(De-)Legitimizing Ethnic Studies: A Discourse Analysis of Board-Community Member Interactions

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Wednesday 11:45 am - Gold 1
  In Roundtable Session: School Boards as Sites of Discourse, Legitimation, and Racialized Institutional Logics Amid Democratic Unrest

Abstract

Objective
Since the 1960s, Ethnic Studies scholars have worked to establish the discipline as “appropriate" or “legitimate” (Hu-DeHart, 1993; Suchman, 1995). While research shows Ethnic Studies courses can enhance students' understanding of social structures (Cabrera et al., 2014) and improve outcomes on various social and academic measures (Bonilla et al., 2021; Dee & Penner, 2021; Gillespie et al., 2024), community-driven critiques often characterize Ethnic Studies as non-academic, ahistorical, racially divisive, and anti-American (Sleeter, 2011; Delgado, 2012). These polarizing evaluations, amplified at local school boards (Duarte and Fernandez, 2025), have placed the discipline at odds with legislative efforts (AB 101) to expand Ethnic Studies into California’s K-12 schools.

Despite theoretical recognition that political contexts shape policy formulation and implementation (Coburn, 2006; Handsman, 2022; Weiss, 1989), there is scarce research investigating school boards as local sites of school governance, policy contestation, and/or negotiation (Ford & Ihrke, 2015; Frankenberg & Diem, 2012; Darmola, 2023). To address this gap, I ask:

What frames and foundational legitimacy criteria are used by board and community members to (de)legitimize Ethnic Studies?
How, if at all, do these vary across political contexts and over time?

Theoretical Framework
Legitimacy, or the “generalized perception of appropriateness” between an organization's actions and social evaluators, is a key concept in organizational studies (Suchman, 1995). Such evaluations (Haack et al., 2021) are often derived from “foundational legitimacy criteria.” These include pragmatic (related to self-interest or efficiency), moral (related to norms, values), and cognitive (related to tradition) (Suchman 1995; Weber, 1978). While prevailing conceptions view legitimacy as static, I view legitimation as a dynamic and ongoing process in which strategic actors shape evaluations through policy framings (Suddaby, 2017; Vaara, 2024).

Data and Analysis
I employed a longitudinal case-study of Ethnic Studies debates, using archived board meeting segments (n = 48) and documents (n = 8) from 2015 to 2025. Applying frame analysis (Weiss, 1989), I identified diagnostic and prognostic frames. I used inductive techniques to identify prominent discourses (e.g., meritocracy), followed by a cycle of deductive coding linking discourses to prevailing legitimacy criteria (e.g., cognitive).

Preliminary Findings
In the case district, Ethnic Studies supporters employed moral and cognitive frames, describing schools as historic sites of progress that function to promote social cohesion and to redress racialized harm within the broader society. Conversely, critics construed Ethnic Studies as problematic, arguing that it impeded the rights of parents to guide the moral development of their children. On occasion, both groups used moral frames describing how student (in)exposure to Ethnic Studies is racially, and/or psychologically, damaging. Board Members (2013-2020) tended to use moral frames, describing Ethnic Studies as providing a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of history; post-2020, board members leaned on cognitive-pragmatic frames, connecting procedural efforts to formalize Ethnic Studies with long-held district practices and equity priorities.

Significance
By documenting framing variations among actors and over time, this paper offers practitioners critical insights for navigating hybrid, political environments, while also deepening the field’s understanding of school boards in facilitating or undermining change.

Author

• Jomar M. Lopes, University of California - Irvine