism.
Ng (2003) comments that taking a compartmentalized approach to social justice does not acknowledge the
intersection of these areas and implies that racism, for example, happens in isolation of gender. She suggests
that race, gender, class, and ability are not static categories into which people are placed, but rather they are
interconnected properties; for example, the experiences of a black, middle class man will be very different from
those of a black, poor, disabled woman. Ng further suggests that one phrase often used by educators to show
a lack of bias - I treat everyone the same - acts to cover unequal power relationships (p. 214). As educators,
we need to recognise that race does matter, just as gender, ability, and class do. Ng argues that all inequities
are based in unequal power relations and rather than treating areas of inequity separately, schools should
focus on power as a dynamic relation, which is enacted in interactions (p. 207).
Boler and Zembylas (2003) comment on the myth of meritocracy that is sometimes evident in schools. They
state that equal opportunity, the virtues of hard work, just desserts these beliefs are as pervasive and taken
for granted as the air we breathe (p. 110). This myth, found commonly in the discourse of liberalism and
individualism, underpins the belief that those who are not successful in school have equal opportunities, but
fail to achieve due to a lack of motivation and hard work. This myth ignores the fact that those who are not
successful in school frequently fall into minority groups. Christensen (2000) states that when we conceptualize
a students lack of progress as laziness, it is in fact ourselves who are taking the lazy approach by not looking
deeply enough into the reasons for a students lack of success (p. 71).
Boler and Zembylas (2003) describe some of the present models of difference found in schools today. The first
of these is the celebration/tolerance model. This model states that everyone is different and that these
differences are respected and honoured. This approach is faulty on two fronts: one, only certain allowable
differences such as ethnicity are honoured, while others such as sexual identity continue to be ignored; and
two, this model ignores differences in power.
The second model identified is the denial/sameness model that states everyone is the same under the skin
and everyone should be treated in the same way. The problem with this approach is that it supports the
principle of assimilation, and, like the first model, ignores the power differential.
The third model is the natural response/biological model. It states that differences between human beings are
biologically grounded and innate. This model includes the belief that a fear of difference is also innate; as
humans, it is acceptable to be afraid of a person from another culture just because this person does not look
the same as we do. For generations, this model has been a justification for oppression and prejudice. Boler
and Zembylas (2003) state that common to all of these models is a lack of personal responsibility for making
changes towards equity, and an unwillingness to examine our own beliefs and assumptions about power and
inequity.
Teaching is connected strongly to power and authority because education in itself is power. Individuals in
society are denied jobs based on their level of education or lack of schooling. Kroll et al (2005) comment that
although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and other criteria, society can legally
discriminate on the basis of education (p. 126). Schools have the authority to pass on power to certain groups
and to deny power to others by virtue of passing or failing students. If we look at society and identify those who

Diversity in the Classroom Teaching for Social Justice: Recent Considerations

Page 1 of 4

do not have power, it is the poor and marginalized. Schick and St. Denis (2005) comment that inequity is not
naturally occurring; poverty is not an innate cultural trait that accumulates at the feet of the marginalized (p.
304); rather inequity is perpetuated through institutionalized oppression.
Inequity is furthered when children from a background of poverty enter school lacking readiness skills and also
exit school without readiness skills (Beswick & Sloat, 2006). This situation emphasizes the need for early
intervention, particularly in the area of literacy skills; poor literacy skills are both a result and a cause of
poverty. Beswick and Sloat (2006) further state that the issue then, is not having equal access to education,
but deriving equal results from the educational experience (p. 23). Riester, Pursch, and Skrla (2002) add that
the two factors foundational for success in school for students from impoverished backgrounds are the
development of early literacy skills and the avoidance of an inappropriate placement in special education. Both
of these situations are more likely if we hold only one view of success and have only one picture of the way
learning occurs.
Another issue of concern for social justice educators is the way in which Canada has chosen to represent
multiculturalism. McMahon (2003) comments that Canadas use of the term multiculturalism is contrary to that
of critical pedagogy (p. 265). From a critical pedagogy perspective, multiculturalism is very similar to an
antiracist approach that looks at the experiences of people from a human rights perspective and examines
power imbalances. In Canada, however, multiculturalism has come to mean a celebration of cultural
differences such as food and dance. Instead of following this model of multiculturalism, Canadian teachers
could question why we minimize the value of peoples culture to song and dance. Nieto (2004) defines
multiculturalism as a process of basic education for all students [that] challenges and rejects racism and
other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms the pluralism that students, their
communities and teachers represent (p. 346). The general acceptance of a definition such as this could
extend the teaching of social justice in the classroom.
A closer examination of curricula is proposed by McMahon (2003) who suggests that teachers deconstruct
their curricula and move beyond assumptions of neutrality (p. 259). Teaching from a social justice
perspective invites the questioning of assumptions and, in particular, the assumption that curricula are factual
and unbiased. All documents have a writer, and all writers construct their materials through their individual
lenses, based on their background experience and economic situatedness, race, ethnicity, class, ability, sex
and sexual identity (p. 262). McMahon (2003) also comments on the teaching area of social studies. One
aspect of critical theory, the Ethic of Critique, challenges teachers to ask questions such as: Who makes the
law? Who benefits from the law? Who has power? Whose are the silenced voices? (p. 263). McMahon
suggests that teachers focus on ways in which race, ethnicity, class and gender have shaped the experiences
of Canadians at different times in the past.
Tupper (2007) encourages teachers to reflect critically when teaching social studies classes (p. 263). She
states that the dominant narrative of social studies attempts to perpetuate certain cultural truths from
generation to generation (p. 263). The structure and process of government are often taught in classrooms,
without the uncovering of the injustices that are perpetuated against certain segments of society by
governments (p. 261). Schools often focus on the importance of individuals being good citizens by following
rules and laws that actually reinforce the privileges of some groups over others. Students instead need to be
taught to question why inequity exists and to identify the conditions of oppression. Tupper recognizes that
teachers make choices regarding what and how they teach, and that teachers may choose not to take a critical
approach to social studies in order to avoid problematic areas. By doing so, as Kroll et al (2005) also mention,
teachers are then choosing to reinforce privilege to the detriment of marginalized groups. McMahon (2003),
Schick and St. Denis (2005) and many other writers in this field comment that if teachers do not take a social
justice approach, then education will contribute to the continuation of unequal social relationships in society.
Schick and St. Denis (2005) also advocate for a critical approach to curriculum but in their case, in regard to
First Nations people. They comment that Canada is cloaked in a stupefying ignorance (p. 308) in regard to
an understanding of Canadas history regarding the treatment of Aboriginal people in the past, and a
connection of this past to present day concerns experienced by Aboriginal people. The authors comment that
social studies curricula continue to emphasize Canada as a great country that invited immigrants in and gave
them land, without mentioning that this land not only was not theirs to give away, but was in fact stolen from its
rightful owners. This approach encourages present day Canadians to forget the past and to not acknowledge
the processes by which racialized identities were created in Canada.
King (2007) speaks about the need to clarify the difference between racism and prejudice where prejudice is
the action of an individual or group of individuals and racism is the underpinnings of institutional inequity (p.
166). Insisting that race does not matter allows us to continue to deny past and present injustices. As

Diversity in the Classroom Teaching for Social Justice: Recent Considerations

Page 2 of 4

educators, we need to admit that race and all the other relational categories that we have used in the past to
categorize people do matter, and to use the classroom to examine why we have hidden these topics in the
past. King (2007) comments that unless educators begin to encourage students to discuss some of the
unspoken assumptions about society, then education itself is complicit in racism.
Another area of concern in the social justice area is that of heteronormativity in schools. Dobson (2004)
comments that education is one of the most heterosexist institutions in society (p. 54). It is well recognized that
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirited, queer and questioning (LGBTTQQ) youth are bullied at
schools because of heteronormative assumptions, and that many such youth drop out of school due to the
enormous pressures they feel. Dobson states that educators also often reflect societal heterosexism (p. 55)
so that LGBTTQQ youth never find themselves represented in curricular materials or supported by staff.
Schick (2004) states that heterosexual privilege is an unearned, often taken-for-granted way of living that is
assumed to be superior and also normal (p. 249). She encourages teachers to question what we call normal
and recognise where ideas of normalcy come from and why they exist. Implicit in this view is the need for
classroom teachers to reflect on ways in which they both teach and represent heteronormativity.
Cherian (2001) says that teaching social justice is the process of grounding ones teaching practices in
empathy. It means asking questions such as why some people in society are privileged and why some are
disadvantaged. It means asking who makes decisions and who is left out. It means examining where unfair
practices come from and why they were created. Hoerr (2007) builds on this concept to say that teaching
social justice means affirming, rather than merely appreciating, diversity, and means affirming the identities of
all students in our schools, regardless of background. We can do this by ensuring that we include all
perspectives in the curriculum, not only a western perspective; by ensuring that all learning resources reflect
multiple cultures and ways of being; and by ensuring that we honour students for multiple reasons, rather than
academic ones only.
Smith (2006) advocates critical pedagogy based on a vision of social justice and equality that challenges
common assumptions about the ways in which power operates. She comments on the importance of critical
reflection by teachers to support the inclusion of social justice into teaching. She states that as teachers
reflect, they can become more aware of the influences on their own teaching. She suggests a critical approach
to reflection in which teachers view their practice through four differing perspectives: a personal perspective,
the students perspective, our colleagues perspective, and a research perspective. Smith fears that without
the opportunity to reflect critically on their work, teachers may maintain and reinforce social injustices (p. 51).
Teachers make hundreds of decisions every day. They choose what to teach and how to teach; they choose
how to view the world and how to present a view of the world to students. Teaching includes ethical choices
and professional decisions in everything that teachers say and do in their classrooms - many of these choices
are complex and difficult. Teaching is not about telling students either directly or indirectly where their place in
this world lies; it is about encouraging students to question the hierarchies and the assumptions that the
structure of schools and society place on them. It is about encouraging students to listen for the voices that are
heard, and the voices that are silent. It is about formulating questions that teachers and society may not yet
have the answer to, but about which we all need to think. Ayers (2004) states that teaching is creating
empowered individuals who can think, question, and formulate their own answers to their own questions.
Ayers further says that teaching is an ethical enterprise that goes beyond presenting what already is; it is
teaching toward what ought to be (p. 13). The question for teachers is how best to teach in a way that allows
for this critical thinking approach.

References
Ayers, W. (2004). Teaching the personal and the political Essays on hope and justice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Beswick, J. F., & Sloat, E. A. (2006). Early literacy success: A matter of social justice. Education Canada,
Vol 46, (2), pp23-27.
Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference. In
P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 110-135). New
York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cherian, F. (2001). Really teaching social justice. Orbit, 31(4), 54-56.

Diversity in the Classroom Teaching for Social Justice: Recent Considerations

Page 3 of 4

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the
written word. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Ltd.
Dobson, C. (2004). Everyday acts of survival and unorganized resistance: Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth
respond to oppression. In J. McNinch & M. Cronin (Eds.), I could not speak my heart: Education and social
justice for gay and lesbian youth (pp 49-80). Regina, SK: Canadian Plains Research Center.
Hoerr, T. R. (2007). Affirming diversity. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 87-88.
King, C. R. (2007). Reading race, reading power. Our Schools/Our Selves. 17(1) 165-175.
Kroll, L. R., Cossey, R., Donahue, D. M., Galguera, T., LaBoskey, V. K., Richert, A. E., et al. (2005). Teaching
as principled practice: Managing complexity for social justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McMahon, B. (2003). Putting the elephant into the refrigerator: Student engagement, critical pedagogy and
antiracist education. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 257-273.
Ng, R. (2003). Towards an integrative approach to equity in education. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of
difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 206-219). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Riester, A. F., Pursch, V., & Skrla, L. (2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school success for
children from low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12(3), 281-304.
Schick, C. (2004). Disrupting binaries of self and others: Anti-homophobic pedagogies for student teachers. In
J. McNinch & M. Cronin (Eds.), I could not speak my heart: Education and social justice for gay and lesbian
youth (pp. 243-254). Regina, SK: Canadian Plains Research Center.
Schick, C., & St. Denis, V. (2005). Troubling national discourses in anti-racist curricular planning. Canadian
Journal of Education, 28(3), 295-317.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Creating a Community of Difference. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 38-41.
Smith, S. R. (2006). Stop and think: Addressing social injustices through critical reflection. Education Canada,
47(1), 48-51.
Tupper, J. A. (2007). From care-less to care-full: Education for citizenship in schools and beyond. The Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 259-272.

Diversity in the Classroom Teaching for Social Justice: Recent Considerations

Page 4 of 4