Beyond whiteness: exploring pedagogical aspects of resistance to multicultural education

ABSTRACT

Recently, there has been a focus on the experiences of students who belong to society’s dominant groups. One aspect of this focus is on the resistance to multicultural concepts. While some studies have explored cultural identity as a cause of this resistance, more explorations from a social-pedagogical perspective are needed. This qualitative case study examines the resistance to multicultural education expressed by Israeli Jewish undergraduate education students who were enrolled in an academic course on multiculturalism. Using Critical Whiteness Studies as a theoretical lens, the study shows how students from this privileged group oppose multiculturalism through pedagogical aspects of teaching. This approach to resistance highlights the role of social positionality in critiquing this field without directly engaging with its core ideas. Therefore, pedagogy is presented as a crucial concept to be considered.

KEYWORDS:

• Multicultural education
• Critical Whiteness Studies
• resistance
• Israel

The growing interest in Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) in general educational research (Beech, 2020) poses challenging questions for scholars outside the United States. Hawkman (2020) defined whiteness as ‘an ever shifting, hierarchical, hegemonic power structure and identity construct that informs the ways individuals view themselves and society and is predicated on dehumanizing the racial other’ (p. 404). Clearly, these core assumptions regarding how institutional discrimination acts to organize society for the benefit of the groups in power are a global phenomenon (Leonardo, 2002). This is exemplified by the global reality of capitalism, where the economic system is historically entangled with and reinforces the supremacy of certain social groups (Casey, 2021). However, that said, the theory’s grounding in specific national and cultural contexts makes its transmission to other national settings challenging. For example, can the tenets of this theory explain relations between hegemonic and suppressed social groups in societies that are not necessarily divided by race? Can we use this theory in countries characterized by other social tensions, such as national rifts? Furthermore, from an educational perspective, how can we successfully convey the theory’s key ideas to students in such cases?

These questions came to mind while analysing data collected as part of a qualitative ethnographic research on teaching multiculturalism in an Israeli institution of higher education. This case study followed 24 undergraduate education majors enrolled in a multicultural education course taught in one of the country’s top universities, situated in an urban centre. A central finding that emerged from this broad research project illuminates the resistance that the Jewish students displayed while participating in the course. Interestingly, these participants, who were affiliated with the country’s majority-advantaged social group, did not express their resistance to the content of multiculturalism per se but critiqued how it was framed, presented, and discussed in class. They found the course’s pedagogical aspects insufficient and felt they prevented them from delving deeper into the subject matter. This finding aligns with existing research on the oppressive manifestations of whiteness in schools, which includes a pedagogy of fear (Leonardo & Porter, 2010), an association of ‘niceness’ with whiteness (Castagno, 2014), emotionality (Matias, 2016), and silencing (Li, 2004). For instance, Orozco’s (2019a) study on Chicanx students in Arizona illustrated how these dynamics in schools perpetuate unjust racial relations as the unchallenged norm. Furthermore, additional studies (Gorski & Parekh, 2020) show that even when critically oriented instructors lead teacher education courses, their effectiveness is hampered by instructional, institutional, and structural barriers, underscoring the lack of necessary institutional support. As such, this study wishes to emphasize the importance of pedagogy, or the enactment of curricular content (Hamilton, 2009), as a crucial element to be further considered.

These findings also relate to past works that dealt with resistance and fatigue towards concepts of multiculturalism (Flynn, 2015). As described extensively in the literature, most teachers in the United States are white, middle-class women (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Scholars have already described the dominant culture of whiteness in teacher education (Dorinda J. Carter Andrews et al., 2021), for example in studies that show how, despite attempts of teacher education programmes to promote multicultural and social justice education, graduates of such programmes do not necessarily change their perceptions of their minority students. As Sleeter (2017) described:

Although most teachers believed that they knew what culturally responsive pedagogy is, most attributed their students’ academic difficulties to factors within the student and family rather than to pedagogical factors under educators’ control. What most teachers had learned about culturally responsive pedagogy was not sufficiently potent to disrupt deficit theorizing about students, particularly in schools under pressure to raise student test scores. (Sleeter, 2017, p. 157)

To explain this phenomenon, scholars highlighted the opposition to multiculturalism, identifying personal identities as the sources of resistance (Garrett & Segall, 2013). However, building on the foundational ideas of CWS and its emphasis on racism as systemic rather than individual (Leonardo, 2009), there is a clear need for more curricular-centred explorations that examine such resistance from a social-pedagogical perspective. Therefore, by building on foundational writings characterizing this approach (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1980), I examine such resistance by exploring social interactions, which are seen as a key force framing educational processes by utilizing shared cultural and symbolic norms.

It is imperative to note that the original primary research inquiry upon entering the project was centred on examining the overall perception of multiculturalism among Jewish and Arab-Palestinian students enrolled in the course. The contrasting perspectives between these two distinct social groups became evident during the data collection and analysis phases. Thus, this led to a shift in the study’s focus. As a result, the primary research questions were rephrased, centring on how Israeli Jewish undergraduate students majoring in education studies, representing the majority group, frame, present, and discuss multicultural issues. This new question stressed the need to characterize their resistance to multiculturalism. This reorientation ensured a more targeted exploration of the attitudes and perceptions of this group of privileged students concerning multicultural education.

Using the CWS theoretical lens in this international setting, I explore how students from hegemonic groups relate to and use pedagogical aspects of teaching to oppose multiculturalism. I show that these students’ social positions enabled them to use the discussion of pedagogy to critique this field without fully engaging with its core ideas. As such, the findings expose the concept of pedagogical resistance. I offer to view pedagogy as a crucial concept that must be considered when educating students towards justice orientations in different national contexts. As such, CWS provides a critical lens not only for educational content but also for pedagogical practices. As further discussed in the following sections, these enacted teaching actions should directly engage with and seek to amend unjust social realities.

Background and review of the literature

Following, I will present background information to better situate this exploration of how Jewish undergraduate students used pedagogy to express resistance towards multiculturalism. First, I will offer a contextual overview of Jewishness in Israel and the complex relations towards non-Jewish minorities. I will then describe the general field of education for multiculturalism, diversity, and social justice. As part of this review, I will stress the importance of understanding the experiences of students affiliated with society’s hegemonic groups. Then, I will offer broad definitions of pedagogy to help situate this educational practice within specific social and political contexts. I will detail the CWS theoretical framework after this introductory section.

Israeli jewishness as whiteness

The underlying premise of this study posits that Israel’s Jewish population can be regarded as a paradigmatic case of a ‘white’ hegemonic social group. However, it is acknowledged that this assertion is contingent upon specific social and historical contexts (Sasson-Levy, 2013). For instance, in Europe, Jews were traditionally perceived as ‘white negroes’ (Bauer, 1843; Gillman, 1991). In the United States, Jews have historically achieved recognition as ‘white’ through processes of social mobility (Brodkin, 1998). Zionism, aimed at addressing ‘the Jewish question’ in Europe, advocated for a Jewish national homeland. This political ideology, however, contributed to social stratification and reinforced the Jewish hegemonic position, particularly impacting the local non-Jewish communities already residing in the designated geographical area (Bakan, 2014). Nevertheless, ongoing debates persist regarding whether Jews should be unequivocally classified as members of white privileged social groups (Boyarin, 2000; Levine‐Rasky, 2008).

Ultimately, the discourses on privilege in Israel, which is officially defined as a Jewish and democratic state (Ichilov, 2005), are primarily centred around issues of citizenship. As such, race and ethnic relations are pivotal in shaping access to resources and rights (Tekiner, 1991). The marginalization of Israeli Arab-Palestinian citizens, for example, who are exempt from mandatory military service, raises questions about the correlation between citizens’ rights and obligations. Moreover, the ongoing armed conflicts with neighbouring Arab countries, the continuous influx of immigrants from countries such as the former U.S.S.R., and the global phenomenon of globalization all contribute to the intensification of this debate and render citizenship in Israel a highly racialized, contested, and complex domain (Avnon, 2006).

The entanglement of ethnicity, nationality, religiosity, and citizenship in Israel has significantly influenced definitions of self and group identities. On the one hand, Israel is still recognized as a Western democracy, albeit contemporary challenges (The Editorial Board, 2023), and thus, the majority population holds the authority to shape the state’s identity and characteristics. As a result of the historical conditions that led to the establishment of the ‘homeland of the Jewish people,’ Jewishness and Jews are privileged over other ethnic and religious minority groups residing within Israel’s borders (Smooha, 2002). Building on Rubin’s (2020) theoretical analysis, it becomes evident that Jews in Israel gain advantages not only through their alignment with the nation’s identity but also from their status as a privileged racial category. This phenomenon is most clearly seen in the ‘law of return’ (Israel Law of Return, 48 114, 1950), which functions as a repatriation law for Jews (Kravel-Tovi, 2012).

Numerous critical studies have depicted the social and political realities in Israel as ethnically stratified (Levy, 2005), ethnorepublican (Shafir & Peled, 2002), or a majoritarian democracy (Peled & Navot, 2005). Consequently, there is a predominant emphasis on ethnic identities, underscoring the sense of a shared civil Israeli identity encompassing all citizens (Mizrachi & Herzog, 2012; Ram, 2008). As such, questions regarding citizenship, education, and privilege do not solely pertain to official legal statuses and topics such as individual rights but also a profound sense of group affiliation with the broader national Jewish identity (Agbaria et al., 2015; Pinson & Agbaria, 2015).¹

Education for multiculturalism, diversity, and social justice

Recent years have shown a shift from multicultural education (Banks, 2009) to a more nuanced approach of antiracist education. While multicultural education focuses on cultural diversity to foster equitable educational opportunities, it has been criticized for not addressing structural injustices, leading to concerns about it being a superficial celebration of diversity (Rios, 2018; Swartz et al., 2014). In response, antiracist education has emerged, emphasizing active confrontation of racist attitudes and institutional inequality, highlighting education’s role in civic action (King & Chandler, 2016). This evolution underscores the field of education as a critical space for addressing racial inequalities, affecting access, quality, and outcomes in education (Winant, 2002). However, the confrontational nature of antiracist education has drawn criticism (Mansfield & Kehoe, 1994).

This distinction between multicultural and antiracist education proves significant when considering the Israeli context in which this study took place. Existing research indicates that the former approach predominates. Generally, studies of multicultural education in Israeli educational programmes underscore the necessity of acknowledging the diverse backgrounds of students and teachers, primarily focusing on the importance of fostering cultural awareness, coexistence, and respect for diversity in educational settings (Gilad & Millet, 2014; Horenczyk & Tatar, 2002; Rajuan & Bekerman, 2011). Consequently, this stresses the need to integrate the antiracist educational approach as a crucial theoretical lens in this specific context (Bekerman & Cohen, 2017; A. Cohen, 2016).

As part of this antiracist education approach, special attention has been given to the role of whiteness, relating to how societies’ stronger and hegemonic members see their role considering such a reality (Hawkman & Shear, 2020). In the higher education context, studies have questioned how institutions use whiteness to limit minority students (Scott et al., 2022) and point to the challenges faced by white students who wish to engage in racial social justice (Deroo et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2022). Thus, as part of the field of teacher education, questions arise regarding how to develop future educators to deal with and cater to such a diverse reality when they are affiliated with society’s stronger social groups (Cochran-Smith, 2004). The literature on teacher education and teachers’ knowledge development points to how teaching students from diverse backgrounds should not be seen as a mere technical matter of how to implement specific teaching methods but rather a socio-cultural concern that touches on broader social justice issues, equity and critical understandings of power relations (Gay, 2010a; Nieto, 2000).

Following this social-curricular approach, reviewing the field points to the tendency to emphasize students’ beliefs, socio-cultural curricular perspectives, and socio-political considerations (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2009; Richmond et al., 2017), which are reflected, for example, in the well-known concepts of ‘funds of knowledge’ (González et al., 2005), ‘culturally relevant pedagogy’ (Ladson-Billings, 1994), and ‘culturally responsive teaching’ (Gay, 2010b). A common denominator across these cases is the recognition of contextual elements, particularly the need to enhance educators’ capabilities in supporting students’ identities, which are connected to their social and cultural backgrounds (González et al., 2005). This approach acknowledges and actively incorporates students’ and teachers’ social, communal, economical, and cultural contexts as integral to the teaching and learning processes, recognizing their direct connections to lived experiences. Such an inclusive pedagogical framework actively engages with and reflects upon students’ lived experiences, fostering a deeper understanding and a more meaningful learning process. It is particularly crucial to examine how educators from society’s hegemonic groups understand and relate to these dynamics. This examination reveals how these pedagogical approaches may facilitate a more empathetic learning environment, one that is responsive to and enriched by the diverse perspectives and experiences of all students, regardless of their backgrounds.

Hawkman (2020), who examined how white preservice teachers positioned themselves in relation to whiteness, offered a helpful metaphor to better understand this educational application – a swimming pool. In the shallow end, participants recognized the key issues but did not attempt to engage with them. In the middle, participants trod water, challenging their recognition of the issues but still unsure how to handle them. Finally, in the deep end, participants dove in and took responsibility for dealing with systematic racism. Expanding this metaphor, educational processes may be seen as an attempt to teach students and student-teachers to swim, moving from the shallow end to deep waters. However, as several scholars have already explained (Garrett & Segall, 2013; Hawkman, 2020; Jupp et al., 2016), racist and antiracist sentiments should not be seen as a simple binary. Instead, teachers and educators constantly position themselves concerning complex realities, reconsidering their personal and professional identities and sometimes even holding conflicting views simultaneously.

Among other aspects, this complexity raises resistance among future teachers and educators. Such resistance limits the ability to move around and explore the different parts of the pool. For example, Crowley and Smith (2015) identified key tensions reflecting white preservice teachers’ responses that aimed to avoid such topics. These included, for example, using individual terms instead of structural elements and the tendency to build on personal experiences to cancel such claims. Garrett and Segall (2013) offered to view ignorance towards such topics not just as an empty vessel that should be filled but rather as an active mode of resistance. Thus, they argue the need to lead educational processes that ‘do not simply see teacher educators as providers of missing information to awaken teacher candidates from their ignorant slumbers’ (p. 301). Most of these studies focused on personal aspects of identity that framed such resistance, offering in response mainly narrative-centred activities (Jupp et al., 2016). Thus, an identified gap in the literature relates to how pedagogical aspects and, more specifically, the enacted teaching practices also impact reactions to these topics.

Pedagogy

Laying a framework for comparative studies of pedagogy, Alexander (2001) offered to view this aspect of teaching as the ‘very core of the educational enterprise’ (p. 521). He defined pedagogy as:

The observable act of teaching together with its attendant discourse of educational theories, values, evidence, and justifications. It is what one needs to know, and the skills one needs to command, in order to make and justify the many different kinds of decisions of which teaching is constituted. (Alexander, 2009, p. 5)

This definition encompasses both practical and ideological stances. The practical stance asks about the tasks, activities, interactions, and judgements employed. The ideological stance asks about the ideas, values, and beliefs that influence and justify these acts of teaching. Answers to such questions may result in different approaches to teaching, demonstrating the connections between the practical and theoretical aspects of this field of study. Whatever the approach, Alexander pointed to how such pedagogical aspects reflected cultural, social, and political aspects that must be considered. D. K. Cohen (2011) also highlighted such contextual aspects of pedagogy as part of his discussion of instructional discourse. He defined instruction as a ‘socially organized means to extend and exchange knowledge’ (p. 131). This social approach to instruction emphasized organization and technology as factors influencing teachers’ and students’ participation.

This view of pedagogy aligns with Paulo Freire’s (1970) seminal work, challenging the traditional teacher-student dynamics while promoting a critical pedagogical approach that emphasizes dialogue, reflection, and the co-construction of knowledge. He argued that education should not be a mere transmission of knowledge from teacher to student but rather a collaborative process where both parties learn and grow. Freire’s perspective highlights the need to understand and challenge the power dynamics inherent in traditional educational settings, advocating for a reality in which students and teachers critically engage with content and context, fostering awareness and empowerment.

By incorporating these insights, it becomes evident how pedagogical approaches can reflect and respond to cultural, economical, social, and political contexts. This perspective enriches our understanding of the connections between pedagogy’s practical and theoretical aspects and underscores the importance of considering these broader societal factors in developing and applying educational methods.

In the context of multicultural education, pedagogical approaches acknowledge the need for students to engage with other cultures and are considered essential to developing intercultural sensitivity. Language socialization, cultural affirmation, and family encouragement are all elements to be considered in this regard, leading to the academic success of all students, regardless of their backgrounds (Jaime-Diaz & Ramos, 2023). Thus, multicultural pedagogy may be defined as the:

Aims, content, learning processes, teaching methods, syllabus and materials, and assessment – of which one purpose is to develop intercultural competence in learners of all ages in all types of education as a foundation for dialogue and living together. (Huber & Reynolds, 2014, p. 27)

Such teaching practices may include providing experience-based educational opportunities, comparing and analysing similarities and differences among different cultures, creating opportunities for reflection, and encouraging social action (Huber & Reynolds, 2014). In such cases, teachers act as curriculum-makers, framing their pedagogical choices based on their students’ lived experiences (Sleeter, 2016).

Theoretical framework: critical whiteness studies

In light of the scholarly discourses on these topics, Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) was chosen as the main theoretical framework to operationalize and analyse the findings since it presented itself as an appropriate lens for understanding the pedagogical resistance voiced by Jewish participants. Building on Applebaum (2016) and following Kim (2021), who skilfully demonstrated the utility of CWS as an analytical lens, I highlight how CWS is aimed foremost at raising awareness of the dominant systems of power that shape society, geared by the widespread norms and behaviours that are presented as neutral and objective. As shown by Cabrera (2018), through cultural, ideological, and discursive means, whiteness is seen as a force that operates not just through coercion but also through consent. Thus, the reinforcement of racial inequalities and biases is maintained in a manner that appears ‘normal,’ often going unquestioned. This presentation of whiteness as invisible invites studies that highlight how such whiteness benefits society’s hegemonic groups when, in fact, it is very much visible to society’s disadvantaged and marginalized groups.

In the following, I relate to the term whiteness as a social construct in which power and privilege are embedded. Expanding on Orozco’s (2019b) concept of ‘white innocence,’ it is crucial to understand how racial hierarchies are maintained through discursive practices in educational settings. Accordingly, I do not limit the understanding of whiteness to the racial categories that dominate the US discourse (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) but instead refer to the set of social, cultural, and political practices that reinforce the dominance of privileged people and maintain the hierarchy in this international case.

In her review of the connections between Critical Race Theory, whiteness, and teacher education, Sleeter (2017) demonstrated the use of three of this theory’s tenets as a conceptual lens for understanding how, despite efforts made, teacher education programmes mainly serve the needs of society’s stronger groups. By focusing on topics such as interest convergence, colour blindness, and experiential knowledge, she explained how topics of multiculturalism are raised only when they serve the interests of the hegemonic groups, thus being seen as a mode of tokenism to maintain the status quo. In such cases, teacher education programmes overlook the various definitions of quality teaching, failing to address all students’ needs.

Further studies that adopted CWS helped illuminate similar blind spots and offered future recommendations for improvement (Hawkman, 2020). Foremost, many cases have shown how diversity, multiculturalism, and antiracism were addressed in an isolated manner as part of individual courses or extra-curricular activities. Studies have shown that this approach marginalizes these topics and does not substantially impact students (Crowley & Smith, 2015; Fecho et al., 2005; Michael & Conger, 2009).

Second, a central identified challenge is narrowing such understandings to an individualistic form that remains at the personal level instead of acknowledging its deep structural and institutional foundations (Alcoff, 1998). Such an approach may incorrectly lead to the educational solution of changing one’s behaviour. In contrast, CWS illuminates how institutional, cultural, and individual practices contribute to maintaining privilege (Matias & Mackey, 2016). It is agreed upon that while individual behaviours can change, if structural aspects remain unchallenged, such change will have only minor effects (Hayes & Juárez, 2009).

A third blind spot points to the content being taught in such settings, questioning how learning certain types of knowledge, such as history and civics, overlooks social power relations (Sleeter & Zavala, 2020). Questioning the curriculum and what is perceived as a field’s canonical knowledge is an essential step towards disrupting given power structures (Aasebø & Willbergh, 2022; Banks, 1993).

To conclude these blind spots, educators must ask how to best engage students and foster classroom environments that challenge social inequalities and power dynamics (Leonardo, 2002). This requires addressing core issues like the epistemology of ignorance, hegemonic whiteness, and neoliberal racism (De Saxe, 2022). Additionally, adopting self-reflective methods enables educators to confront their own biases (Jaime-Diaz & Méndez-Negrete, 2021). Practical applications of these concepts are exemplified by Matias and Mackey (2016), who detail pedagogical strategies used in teaching white preservice teachers, including (1) adopting an emotional-based approach, (2) incorporating multiple texts that conveyed different meanings and counter-narratives, (3) implementations of self-reflection processes, guiding their students to better understand which pedagogical practices and teaching styles encouraged learning processes. In contrast, Orozco (2019a) highlighted how teachers’ tendency to avoid critical discussions about race, ethnicity, and immigration issues affects the emotional well-being of minority students.

Inspired by this approach that links CWS to pedagogy and the focus on less-successful teaching practices and strategies, in the following, I wish to expand the discussion to better understand how pedagogies inflame rather than mitigate hegemonic students’ resistance to multiculturalism. Following Hawkman’s (2020) swimming pool metaphor and building on studies illuminating the importance of understanding pedagogy in context (Knowles, 2018), this study aspires to understand how pedagogical considerations limited these Jewish students ability to move to the pool’s deeper end. As opposed to discussing specific content, this emphasis on practice was found useful when evaluating how societal power issues were put into play when relating to CWS in this non-US setting.

Methodology

As mentioned, the initial research question at the outset of this study aimed to explore the general perception of diversity and multiculturalism among Jewish and Arab-Palestinian education major undergraduate students enrolled in a course surrounding these topics. However, as the case unfolded, it became apparent that there were contrasting perspectives between these two distinct social groups. This realization necessitated refocusing the study, revising the primary research question, data analysis procedures, and literature and framework reviews. The new primary research question now explores how Israeli Jewish undergraduate students in education studies frame, present, and discuss multicultural issues, with a specific theoretical focus on identifying the societal factors contributing to their resistance to multiculturalism.

Background, sampling, and data collection

This case study (Stake, 1995) reflects what is methodologically known as less successful cases in which the potential to promote multiculturalism failed, and it analyses the reasons for these failures. Just as Gilead (2011) justified the interest in exploring vices in moral education based on the assumption that ‘having a clear image of vices as well as the virtues can greatly contribute to the ability to orient oneself in moral space’ (p. 280), such an exploration of unsuccessful cases may assist in orienting oneself in such educational processes.

The study followed the experiences of undergraduate students who majored in education and were enrolled in a course on multicultural education.² Given the limited number of courses on multiculturalism taught at the institution, this purposeful sampling strategy focused on students with a common foundation in the field of education, ensuring they shared the same basic intellectual interests. The course was designed around three main curricular components: theories about multiculturalism education taught in the class lectures, observations of a hands-on multicultural educational programme that brought Jewish and Arab-Palestinian high school students together, and self-reflection in light of the course’s content. To maintain ethical standards, a research assistant was hired to collect the data, including observations of classroom meetings, collection of written documents, and individual semi-structured interviews with a sample of students.³

Twenty-four students were registered for the course: 19 Jewish and five Arab-Palestinian. Data collection included: (1) Observations of all of the course’s 14 class meetings, lasting an hour and a half; (2) semi-structured interviews with a sample of five students – three Jewish (two men and one woman) and two Palestinian (women) – three times throughout the school year (beginning, middle, and end of the course); and (3) 30 student-generated written documents. These included a self-reflection assignment in which the students were asked to present their personal views on theories taught,⁴ as well as mid-term and final open course evaluations.

The selection sample of students for the interviews was based on considerations of representation, balance, and variety (Stake, 1995) and following their agreement to share their experiences.⁵ The majority of findings to be presented are derived from excerpts provided by three Jewish students, who are described as follows⁶:

1. Dana – a 23-year-old woman who identifies as affiliated with the national-religious sector, indicating that she is observant in her religious practices but socially liberal. She did not serve in the military but volunteered as a teacher for two years. She chose to study at the current university rather than institutions catering specifically to her religious and social background to interact with a diverse student population.

2. Ben – a man in his early 20s who grew up in an affluent secular suburb and was active in a popular youth group during his teenage years. After completing his military service, he participated in an educational programme as a student for six months. He chose to study at the current institution due to its reputable academic standing and proximity to his parents’ residence. He also works as a community youth organizer while pursuing his studies.

3. Dor – a 25-year-old secular man who was raised in an urban setting. His family immigrated to Israel from the US before he was born, and he was active in a popular youth group during his teenage years. He chose to study at the current institution with his partner, as both of them desired to study at this specific university, and he preferred combining education with leadership studies.

Data analysis

Following Creswell’s (2013) model of spiral data analysis, I used a four-stage process to analyse the data for content and themes and to generate theoretical insights (Saldana, 2009). First, following how a research assistant conducted the interviews and classroom observations due to ethical considerations, I read the interview transcriptions multiple times and organized all other data obtained to immerse myself in the details. In the second stage, I raised general questions and comments based on initial identified themes. Following the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the pedagogical resistance of the Jewish students emerged as a central topic, hinting at the pivotal role of race and their hegemonic status, which emerged as crucial criteria for further in-depth analysis. In the third stage, using the Atlas.ti software, I supplied categories for coding based on the generated data and memos that represented my reflections. With the help of a research assistant,⁷ we then conducted multiple rounds of coding and recoding to refine the codes and compile them under general categories.⁸ In this stage, codes pertaining to the general concepts of multicultural education were minimized. Concurrently, new codes focusing on race, hegemony, and resistance were introduced. This adjustment reflected a refined analytical approach, aligning more closely with the emerging themes and nuances in the data. In the fourth analysis stage, I interpreted the data based on the themes that emerged from the coding process.⁹ This analysis invited the use of the CWS lens, identified as the leading theory that could help explain the findings. As such, the following account will mainly include data taken from Jewish students who participated in the course, reflecting their perspectives as official members of the hegemonic group, as well as their personal subjective relations to the Arab-Palestinian minority group.¹⁰ During this analytical process, pedagogy and teaching practices emerged as key findings. Therefore, special attention will be given to the students’ relationship with these educational aspects of the course. Additionally, identifying key moments in the observations that highlighted these aspects will be examined.

Positionality

As an Ashkenazi Jewish man of European descent, I predominantly identify with the humanistic Jewish culture as it has evolved within the Israeli context. My cultural and national identity significantly influences my perspective and shapes the lens through which I view and conduct my research. In recognizing the privileges associated with my Ashkenazi heritage, I am aware of the complexities and diversity within the Jewish experience, particularly in relation to race (Sasson-Levy, 2013). This awareness is critical in a context where Ashkenazi Jews may hold significant social and cultural capital, potentially influencing access to opportunities and shaping interactions within varied Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

My academic alignment with critical traditions compels me to examine and expose power dynamics, especially in the realm of education. This commitment stems from a deep-seated aspiration to comprehend and illuminate unjust educational realities, hoping my research will contribute to positive change. In this endeavour, I am particularly cognizant of the nuanced interplay of privilege, power, and difference, not only within the broader Jewish experience but also in the specific context of Israeli nationalism. As part of Israel’s dominant Jewish secular cultural group, I draw upon my emic understanding of students’ experiences. However, I also recognize the potential bias and limitations this insider perspective can bring to my research. It is here that my critical academic training becomes indispensable, enabling me to maintain a vigilant, self-reflective stance. This approach is crucial for navigating the intersectionality of my identity – as an Israeli, an Ashkenazi Jew, and a man – and understanding how these identities intersect with and diverge from those of others.

Findings

The official course description, as listed in the university catalogue, outlined its primary objective: to acquaint students with the current academic discourse on multicultural education. The course was designed to offer hands-on activities, such as observations and self-reflection assignments, enabling students to critically engage with and understand the fundamental assumptions and concepts of the field. And indeed, a general review of the students’ anonymous final course evaluations revealed that they perceived the course as a well-balanced amalgamation of theory and practice. This blend was enriched with insightful observations, discussions, writing assignments, and practical experiences. Several students noted that the course effectively fostered critical thinking and reflection, contributing to their professional development.

Nevertheless, a more meticulous examination and in-depth analysis of the materials collected over the course of the year, with a particular focus on the data obtained from the Jewish students who participated in the course, suggests a different conclusion. This closer scrutiny indicates that, in this case, the course may be considered unsuccessful. These students largely remained in the pool’s shallow end, not acknowledging multiculturalism’s importance and relevance for their future roles as educators. I will first present quotes and vignettes that reflect this reality.¹¹ Acknowledging the national context of the study in Israel, it is essential to recognize the social stratification where Jews hold a hegemonic position, especially concerning non-Jewish communities (Bakan, 2014). So, to establish the claim that the participants’ hegemonic social status as Jews framed their resistance, I will also present several quotes from Arab-Palestinian students who demonstrated a different approach to the course’s focus on multiculturalism and multicultural education. Afterwards, I will present data explaining the Jewish students’ pedagogical resistance, highlighting how their view of the course’s teaching aspects prevented them from advancing to the deeper ends of the pool.

Conceptions of multiculturalism

During the interviews conducted throughout the year, students were asked to define multiculturalism and multicultural education and express their feelings towards these concepts. Their answers demonstrate how their participation in the course did not necessarily lead them to adopt a clear multicultural ideology. For example, in her first interview, Dana expressed her expectations of the course; she hoped it would ‘open [her] mind about how we think about the relation to the Arab society in Israel.’ In her second interview, which took place mid-course, she offered a slightly different approach: ‘I think that multicultural inter-personal encounters could be powerful and very opening; it does not mean anything from a political perspective.’ Despite her initial expectations, she offered a very individualistic and personal approach to multiculturalism at this stage in the course. In her third and final interview, she similarly defined multiculturalism while overlooking social and political aspects. At that stage, multiculturalism was, to her, ‘a meeting point, or the ability of different societies to exist in the same sphere.’

Similarly, in his third and final interview, which occurred towards the course’s end, Ben explained that each culture ‘has its place and the rights it deserves.’ In fact, Ben knew of the existence of multiple cultures and even hinted at their rights to exist. Nevertheless, he did not relate to the relationships between the different cultures or critical aspects of oppression. In his second interview, Dor related to this reality, explaining that ‘the existence of different cultures in the public sphere should be allowed, but this is not encouraged by the government. It is not that [their existence] is banned; it is just not encouraged.’ In this case, Dor overlooked institutionalized discrimination modes, thus ignoring any critical stance.

Several additional quotes gathered from the primary documents expressed how the course discouraged the students’ engagement in multicultural education. For example, one student’s¹² final course evaluation stated, ‘I am not sure if I became more optimistic about the effectiveness of multicultural education … My participation [in the course] made me question if this goal is even possible.’ Similarly, in his third interview, Ben described how he developed a negative view of multicultural education due to his participation in the course. He stated, ‘I used to believe in multicultural education, but I do not today. I just do not think that it works … The ways it is done are just awkward. It is just too bad to waste all of [the economic] resources on it.’ In his final interview, Dor also proclaimed that ‘following this course, I am not sure that educating toward multiculturalism or being active for this cause is even positive.’

Examining the views explicitly presented by the Arab-Palestinian students who participated in the course offers a mirror image, stressing how not all students necessarily shared the resistance to multiculturalism. The initial evidence of this phenomenon surfaced during a comprehensive analysis of codes associated with resistance when examined separately for two distinct groups. The Arab-Palestinian students articulated 32 quotes (18.5%) that conveyed similar sentiments, while the Jewish students were responsible for 141 (81.5%). This contrasting pattern was also reflected in the content of the interviews. For example, when asked to define multicultural education, Aseel, an Arab-Palestinian student, stated that it means:

Accepting the other, including [adopting specific] values, such as equality and acceptance. Even if there are things that you do not want to hear, you need to hear them … learn how to accept the negative things that someone says about your own society.

She continued to explain that ‘multiculturalism should mean a balance in the hegemony, that is something I do not see here [in the course] … do not bring one person who is weak vs. someone strong’. Yasmin expressed similar views that stressed the role of power relations between social groups as part of the multicultural approach. She explained that multicultural education ‘is not just having different cultures meet. We must work on their interactions’.

Furthermore, the Arab-Palestinian students were aware of multicultural education’s critical aspects and potential to create social change. One example was expressed by Aseel, who, while reflecting on the course, stated, ‘if the goal of the course was to learn how to observe critically, then yes, this was a nice course.’ She talked about the values she saw in this critical approach, stating that:

The value I see in this course is to create change. It is not just saying, ‘walla, we are all at the same place.’ … I really think that this course can lead to a change in power relations … it may lead to a change in society.

Pedagogical considerations

Following these findings that portrayed the Jewish students’ negative sentiments towards multiculturalism and multicultural education as the course ended, I re-evaluated the data collected throughout the year to understand what led to this disappointing outcome. Following CWS, I was interested in understanding how the Jewish participants’ hegemonic status limited them from swimming to the middle and deep ends of the pool. As stated, pedagogical aspects emerged from the findings as a key explanation. In the following section, I will detail three main pedagogical themes that were identified in this regard: (1) the course’s general context and framing, (2) the course’s curricular components, and (3) teaching methods.

Course context and framing

Despite the course’s attempt to promote a multicultural ideology, the geographical setting and academic context in which it was situated were far from encapsulating a clear multicultural ideology. This conceptual gap contributed to the students’ feelings that the course was merely a form of tokenism. Dana, for example, expressed this, stating that ‘in Jerusalem and the university, this thing [multiculturalism] is supposed to be natural. But I do not feel like this is happening … You can say that we [the Jewish students] are snobs, and you can say that they [the Arab-Palestinian students] tend to isolate themselves from the group.’ When asked, for example, about the assimilation of Arab-Palestinian students in the university, Ben answered, ‘It weighs on me, especially when I see what actually happens. And that makes me cynical. What is multiculturalism? It is all empty slogans that do not hold water.’ Dor explained this, stating, ‘the university has a certain ethos … I would be surprised to find real multiculturalism here.’

In direct relation to this context, the course’s academic framing was also considered an obstacle to promoting authentic multiculturalism. Dana, for example, expressed harsh feelings, stating, ‘You can talk about it [multiculturalism], learn theories about it, and teach it in the classroom, but unless you live it, and if you do not have the interpersonal relations, the meetings, then this multiculturalism is one big hypocrisy.’ In his interview, Ben stated bluntly, ‘You cannot teach a course on multiculturalism without being situated in a multicultural situation.’ Referring to the official language of instruction at the university, Ben continued, explaining, ‘We are not experiencing multiculturalism … we are experiencing a course taught in Hebrew, it is all in Hebrew; I was not challenged for one minute.’

The participants described multiculturalism being taught in this course as forced, artificial, and even harmful. Ben summarized this: ‘No one really leaves their comfort zone … so I do not believe something real can happen. We, as Jews, will always stay in our comfort zone and will not leave it … this is the situation.’

Curricular components

As mentioned, the course comprised three main curricular components: class discussions on theoretical texts and resources about multiculturalism and multicultural education, fieldwork that included observations on a local educational multicultural initiative, and a guided process of self-reflection in response to these experiences. As I will demonstrate, the students also criticized these three curricular components.

Discussions of theoretical resources

A common critique of multiculturalism and multicultural education theories taught was that they were detached from reality. Dana explained, ‘as part of the lessons, we deal with research and less with the content of multiculturalism.’ When speaking directly about ‘multiculturalism,’ Ben explained that he feels it is ‘a catchphrase; it is something that we learn about in academia, but in fact, it is only a slogan, a cliché, something that cannot happen so easily.’ In both cases, the students expressed how the lessons and theories lacked real-life applications.

Fieldwork

Reflecting on the fieldwork experiences, Dana said that ‘they were very artificial, and I felt as if we [the students] were outsiders; our presence in that situation harmed the natural flow of things. Our observations raised issues, but they were not good.’ In one observation of a course meeting, Yael, a Jewish student, expressed her frustration with the fieldwork, stating that the course instructor ‘sends us to conduct observations. They assume that we all love the conflict [between the Jewish and Arab-Palestinian populations], but nothing happened regarding the processes of multicultural education. I am not even sure why we want to promote it.’ The guiding curricular assumption was that this fieldwork would offer real-life examples of the theories they had been taught. Based on these quotes, it is clear that this process failed and that students encountered an educational reality that did not necessarily represent the course’s desired goals. In response to a question about the fieldwork, Dana explained, ‘To create multiculturalism, we do not need this multicultural education. What we need is interpersonal relations.’

Reflection

The final course meeting was dedicated to group reflection on the topics presented throughout the year. One aspect that emerged in this discussion was how the Jewish students viewed multiculturalism from their own personal stances. As part of this discussion, Naomi, a Jewish student, stated, ‘at the end, it is all a question of personal identity … it is all very personal’. Dana echoed this individualistic approach in her final interview, expressing her frustration, stating, ‘I felt as if there was a certain tendency we needed to obey, that we all embrace multiculturalism, but I disagree with this tone. I might be more conservative; I come from a different type of discourse.’ She continued this stance, criticizing what she portrayed as the university’s liberal discourse: ‘Studying this course encouraged me to voice the less liberal views – views that do not necessarily meet the university’s definitions of multiculturalism. Maybe we should talk about the reasons not to promote multiculturalism?’ This example demonstrates how this process of self-reflection remained individualistic, as reflected by Dana’s choice to distance herself from the course’s content and goals.

Teaching methods

The third pedagogical theme that the participants expressed highlighted their views on the course’s teaching methods. For example, in one class observation, Liron, a Jewish student, said, ‘all we do here [in the course] is learn. I do not get any training … from a pedagogical point of view, I am still incapable of teaching children’. In one interview, Dana also directly related to this aspect, stating, ‘If you want to create something shared, it has to be done through doing, the pedagogy needs to be smart, I feel as if the content is of less influence … the pedagogy is much more influential.’ She continued, explaining the difference between what she termed enabling and non-enabling pedagogies, pointing to the course as a reflection of the latter.

Ben also expressed his criticism towards how the course’s content was taught. He explained:

You cannot teach such a topic [multiculturalism] when sitting in rows. This is not the way! Everybody arrives, sits down, opens their laptops, minding their own business, and then suddenly – a discussion. I mean, it is not connected. We need to be sitting in a circle. That way, it would be a lot more open and more discussions. Since the course is more of a lecture and less collaborative, it does not exist. If we had more space to sit in a circle, listen to one another, and discuss, we might have made a more substantial connection.

He suggested enacting a more social model of pedagogy; he explained, ‘Even a more social approach to teaching can relate to multiculturalism, that forces us to meet with the other … have us sit in circles, listen to one another, and discuss.’ In conclusion, the Jewish students who participated in the course expressed despair regarding multicultural education. Based on the findings, one central explanation for this limitation points to how they perceived the course’s pedagogical aspects as insufficient, blocking them from advancing to the deeper end of the pool. Given that the course’s pedagogical practices were not fundamentally critical – not directly tackling social or political issues – it was perceived by the students as detached from reality. This detachment extended to overlooking the relevant social and political issues within the classroom, university, and broader local and national contexts. As a result, these students saw the course as artificial. Thus, it is unsurprising that they felt that the course did not prepare them properly when thinking about their futures as educators who act in society.

Discussion – pedagogical resistance as white resistance

As demonstrated in the literature, prompting sentiments of multiculturalism and antiracism among future educators who belong to society’s hegemonic groups is challenging, even in cases that purposely choose these ideals as their stated goals (Ari & Laron, 2014). As summarized by Hawkman (2020), ‘embracing and embodying antiracism within the swimming pool of whiteness is a difficult endeavor’ (p. 422). Such challenges are, of course, linked to specific personal and social contexts. In this case, the identified resistance of the Jewish students is influenced by the country’s unique social and political realities, characterized by social stratification rooted in racial relations (Bakan, 2014). These findings highlight how the Jewish students rely on pedagogical justifications to resist certain educational objectives, thereby preserving their privileged racial status (Rubin, 2020). In fact, this pedagogical approach subtly supports existing racial hierarchies within the educational context.

The phenomenon of resistance to these topics based on a personal stance, as mentioned in the academic discourse (Garrett & Segall, 2013), is not to be overlooked. Subsequently, this study stresses how these topics are taught in addition to what is taught, highlighting pedagogical considerations in addition to the content itself. Thus, as revealed in this case, enacting a critical pedagogical approach that emphasizes dialogue, reflection, and the co-construction of knowledge (Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2000) may play a vital role in enabling future educators to relate to such issues, potentially mitigating resistance and opening pathways to the deeper end of the pool.

Interestingly, the Jewish students who participated in this study did not express resistance to the content of multiculturalism as presented in this academic course. In fact, as demonstrated in the quotes gathered at the course’s beginning stages, the general tone of their statements hinted at a sympathetic approach towards the goals of multicultural education. This sentiment was consistent with the course’s stated goals. That said, as the course continued, they mainly highlighted their frustration with how this topic was framed, presented, and discussed in class, leading them to abandon this educational goal. Thus, the themes that emerged from the findings portray a mode of pedagogical resistance to multiculturalism and multicultural education, which emerged as an unexpected outcome of the study.

This mode of pedagogical resistance allowed participants from Israel’s Jewish hegemonic group to support multiculturalism seemingly. However, using the CWS lens, a more intricate picture emerges, showing how these students inadvertently uphold the social hierarchy. By critiquing methodology rather than content (the how and not the what), they sidestepped foundational questions about institutional and deeply ingrained cultural racism in Israel (Ben-Eliezer, 2008; Herzog et al., 2008). Specifically, their critiques can be characterized as individualistic, focusing solely on their personal experiences while overlooking the complex social reality. This pedagogical critique, which focused on their own personal experiences in the course, enabled them to highlight multiculturalism’s ‘safe’ aspects that did not threaten their hegemonic social status. This discourse of consent, regarding what may be seen merely as the course’s technical aspects, allowed the reinforcement of racial inequalities to persist in a manner perceived as ‘normal’ and often unchallenged (Cabrera, 2018). The pedagogical concerns expressed by the participants did not necessarily serve educational purposes but rather the preservation of the hegemonic group’s superior status.

For example, the participants’ resistance was aimed at the fact that the course failed to serve their needs as individuals belonging to the hegemonic group. This resistance is best understood when considering how the needs of the Palestinian students who studied with them were marginal in their critiques. Furthermore, the participants portrayed pedagogical considerations and classroom teaching methods as neutral or colorblind, ignoring how such practices are rooted in specific cultures (Beech, 2020). This preference for focusing on technical aspects as a mode of resistance is significant. In this context, where minority students’ perspectives were marginalized, CWS offers a crucial perspective, helping understand how the enacted teaching practices and the Jewish students’ reactions to them restricted the role of pedagogy in addressing and seeking to amend unjust social realities.

Conclusions – theorizing pedagogy and pedagogizing theory

One major conclusion emerging from this study is how pedagogy and teaching practices must be better articulated and defined when considering education as a social arena in which multicultural education evolves into antiracist education (King & Chandler, 2016). To this end, I wish to offer the following thought-provoking sequence – theorizing pedagogy and pedagogizing theory. First, practitioners, teachers, teacher educators, and higher education instructors must consider the contextual aspects of their pedagogical practices (Alexander, 2009), particularly how such pedagogical choices may enable or limit their students’ personal and professional development based on their social and political positionality. In this case, the Jewish students did not oppose multiculturalism as a topic. Nevertheless, how these topics were presented throughout the course raised their resistance. In other words, following the approach that views pedagogy from a social perspective, there is a need to theorize pedagogy and the enacted teaching from an abstract perspective.

Following this notion of pedagogicalzing theory, I also relate to theoretical thinking in itself as a mode of pedagogy. It may be seen as a critical teaching practice that can be used in this regard. As presented in this case, having students observe specific multicultural initiatives is insufficient since it does not invite them to hold a holistic understanding of the contextual social reality they view. Educators must help students see beyond a specific case and identify abstract ideas and the forces at play. Understanding power relations, for example, is a good example of a theoretical idea that can be observed, dissected, and fully understood from a philosophical, not just practical, perspective.

Following such a sequence – theorizing the pedagogical choices in enacted classroom practice and using theorization as a pedagogical tool – may assist in leading students from hegemonic groups to think and rethink their own positional and societal roles. Educators can impact students’ beliefs, socio-cultural curricular perspectives, and socio-political considerations by emphasizing the role of pedagogy, as expressed in the main themes that emerged from this study. Dealing with such issues as social justice, equity, and critical understandings of power relations highlights the importance of linking what goes on in the classroom to students’ lived experiences while considering social, communal, and cultural contexts. As this study showed, it is the combination of content with pedagogy that will enable such understanding.

To demonstrate this approach, we may now reconsider, from a CWS theoretical perspective, recommendations that relate to the three main pedagogical obstacles identified in this study. First, the context of the educational experience must be acknowledged. Since no educational process happens in a void, a critical examination of existing inequalities in a university or school setting should be considered, forging the connections between social content and the lived experiences of all students. Second, reconsidering how a course’s content is taught stresses the need to offer a more engaging pedagogical approach that moves beyond the simplistic transmission of knowledge. A crucial pedagogical example is highlighting personal connections by making the content relevant to students’ lives. Furthermore, teaching practices should offer opportunities for students’ authentic engagement. For example, discussions of controversial topics may encourage meaningful interactions instead of didactic lectures.

From the global academic discourse perspective, the emphasis on pedagogical practices invites the expansion of discussions on CWS. The shift from specific content rooted in the U.S. experience to the universal topic of classroom practice is an important step. International readers may not always be able to sympathize with content bound to a local context. However, discrimination based on social power relations is a global phenomenon (Casey, 2021). As Matias (2022) recently explained, ‘The point is many groups – be they defined by race, culture, sexuality, gender, etc. – experience the dehumanizing, deleterious, and terrorizing effects of Whiteness and White supremacy’ (p. 699). Highlighting this unsuccessful case sheds light on how pedagogical choices in other scenarios might effectively prepare students to contribute to a more just society. Thus, this topic is highly relevant and relatable for educators globally, emphasizing the importance of enacted teaching practices and strategies that directly address issues of whiteness and actively promote social justice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2024.2338975.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the The Center for the Study of Multiculturalism and Diversity, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Notes on contributors

Aviv Cohen

Aviv Cohen is an Associate Professor at the Seymour Fox School of Education of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. He serves as the Co-Head of the Undergraduate Program in Educational and Social Leadership. His research focuses on democratic civic education, multicultural education, teacher education, and the use of qualitative methods in educational research.

Notes

1. Discussions pertaining to such matters within the Jewish population, for example between the Ashkenazi Jews hailing from European countries and Mizrahi Jews from north African and Middle Eastern countries, are beyond the scope of this study, which centred on multiculturalism as it manifests in the interactions between the Jewish and Arab-Palestinian students.

2. No further information about this course is to be revealed so that the participants’ details will not be exposed.

3. I wish to thank [deleted for peer review] who served as the research assistant in this stage of the study.

4. See Supplemental Material B – Self-reflection assignment instructions.

5. See Supplemental Material A – Interview protocol.

6. Note that all of the names to be used are pseudonyms.

7. I wish to thank [deleted for peer review] who served as the research assistant in this stage of the study.

8. See Supplemental Material C – Sample list of codes and categories for data analysis.

9. See Supplemental Material D – Sample quotes complied as part of the comparison matrix.

10. Forthcoming publications will examine the perspectives of Arab-Palestinian students who participated in this course, situating their experiences within the current scholarly discourse (Halabi, 2023).

11. These were translated to from Hebrew to English by the author, while making light editing corrections for improved fluency and readability.

12. Since these evaluations were anonymous, I cannot determine if this was written by a Jewish or Arab-Palestinian student.