At the book release celebration of David Whitman’s Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism hosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute Wednesday, the author spent a lot of time addressing the controversial use of the term “paternalism.” Whitman’s use of the word paternalism has provoked a negative reaction because of its link with the historical, racist Indian boarding schools among other associations. The goal of these schools was to Westernize the Native American students, teaching them to reject their own culture. Whitman argues the New Paternalistic schools are different; however the New Paternalistic schools are also clearly in the business of cultural education.

Number Seven on Whitman’s list of “The Habits of Highly Effective Schools,” is “Reject the culture of the streets” (Chapter 9, page 259).  I think it is fair to ask, what does this mean? Does it mean a rejection of Hip-Hop, a rich cultural force that developed on the streets surrounding David Levin’s South Bronx KIPP Academy? Is it a rejection of Latin dancing?

I don’t think so. I believe Whitman is referring to teaching the students what Charles Adams, Head of School at The SEED School described at the book celebration as “a proven method of accessing cultural capital.” Adams said SEED “transparently” teachs their students the “necessary skill” of code-switching, and indicated that code-switching is more than just linguistic. Perhaps, culture-switching would be a better term. Whitman indicated that all the schools in his book use a similar process. He said the University Park Campus School in Worchester, Mass. doesn’t allow their students to wear earrings larger than a quarter and only subtle shades of eye shadow.

Like the Indian boarding schools, the New Paternalistic schools are also teaching their students how to operate within the dominant American power structure or what some call Business Culture or what we might more bluntly and honestly call White Culture.  But code-switching by definition, doesn’t require students to reject their own culture, merely to shift between cultures in a way that empowers them to succeed in multiple cultural frameworks. Teaching minority students how to operate within the dominant culture, without requiring a rejection of their own culture is what makes the New Paternalistic schools different than the old boarding schools.

I agree whole-heartedly with Charles Adams that code-switching is a necessary skill for minority students to learn, even though this is an admission that we, unfortunately, live in a racist society. However, even this well intentioned approach can easily lead to unintended consequences. When teaching about shifting between cultures, we must be very careful not to imply that one culture is better than another. I think Whitman’s use of the words “reject” and “culture” in the same sentence is dangerous. And referring to a “culture of the streets” is highly questionable. Some might mistakenly interpret this as a code phrase for Black or Hispanic culture. Whitman would do better service if he named the behaviors to be rejected rather than referencing a culture.

Even more irresponsible is a quote from Ben Chavis, the ‘administrator emeritus” of the American Indian Public Charter School, stating, “Everyone says we should ‘preserve our culture’. There is a lot of our culture we should wipe out.” Whose culture is he talking about? That is a loaded and potentially alarming position. If these schools aren’t careful, the difference between the old and new paternalism could become a thin line.

One way to make the line thicker would be for the New Paternalistic schools to teach their students to use their empowering education to perpetuate social change. I hope that in addition to teaching students how to code-switch and operate within America’s (white) power structure, the students are also taught that once their education brings them to a position of power they can access that power to challenge the system and spark social reform. My guess is many New Paternalistic schools do teach this, and that is what would truly make them different than the old paternalism. After all, what’s wrong with wearing big earrings or vibrant eye shadow to school or a business meeting?