ICAN Welcomes Commission on State of Hate Annual Report Highlighting Ethnic Studies Dangers, Calls for Pause
Summary and Overview
The California Commission on the State of Hate’s 2023-2024 Annual Report provides a critical examination of ethnic studies implementation, education policy, and hate prevention efforts in California schools. The report highlights serious concerns about bias, enforcement failures, and the lack of oversight in ethnic studies curricula, which must be addressed before further educational mandates are pursued.
These findings raise significant concerns about expanding ethnic studies through legislative vehicles like AB 1468 (2025) or similar efforts, which risk further entrenching a system that lacks accountability, promotes ideological activism, and fosters division.
In light of these developments, we are calling for a pause in the implementation of ethnic studies, no additional funding, a legislative oversight hearing examining the implementation of ethnic studies, and directing the Commission on the State of Hate to further investigate the impact of ethnic studies on student prejudice.
Key Takeaways from the Report:
-
No Proven Effectiveness: There is no experimental research showing that ethnic studies prevents hate, and its impact on student prejudices, both positive and negative, remains unknown (p. 87).
-
Fuels Division: Ethnic studies has sparked lawsuits, protests, and ideological battles, with ongoing disputes over content, bias, and activism in classrooms (p. 87).
-
Lack of Oversight: Schools apply ethnic studies inconsistently, and state agencies fail to enforce existing anti-bias laws, leaving students vulnerable to discrimination (p. 87-88).
-
Unqualified Teachers: A shortage of trained educators has led to activists shaping curricula instead of qualified historians or unbiased instructors (p. 87).
-
Unenforced Anti-Bias Laws: The Attorney General warns curricula must be free of bias (p. 88), but California isn’t enforcing its own laws to prevent discrimination.
The Commission on the State of Hate‘s findings make clear that ethnic studies, as it currently exists, has no proven track record of reducing hate, remains highly controversial, and is implemented inconsistently across districts, without state oversight or enforcement to prevent discrimination.
Instead of fostering inclusivity, poorly regulated ethnic studies programs have contributed to increased polarization, the marginalization of certain communities, and documented instances of discrimination in California classrooms. Moving forward with AB 1468 or any similar legislation without first addressing these systemic issues would harm the state’s public school students.
About the Commission on the State of Hate:
The California Commission on the State of Hate was established through AB 1126 (Bloom, 2021), a landmark piece of legislation aimed at analyzing and combating hate crimes and incidents across the state. The Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) played a pivotal role in leading the effort to create this Commission, working closely with then-Assemblymember Richard Bloom to ensure its passage.
The Commission functions as a statewide advisory body tasked with tracking hate trends, advising policymakers, and ensuring that government and community responses to hate crimes are evidence-based and effective.
State Leadership’s Endorsement
The Commission on the State of Hate has received recognition for its contributions to addressing hate crimes, with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus commending its efforts and making its continuation a legislative priority for 2025.
Assemblymember Sade Elhawary (D-South Los Angeles) introduced AB 822—a bill that extends the sunset repeal date of the Commission—ensuring that its critical work continues. In their endorsement of the bill, the LGBTQ Caucus stated that it:
“Extends the sunset repeal date of the existing Commission on the State of Hate which has undertaken significant work to analyze and address hate crimes and hate incidents in California.“
Elhawary emphasized the importance of the Commission in addressing acts of hate and violence, stating:
This acknowledgment underscores the Commission’s ongoing impact and the bipartisan recognition of its necessity in combating hate-based violence and discrimination. The introduction of AB 822 as part of the LGBTQ Caucus’s priority bill package for 2025 further solidifies its importance in shaping California’s response to hate crimes.
Detailed Findings on Ethnic Studies
1. No Proven Evidence That Ethnic Studies Prevents Hate
The report acknowledges that while ethnic studies and cross-cultural education are often introduced with the intent of reducing discrimination and hate, their actual effectiveness remains largely untested in experimental research settings.
The study notes that broad curricular approaches—such as ethnic studies, social studies, and cross-cultural education—that there is little experimental research to confirm their ability to prevent hate (p. 87).
A meta-analysis found “very little experimental research on the efficacy of these approaches,” despite some nonexperimental research suggesting that cross-cultural education may improve students’ perspective-taking and interest in getting along with those from different racial backgrounds (p. 87).
Furthermore, the report emphasizes that the impact of ethnic studies on students’ prejudices—both positive and negative—is not well understood:
“Less is known about how ethnic studies may impact students’ prejudiced attitudes and behaviors.” (p. 87)
This lack of empirical clarity means that ethnic studies could be influencing students in ways that have not yet been fully measured or assessed, including the potential for amplifying, rather than reducing, certain prejudices.
2. Ethnic Studies Has Fostered Division and Distrust
The report acknowledges widespread disagreements over the content of ethnic studies curricula and challenges in ensuring balance and accuracy:
“However, implementing the requirement has proven to be challenging and contentious, given disagreements about the content in the model curriculum and alternative curriculums that school boards have considered and adopted.” (p. 87)
Rather than serving as an objective educational tool, ethnic studies has repeatedly ignited ideological battles, pitting different groups against each other over which historical narratives should be included, how they should be framed, and whether the coursework promotes activism rather than education.
Some school districts have faced lawsuits, public protests, and deep community division over the way ethnic studies is implemented, with accusations of bias and exclusionary perspectives fueling local disputes.
3. Ethnic Studies Implementation Faces Inconsistent Oversight at the Local Level
The report highlights inconsistencies in how ethnic studies is implemented across California, with some districts developing their own courses while others rely on the state’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum:
“Some California school districts are already offering ethnic studies courses, and educators have shared powerful testimonials about the impact of their lessons on their students.” (p. 87)
California law already prohibits bias and discrimination in curricula, and the California Department of Education (CDE) and Attorney General’s Office (AG) have authority to investigate and enforce compliance when violations occur. However, because school districts retain broad control over course adoption, the degree of compliance with state laws varies, leading to inconsistent course quality and controversy in some communities.
The real issue may not be a lack of enforcement mechanisms, but rather the inconsistent application of existing laws across different districts. Education Code §§51500, 51501, 60044, and 51225.3 explicitly ban biased instruction and materials while requiring inclusivity in content.
Therefore, before creating new bureaucratic oversight mechanisms like those proposed in AB 1468, the logical approach would be to strengthen the enforcement of existing laws by:
- Ensuring the CDE and AG actively monitor and investigate complaints related to ethnic studies curricula rather than relying on district-by-district discretion.
- Providing clearer guidance and training to local school boards on how to implement ethnic studies within the bounds of existing law to prevent violations before they occur.
- Enhancing transparency requirements so that all districts publicly disclose their ethnic studies curricula and materials without adding unnecessary regulatory burdens that duplicate existing legal protections.
4. Lack of Qualified Educators Increases the Risk of Bias & Misinformation
The report notes a shortage of qualified educators trained to teach ethnic studies in a fair, balanced, and academically rigorous manner:
“especially in light of the acute educator shortages in recent years, … California [should] prioritize the recruitment and retention of educators equipped with the skills, knowledge, and humility to provide culturally responsive instruction to all students.” (p. 87)
This “teacher gap” is a manufactured problem resulting from the decision to create a separate ethnic studies course instead of integrating these topics into history and social studies. This self-imposed problem results in schools filling ethnic studies positions with underqualified teachers, ideological activists, or instructors with no formal history training.
Rather than continuing to expand a problem of its own making, California should refocus on strengthening history and social studies instruction, ensuring that diverse perspectives are incorporated by well-trained, academically qualified teachers—not ideological activists filling an artificial void.
5. The California Attorney General’s Office Emphasized That Ethnic Studies Must Be Free of Bias
The report references a 2024 legal alert issued by the California Attorney General’s Office, which warns that ethnic studies curricula must not promote bias or discrimination:
“Moreover, it emphasized that curricula must be free of bias, bigotry, and discrimination and not blame any racial, ethnic, or religious group for the actions of a government.” (p. 88)
The California Attorney General’s warning about ethnic studies bias does not introduce new safeguards—it simply restates existing legal requirements that already prohibit biased instruction. However, there is no consistent enforcement of these laws, not because mechanisms don’t exist, but because they are not being used (Cal. Ed. Code §§ 51204.5, 60040, 51501, 51225.3(a)(1)(G)(v), 220, 60119, 1240; Ed. Code § 35186 [Uniform Complaint Procedures]; Cal. Const., art. I, § 2; McCarthy v. Fletcher (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 130, 146).
Despite this authority, there is no significant public record of the AG or CDE taking action against schools or districts for failing to comply with anti-bias requirements in ethnic studies.
Conclusion
The California Commission on the State of Hate’s 2023-2024 Annual Report demonstrates that ethnic studies in California schools lacks the necessary due diligence, oversight, and enforcement to ensure that it fulfills its intended goal of reducing hate. Instead of fostering unity, ethnic studies has been the source of ideological conflicts, inconsistent implementation, and, in some cases, divisive and discriminatory practices.
The Commission’s findings are clear: ethnic studies, in its current form, has serious structural and oversight failures. Before expanding these programs or adding further mandates, California must ensure that ethnic studies is rigorously evaluated, lawfully implemented, and free from bias and ideological activism.