Transcription
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: So I'm Valerie Kinloch from Ohio State University, and it's my pleasure to be sitting here with Dr. Geneva Gay, who is a scholar and professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I just wanted to ask you a few questions, Dr. Gay, about CRT and multicultural education. To start, for those listening or watching, can you briefly talk about what Culturally Responsive Teaching is and what it's intended to do?
Dr. Geneva Gay: Culturally Responsive Teaching is a technique to move multicultural education from theory into classroom practice. Think of it as the methodological arm of multicultural education. Its appeal is to teach marginalized students, especially students of color, in ways similar to their middle-class mainstream counterparts. Those counterparts are taught through their own cultural filters, even if unaware of that framework. If one ethnic group learns through their cultural orientation, culturally responsive teaching argues that others have the same right and privilege. Basically, it uses the cultural heritages, background experiences, and orientations of marginalized students to teach them more effectively. This more effective teaching can focus on academic skills, personal relationships, civic skills, or cultural competence.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Is CRT primarily based on the history of marginalization for students of color? I ask because some students I work with argue CRT focuses on a particular population, excluding white students. What argument would you give those critics?
Dr. Geneva Gay: At first glance, it might seem that way. But middle-class white students already have access to learning through their cultural base—that's the dominant orientation in schools. Culturally responsive teaching simply says other students, who haven't had those opportunities, have the right to similar experiences, taught from their cultural frame of reference. It's not excluding white kids; they already have that leverage. Other students deserve the same leverage, but not just through the white cultural frame of reference. They should learn through their own. So, culturally responsive teaching complements traditional teaching. There's another dimension: teaching all students more about the different cultural groups in the United States, but teaching them in different ways because kids from different backgrounds learn differently. No students probably know as much about the various cultural makeups of the United States as they should. White students need to know aspects of culturally responsive teaching, as do nonwhite students, but for different reasons, and the focus differs. If the focus is on developing cultural knowledge, European Americans learn about their culture through schools. But Latino students, for example, may not formally know their own culture because it hasn't been part of US school history. Latino students need to know more about their own cultural groups; European American students need to know about Latino culture because what they know might be prejudicial, inaccurate, or distorted. One element of culturally responsive teaching is to correct the historical record, showing the contributions of different ethnic groups to the country. Not all stories of their contributions have been told in schools.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: When you talk about the achievement record, can you elaborate on correcting it, particularly in relation to students of color?
Dr. Geneva Gay: The United States has always had diverse groups, and those groups contributed to the country’s development. We sometimes say it’s a European American country, but that’s not true. European Americans contributed, but other ethnic groups were present from the very beginning, contributing to agriculture, art, government—even the Constitution is based on contributions from Native American groups. There's nothing significant in US history, life, and culture where multiple ethnic groups haven't been present and contributing. That's what I mean by the country's achievement. Whether it’s war, industry, or education, even when ethnic groups weren't allowed in dominant schools, they had parallel institutions. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), for example, produced the greatest number of Black lawyers and doctors—a contribution to the country.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: But why is that contribution often diminished or made invisible in the larger structure of America?
Dr. Geneva Gay: Partly because people don't know it. But unfortunately, it's also because of racism. Sometimes ethnic groups of color made contributions, like inventions, but dominant groups took credit. In contemporary music, for example, many African American singers couldn’t copyright their music, and it was appropriated or stolen. African Americans invented things that make our daily lives easier: the broom, the iron, the traffic light. We take them for granted, but imagine ironing without an iron. The question is, who took credit? Revisionist history is correcting the record, reissuing copyrights to their rightful owners.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Let's discuss the reappropriation of Black cultural ways of knowing and being, and Black contributions to America. The invisibility of Black intellect, creativity, and innovation negatively affects many Black and Brown students, particularly in urban public schools. How do we work with teachers to understand the reappropriation of Black culture and teach more equitably?
Dr. Geneva Gay: We must understand how different groups were socially constructed in the US, and the continued legacy of those historical definitions. The US hasn’t come to terms with how people of African ancestry were initially viewed—not as full human beings. Psychologically, we haven't resolved that, and the residue lingers. When there's a long history of people being perceived as less than human, we don't see Black people as intellectuals or contributors. Until we break out of that psychological mindset—psychological imperialism—we will continue to see Black people treated as less than fully functional human beings. People say slavery was “back in the day,” but we must ask what kind of slavery we’re talking about. There are residues of psychological enslavement.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Yes, and the internalization of that idea of less than human within Black people. That's dangerous—a powerful tool for “keeping people in their place.” When we talk about liberation or resistance in education, we're fighting that notion of being less than human, not being equal, not being as smart as, or not being able to perform like white peers. That's dangerous when we internalize it.
Dr. Geneva Gay: I don't think the internalization of self-denigration is as extensive as some claim, because we don't see the nonpublic manifestations. The public image might show struggle and survival—playing to the script. But privately, we don’t know what Black people are doing. They might be playing a role. By playing the fool, they might manipulate those who think they're manipulating them. Some might see this as self-protection. This playing of roles has been a legacy of survival, ingenuity, and creativity for generations. I’m not sure this generation is simply self-demeaning. Psychological imperialism doesn't disappear in one or two generations. Black people survived and prospered despite lacking resources. We might not lose all of that in one or two generations.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: I think you're right. We see Black people protesting, marching, organizing, and forming grassroots movements—Black Lives Matter, demands for better educational resources—showing that the belief in internalization of being less than human is often a performance for survival.
Dr. Geneva Gay: Do you know Margaret Beale Spencer's work and her reinterpretation of the doll experiment? She begs the professional community to rethink the assumption that Black girls preferring white dolls means they've internalized self-denigration. Maybe they prefer white dolls knowing what that preference gets them, while simultaneously being proud of themselves. It’s a political or economic decision, not necessarily a psychological precondition.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Often, it's a decision made in the public view—the difference between public and private. What one does at home isn’t necessarily what one does in the larger world.
Dr. Geneva Gay: Of course! People know what's expected of them. Self-protection might look like living up to those expectations. It might seem like a lack of self-protection, but it is a form of protecting one's psyche. These issues are more complex than we've thought. Culturally responsive teaching invites teachers and students to think deeper and consider alternative possibilities.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Speaking of CRT, I want to talk about your legacy in scholarship, education, and curriculum. You wrote, "Multicultural education…is a moral enterprise…requiring deep personal engagement…advocacy, and agency…Trying to convey…to teachers through technical knowledge and objective analysis is important.” What would you want people to know and implement regarding students of color, Black students in particular?
Dr. Geneva Gay: I'd like people to see beyond the obvious—life conditions—and look at the core of people's humanity. Poverty is a condition of living, not an identity. Tangible elements of race and social class aren't the essence of humanity. How people engage with those conditions, their resources and ingenuity—that's important. People have a proclivity to find goodness in their circumstances. Culturally responsive teaching is about seeing that goodness and potential, the intellect that exists even in difficult circumstances. There are some few people beyond normal functionality due to trauma or accident. But, human beings, regardless of circumstance, have inherent dignity, a proclivity toward aesthetics, beauty, and intellect. They have desires and want to know. They have assets. Culturally responsive teaching is assets-based; it looks at what people have, not what they lack. You build capacity based on what people have. Success builds on success, not failure.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: Yet, some people diminish the strengths of those perceived as lacking, rather than understanding what they already have. Those who try to implement CRT might fall into the trap of “I need to fix you; there’s something wrong with you,” rather than understanding that's a deficit perspective.
Dr. Geneva Gay: Many don't understand or appreciate the depth of transformation needed. It's not just methodological; deeper ideological, philosophical, ethical, and moral shifts are necessary. Many aren't willing to go there. They'll tinker but won't confront the fundamental wrongness and intolerance. Human beings deserve respect. That's the starting point. It's not a popular position, and you won't win easily or quickly. It's a moral confrontation, and you'll have to keep doing it. The US was built on a foundation of immorality. To do what multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching are about, you have to change the fabric.
Dr. Valerie Kinloch: So how do we change the fabric? Can we change the fabric?
Dr. Geneva Gay: I think we can, but I don't know how. People say change comes one person at a time, but the magnitude is so great it’ll take eons. Historically, the US will have to go through serious revolutions—not violence, but revolutions in social and historical understanding. That means changing fundamental beliefs. Are we ready? People of color aren't the ones to lead this charge. Social change won't occur if victims try to eliminate victimization. Victims need to be present, but victimizers have to take themselves to task. I don’t think the US is willing to do that yet. It can be done, but you have to have the will.