Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

56 

 
Toward a Brilliant Diversity 
Chrystal S Johnson* 
Purdue University  
 

Harvey Hinton 
 
 
 
*Corresponding Author: johnsocs@purdue.edu 
Received : 2018-12-29 
Accepted : 2019-04-29 
 

 

How to cite this paper: Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. (2019). Toward a Brilliant Diversity, Journal of Culture and Values in Education, Volume 
2 (1), 56-70. 
 

 
Abstract 
 
This essay puts forward a theoretical argument in support of culturally consonant character 
education. Character education supports the moral and civic development of youth in the 
United States (US), its popularity continues with policymakers, parents, and educators; in fact, 
18 states codify character education legislation. Members of majority groups often are 
unmindful of the significance and scope of cultural distinctiveness in the lives of minority 
individuals. Rather, majority group members consciously or unconsciously advocate 
assimilation and adherence to universal virtues, particularly in the field of character education. 
Cultural-historical conditions, as dimensions of the moral development process, tone the 
agency and negotiation of character education. To that end, this essay employs Charles Mills’ 
The Racial Contract (1998) to not only account for the moralities of exclusion, but put forward 
a character education philosophy that accounts for cultural distinctiveness 
 
Keywords: Culturally Consonant Character Education, Racial Contract, White Supermacy 
 
 
Introduction 
 
This aim of this essay is to put forward a theoretical argument in support of culturally consonant 
character education. Character education supports the moral and civic development of youth 
in the United States (US), its popularity continues with all stakeholders; as a matter of fact, 18 
states legislate character education. An extra 18 states endorse the usefulness of character 
education in schools and communities, and 7 states support character education without an 
official statute (Johnson, 2011; Johnson & Hinton, 2018).  Current research authenticates 
assertions that character education programs boost positive youth development (e.g. Duer, 
Parisi, & Valintis, 2002; Osler & Hinton, 2015; Bohning et al. 1998; Skaggs and Bodenhorn, 2006). 
Duer, Parisi, and Valintis (2002) indicated that a character education program significantly 
reduced negative school behaviors such as insubordination, fighting, and truancy. Hinton and 
Osler (2015) reported increases in civic engagement due to a culturally consonant, sport 
infused character education program. Survey findings from Skaggs and Bodenhorn’s (2006) 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

57 

longitudinal study pinpointed to observable improvement in character-related behavior. Even 
though the literature abounds with the documented success of character education, many of 
today’s character programs propound a culturally bounded interpretation of character theory 
and practice formed from a racial polity that color-coded morality (Johnson & Hinton, 2018; 
Mills, 1998).  
 
The cultural plurality of the United States (US) is repeatedly flaunted as a strength (Johnson & 
Hinton, 2018; see also Ford, 2014). Within that plurality, cultural positions between majority 
and minority groups are idiosyncratic. Prosperity, contentment, and empowerment of minority 
group members may pivot on their perception of autonomy to experience their cultural 
distinctiveness unswervingly in their lives (Baerveldt & Voestermans, 2005; Demuijnck, 2015; 
Johnson & Hinton 2018). Majoritarian group members often are unmindful of the significance 
and scope of cultural distinctiveness in the lives of minority individuals. Rather, majority group 
members consciously or unconsciously advocate assimilation and adherence to universal 
virtues, especially in the field of character education (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). Cultural-
historical conditions, as dimensions of the moral development process, tone the agency and 
discussion of character education (Green, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Siddle-Walker &Snarey, 2004). 
Nowhere is this more evident than in the US where race and racism have structured economic, 
socio-moral, and political principles (Mills, 1998). As the United States moves towards a brilliant 
diversity, the necessity to introduce culturally consonant character education practice seems 
evident (Johnson & Hinton, 2018).  
 
To that end, this essay employs Charles Mills’ The Racial Contract (1998) to not only account 
for the moralities of exclusion, but put forward a character education philosophy that accounts 
for cultural distinctiveness. Mills (1998) contends the racial contract normed a moral contract 
(the foundation of moral behavior) that actualized a specific moral language and moral 
psychology were generated.  This racial contract, then, gave rise to assumptions that 
majoritarian philosophical structures frame all cultures at all times (emphasis added). We argue, 
however, that these principles of vision and division privileged some over others by establishing 
a dominant culture which created a moral language used for coding the character education 
process.  
 
Like Mills, we suppose that the existence and structure of white supremacy imposes a character 
theory and practice that relegates the cultural distinctiveness of non-whites to a point of 
immorality. This leads us to discard character education approaches grounded in virtue ethics, 
deontology, and utilitarianism that eschew cultural diversities in the character development 
practice (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). We contest those character education theorists who argue 
that context dependent character is implausible counter to morality, character, and character 
education in a pluralistic society.  To dismiss culture, principally race, from the character 
education process prompts cultural gulfs.  Cultural gulfs illustrate the distinctions that transpire 
among minority and majority group members in their awareness of belonging and their sense 
of freedom to voice cultural distinctiveness (Johnson & Hinton, 2018).  Cultural gulfs may 
minimize minority youth’s capacity to advance those habits of mind and heart required of 
citizens in a democratic society.  Emergent literature on diversity and character education 
depict culture and race assine qua non to the character education process.  Baldwin professed 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

58 

it “is to history that we owe our frames of references, our identities, and our aspirations” (1998, 
20). For non-majoritarian cultures in the US, their characteristic soul and historical narrative 
shade a distinctive character outlook that methodically confronts the validity and practicality 
of traditional, majoritarian character education programs.  
 
The article is divided into five sections. In the first, we use Mills’ The Racial Contract to address 
the influence of white majoritarian culture on the establishment of Western morality, character, 
and character education. This will include a description of Mills’ racial contract and how the 
racial contract fashioned a moral contract, whereby to be white is to simultaneously exist as 
part of the white race and honorable and square-dealing (Johnson, 2011; Johnson & Hinton, 
2014, 2018). In the second, we describe the relationship between morality, character, and 
character education. We include a brief outline of the history of character education in the US 
with a discussion on how race and racism fostered a morality of exclusion when it came to 
character education and research. From there, we explain the role of culture in the character 
development process before outlining how a majority culture conceives of and puts forward 
traditional, culturally devoid   perspectives on character education. We conclude with how 
minority cultures can foster cultural distinctiveness in the character development process by 
outlining a culturally consonant approach to character education.   
 
The Racial Contract 
 
Mills (1998) defines the racial contract as a domination or exclusionary contract that 
conceptualizes the reality of white supremacy. It operates as a series of contracts between 
whites to classify non-whites into a subordinate moral and legal position comparative to whites. 
Nonwhites, and their culture, are the objects rather than the subjects of the contracts (Mills, 
1998). Mills argues that “Since it is a contract of group domination, it is holistic, anti-atomistic 
in nature, being explicitly predicated on human collectivities, dominating and dominated” 
(1998, p 21). The racial contract establishes racial policies which privileges whites over others. 
More important, all whites profit from the agreement, although they may not have specified 
approval. The racial polity is a system which not only privileges whites, but political power is in 
the hands of whites, for their collective benefit. It, then, functions as a global conception 
impacting the socio-economic, political, cultural, moral, ideational, and juridical spheres 
(McPhail, 2004).  
 
Dissimilar from the social contract idealized in Western philosophy. The racial contract brings 
into relief ideological assumptions and conditions that confined race relations since the 1400s 
(McPhail, 2004). Mills (1998) describes the racial contract as an ideological predisposition that 
informs the beliefs that people of European descent have developed about themselves and 
others, and the behaviors in which they have engaged as a result of those beliefs. Unlike the 
idealized “social contract” that accounts for racism either as abstraction or anomaly, the racial 
contract assumes “that racism is the norm and that people think of themselves as raced rather 
than abstract citizens, which any objective history will in fact show” (1998, p. 24; see also 
McPhail, 2004; Johnson, 2011).  
 
Five main components structure the racial contract.  



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

59 

1. To subject contractarianism to an ideological critique and expose the racist 
presuppositions of contract theorists from Thomas Hobbes through John 
Rawls. 

2. To identity the origins of white supremacy as a political system in a Racial 
Contract between whites against non-whites.  

3. An argument to show that being white encompasses white privilege, that is, 
material and psychological benefits.  

4. To show that race is a social construction fashioned for the intention of 
political rule over non-whites. 

5. The only historically viable answer to white supremacy is liberal democratic 
capitalism. 
 

At first sight, racial contract theory embodies a philosophical commentary of contractarianism. 
Contractarianism stems from the Hobbesian line of social contract thought, holds that persons 
are primarily self-interested, and that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining 
the maximization of their self-interest will lead them to act morally.  Contractarianism 
represents that foundation for racial contract theory. It serves as a contradiction between 
ideological functions and objectively rendered ideological practices that shape majoritarian 
culture (McPhail, 2004; Mills, 1998).  
 
The racial contract, then, created a moral contract, whereby to be white is to simultaneously 
exist as part of the white race and honorable and square-dealing (Johnson, 2011; Johnson & 
Hinton, 2016). This moral contract assumes an ethic of dualism in contrast to equality. It is the 
ethical justification for a partitioned social ontology divided between persons who are white 
and nonpersons who are racial and nonwhite. Consequently, the racial contract operating 
through the racial polity has negative implications for provinces of Black life—constitutional 
status, racial identity, political inclusion, moral standing, and appealing value. With the 
formation of a racial polity, “the color-coded morality of the racial contract restricts the 
possession of this natural freedom and equality to white men” (Mills, p 54). 
 
Mills offers an explanation for the origins of the moralities of exclusion by using an alternative 
conception of contractarianism which explains the formation of white supremacy and how its 
structures liberal democratic politics. Consequently, virtues such as freedom, equality, and 
responsibility have been theorized and reified in radically different ways by whites and non-
whites (McPhail, 2004; Mills, 1998). Such racialized moral development perpetuated moralities 
of exclusion. These moralities of exclusion structured the range and type of character 
development. Moralities of exclusion stand as a psychological method where majority group 
members regard their own group and its customs as superior, thus diminishing, ostracizing, and 
even degrading particular groups (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). Here, the categorization of non-
whites on the moral margins produced a conspicuous otherness between virtuous and 
depraved, leading to the segregation of those who were deleteriously distinguished from the 
moral community (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). Mills (1998) claims that such segregation is 
innately and overtly correlated with race and racism, which has reliably dominated the cultural-
historical landscape of American society.   
 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

60 

Morality, Character and Character Education 
 
Morality concerns right or wrong and distinguishes good from bad behavior. It relies on virtuous 
behavior demonstrating high moral standards. Good character stands as virtuous behavior 
(Johnson, 2007). Character stimulates accountability. It is responsible for determination though 
obstacles might be present. Character constrains desires and structures the internal law that 
governs our mind and heart.  A person’s character includes sentiments of righteousness, justice, 
care, compassion, remorse, shame and well-being—all virtues. As behavioral tendencies and 
dispositions, virtues are habits one develops by consistently choosing and acting on the good 
(Baumrind, 2005). 
 
What is character education, then? Milson and Mehlig (2002), described character education 
as expanding an understanding, responsibility, and propensity to function in line with ethical 
values. We define character education as a distinctive content along with an array of civic and 
moral virtues learned in an effort to augment positive qualities in youth (Johnson 2008; Johnson 
& Hinton, 2018). It is a societally relevant activity produced in schools, homes, and communities. 
In these contexts, character education seeks to prepare youth to act and respond ethically. 
Character educators attempt to promote a setting favorable to the growth of moral habits in 
youth. Habits acclimate the mind and ensue particular patterns of conduct that are 
strengthened by repetition (Baumind, 2005).  
 
A Brief History of Character Education in the US 
 
Historically, character education has encompassed an essential element in US society 
(Berkowitz & Bier 2004; Hunter 2000; Johnson & Hinton, 2018; McClellan 1999); shifting social, 
political, and economic ideas refashioned character education dialogue and custom over time 
(Johnson, 2008). Originally focus on the indoctrination of Christian values, character education 
progressed into a more secular-based method (Johnson 2008; Johnson & Hinton, 2018).  
 
Character education in the Colonial Period and Early Republic 
 
The colonial period witnessed a moral bent toward character education where Christianity was 
used to uphold religious orthodoxy, encourage social harmony, and encourage hard work. 
(Johnson, 2008; Laud 1997; McClellan 1999). Colonial families employed family devotions, 
reading, and writing to inculcate a Protestant moral creed (Hunter 2000; McClellan 1999).  We 
noted in an earlier work that John Locke’s 1693 essay, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 
directed parents to mold their children in line with such virtues as piety, loyalty, industry, and 
temperance (2018). In 1723, the General Assembly of Maryland authorized “the liberal and 
pious education of the youth of this province” (Hunter 2000, 37).  
 
The relative stability of the early republic allowed parents and civil authorities to expand faith 
in “the corrective and educative powers of community life” (McClellan 1999, 10). Communities 
served to morally teach children. The colonial period cherished the mother’s role as chief moral 
teacher (Johnson & Hinton, 2018; Norton1996). Early 19th century American society counted 
upon public, religious, and private schools to support moral education.  The advent of public 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

61 

schools allowed moral education to become embedded in classrooms and textbooks, where 
puritanical values such as honesty, hard work, godliness, thriftiness duty to parents were 
espoused (McClellan 1999). 
 
Progressive values 
 
Urbanization, industrialization, and immigration swiftly altered the social, political, and 
economic arrangements of early 20th century communities (Hunter 2000; Johnson & Hinton, 
2018). Public schools turned towards new, progressive character development programs that 
incorporated citizenship education (Johnson 2008). Hunter (2000) stated that teachers 
“insisted that the institutions of democracy and capitalism carried important moral influence 
too” (p. 60). Concepts such as consent of the governed, justice, and individual liberty were 
revered in mainstream American society. Corresponding concepts influenced competing 
perspectives of moral education, traditional versus developmental (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & 
Hinton, 2018).  
 
The traditional perspective sought to reinforce the values of the nineteenth century as a 
method for confronting the socio economic and socio political challenges of period.  In a prior 
piece, we noted that “Those who supported this practice sought a central place in public 
schools for teaching specific virtues and cultivating traits of good character” (Johnson & Hinton, 
2018, p. 103). Contrarily, the developmental method diminished teaching explicit moral tenets 
and promoting special characteristics. This type accentuated a more malleable method on 
morality “that would meet the evolving needs of an ever-changing order” (McClellan 1999, 48).  
This method received substantial interest beginning in the mid-1920s. By the 1930s, the 
Character Education Committee of the National Education’s Department of Superintendence 
supported a moral education where relativity “must replace absolutism in the realm of morals 
as well as in the sphere of physics and biology” (McClellan 1999, 56). Traditional character 
education, however, overshadowed classroom practice (Johnson 2008). 
 
Clarifying values: A shift towards value neutrality 
 
Two Supreme Court decisions, The Engle v. Vitale and Abingdon v. Schempp, forced public 
schools to take a value neutral position on issues of morality (Hunter, 2000). Numerous public 
schools ditched formal character education due to constitutional fears and mounting cultural 
and religious diversity (Johnson & Hinton, 2018; Vessels 1998). Moral reasoning and values 
clarification influenced character education approaches after 1963. In their text Values and 
Teaching, Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966) indicated values clarification as “the reigning 
fashion in moral education” (Hunter 2000, 74). The authors combined Dewey’s moral growth 
theory with Rogers’ client centered therapeutic intervention model to assemble a method that 
allowed youth to formulate their values by following a seven-step process (Johnson 2008). 
Consequently, this process compelled educators to suppress their own beliefs while cultivating 
students’ values (Johnson & Hinton, 2018; Leming 1997).  
 
 
 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

62 

 
A virtue-centered movement and the move towards performance character 
 
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, some character educators endorsed a virtue-oriented 
approach. This approach varied from previous character approaches that focused on moral 
relativism and values clarification (Johnson 2008); in fact, a considerable number of character 
educationists deemed moral reasoning and values clarification methods as abandoning core 
Democratic (Glanzer & Milson 2006). These educators recommended school leaders’ connect 
with their communities to advance an inventory of character traits to guide community 
oriented character education programs. Prevalent methods concentrated on teacher role 
modeling and exhortations, reading stories of virtue and vice, and the acknowledgement of 
students who exemplified particular character traits (Johnson & Hinton, 2018; Johnson 2008).   
As the US approached the 21st Century, character educationists promoted the idea assisting 
students learn to “do their best” in addition to “be their best” (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). 
Curriculum standardization and accountability measures drove researchers and theorists to 
concentrate on character traits associated with success in K-12 schooling. Such an approach to 
character education was christened performance character and complemented the traditional 
attention on moral character stressed in earlier periods (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). 
 
The previous century has seen character education vacillate in place and priority in the school 
curriculum (Johnson, 2008).   Yet, educators, researchers, and policymakers continue to 
promote character education in schools. Nodding’s avows ‘‘the greatest obligation of educators 
inside and outside formal schooling is to nurture the ethical ideals of those with whom they 
come in contact’’ (1984, 49). Even though character development remains popular, questions 
linger regarding why traditional character development programs and research lack attention 
to cultural and linguistic diversity (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). Research points out that traditional 
character development programs are entrenched in a racialized moral psychology that 
propagates moralities of exclusion (Johnson 2011; Johnson & Hinton, 2018; Siddle-Walker & 
Snarey 2004); race and racism spawned philosophies that enunciated a sidelining and a 
dismissal of a broad moral sphere that values diverse cultural identities (Johnson 2008). 
Accordingly, traditional character development methods are constructed on this racialized 
moral psychology.  Particular “individuals or groups are perceived as outside the boundary in 
which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply” (Opotow 1990, 3). Traditional 
character practices abandon the morally positioned “double consciousness” that exemplifies 
minority racial/ethnic groups in the US. For this article, we delineate morally positioned double 
consciousness as applying dominant moral values and theories to on ones-self (Johnson & 
Hinton, 2018). 
 
As presented in the previous section, character education movements situate their approaches 
and understanding of virtue in conflicting political philosophies that place liberals against 
conservatives in culture wars. As stated, the character education movement gravitates toward 
a traditionalist perspective of education where knowledge is transmitted (Baumind, 2005). 
Educators, then are critical to fortifying virtuous habits of good character. On the other hand, 
Baumind (2005) suggest that the character education movement leans more progressive or 
liberal as it rejects direct character teaching. This approach supports the position that a school’s 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

63 

moral environment and how educators concern for children enhance cognitive and moral 
development. The Kohlbergian tradition follows this outlook. The Kohlbergian tradition is 
constructivist in nature as it emphasizes cognition and Socratic instruction. With the 
conservative character education movement, the Aristotelian is encouraged. Moral habits of 
obedience, loyalty, and diligence are inculcated via extrinsic motivation, encouragement, and 
execution of rules (Baumind, 2005). The virtues cherished most by this approach encourage 
orderliness and the status quo.  Despite the interplay between morality, character, and 
character education, the racial contract, which gave rise and prominence to the Western moral 
philosophical tradition, structure moralities that impacted the cultural foundation of schools 
and communities, thus denying the cultural distinctiveness of non-whites to integrate into the 
character education process in the US.  
 
The Moralities of Exclusion, Schooling, and Character Education 
 
The moralities of exclusion organized education in the US, including the range and type of 
character development. Psychological process where majority group members view their own 
group as superior, moralities of exclusions positions minority group members as   unsuitable of 
moral rights and protections. Non-whites, then, inhabit the moral margins of otherness 
(Johnson & Hinton, 2018).  Mills (1998) contends that such exclusion is linked to race and racism, 
which has consistently dominated the cultural-historical domain of American schooling. 
Historically, African Americans were deprived of schooling by dominant society, whether it was 
masters in slave society, or by public authority in the society of free Blacks in the North and 
South. Exclusion forced African Americans to fight relentlessly for an equal education in a non-
segregated setting (Johnson & Hinton, 2018).   
 
The weight of moralities of exclusion likewise impacted the Latino population. Public schools, 
too, were unfriendly to Spanish-speaking citizens, with the presence of Mexican Americans in 
the schools begrudged. Language differences were converted into learning handicaps. 
Parochial schools neglected to safeguard Spanish culture and language. Consequently, not all 
Puerto Ricans nor Mexican-Americans could seek Catholic schools as a means for defending 
their culture and language. The Church represented an upper-class organization with trivial 
regard for the socio-cultural interests of the people. Polish immigrants in Buffalo or Chicago 
sent their children to Polish-language church schools; however, no such choice existed for 
Spanish-speaking minorities. For the indigenous culture, schools, both federal and local, 
thoroughly barred indigenous curriculum. Even on the Navajo Reservation, where indigenous 
children attended schools, —a fraction of the teachers were indigenous, and the curriculum 
was culturally alienated from the students (Johnson 2011; Johnson & Hinton 2018; Weinberg 
1977). 
 
The morality of exclusion, too, characterized the breadth and nature of character education in 
the US.  Character education was frequently outlined as a reaction to particular values 
accentuated in a particular milieu, mirroring the generally putative traits of good character and 
responsible citizenship infused in Western tradition (Johnson 2008; Johnson & Hinton, 2018). 
Traditionally, character education in the US assumed a White, middle class, heterosexual stance. 
Puritanical beliefs such as thriftiness, patriotism, hard work were embedded into character 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

64 

education discourses and programs. Colonial settlement of the US gave way to an ideology that 
removed the moral belief structures of non-whites (Johnson & Hinton 2018). This reasoning 
created “the other”, who would be recognized as operating beyond the periphery where moral 
values apply (Mills 1998).  
 
Nevertheless, some racial minorities decided to culturally appropriate majoritarian character 
development practices as a method for contesting racial typecasts (Bair, 2009).  Mary McCloud 
Bethune and Nannie Helen Burroughs approached character development by accentuating 
innocence, modesty, piety, purity, and domesticity-- deemed the ideal. These African American 
women character educationists acknowledged that a path to racial uplift was to make the 
design of inferiority defenseless and to confront the stereotypes by which African Americans, 
in particularly women were described. In this apartheid, racist environment Bethune and 
Burroughs articulated character in terms of decorum respectable conduct than as a core moral 
compass (Bair 2009; Johnson & Hinton 2018). 
 
Culture and the Character Development Process 
 
Does character development adhere to universal or culture-specific rules? According to Snarey 
and Siddle-Walker (2004), moral theorists and character educationists fail to account for or 
demonstrate interest in cultural diversities in morality. Aware of varied moral conduct in 
different societies, both Plato (1984) and Kant (1789/1965), for example, recommended 
collective ethical beliefs regarding virtue and rationality (Guerra & Giner-Sorolla 2010). 
Universalists, advocate a lone authentic moral sphere concerned with justice and rights, 
prevalent in where (Bhatia, 2000; Miller, 2001) all cultures (Guerra & Giner-Sorolla 2010; 
Kohlberg, 1981; Piaget, 1977).  
 
Cultural relativists, however, suggest that moral norms are culturally and historically embedded 
(Baumrind, 2005). Such methods acknowledge the likelihood of moral universals but 
accentuate the cultural-historical quality of moral philosophies such as interpersonal 
associations and religious norms (Guerra & Giner-Sorolla 2010Miller, 2001). Miller and Bersoff 
(1992) indicated that cultural values envisage moral reasoning and judgment  
 
Character Devoid of Culture and Race: Majoritarian Perspectives 
 
We have established how the racial contract established a moral convention with specific 
language and codes that deemed non-whites as inferior and morally bankrupt. The racial 
contract normed white, majoritarian perspectives on character and character education. 
Though there are numerous majoritarian perspectives that advance character and character 
development devoid of culture and race, we will focus on the more notable of these—virtue 
ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. Each of these perspectives are rooted in Western 
philosophical traditions. Virtue ethics dates as far as Ancient Greek philosophy. When 
Kantianism and utilitarianism dominated the moral philosophical debated in the 19th and 20th 
centuries, virtue ethics was pushed aside. Virtue ethics accounts for moral behavior according 
to virtues. Case in point, humans should be truthful not because it violates moral law, but 
because humans should not engage in untruthful behaviors. Virtue ethics is agentic instead of 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

65 

centered on the action or principle latent to a decision. A virtuous person exhibits an array of 
virtues rather than a solitary trait (Johnson, 2007). Virtuous behavior then is natural as virtues 
are perpetual character traits observed in virtuous people. Concrete situations that require 
moral action may be very complex. Virtuous people exhibit their virtues in intricate 
circumstances. Aristotle emphasizes that virtuous adults, distinct from youth, bear a higher 
level of phronesis or the faculty to distinguish morally pertinent features a  situation; moreover, 
virtuous adults use this discern to  assess likely consequences of decisions and  ascertain what 
is truly significant and valuable for obtaining and maintain  the good life. Such an ability 
necessitates the “right education” but also life experience (Baumrind, 2005). 
 
Deontological and utilitarianism perspectives station the circumstances of right and wrong 
entirely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action over other actions. As such, 
it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others 
(Baumind, 2005; Demuijnck, 2015). Deontology is exemplified by Kantianism. Kant’s theory 
action as a guiding principle stands as  universalizable. Universalizable represents the standard 
when judging an act or behavior as morally acceptable. Universal values, then, establish our 
moral responsibilities and rights. A significant variance, though, is that deontological and 
utilitarianism majoritarian perspectives center on supreme moral reasons that validate or 
denounce  actions or decisions. Virtue ethics conveys a straightforward version of moral 
behavior (Baumind, 2005; Demuijnck, 2015). 
 
Toward a Brilliant Diversity 
 
How can non-white, minority cultures foster their cultural distinctiveness in the character 
development process? We stress that any character development process recognizes the 
collective memory, both cultural and historical, of non-white persons. To do so, then 
acknowledges the dominance of the racial contract in the moral, character, and character 
education process. Culture and history governs how we think, how we believe, and how we 
behave. Character practice should accommodate the culture and language of students. 
Culturally consonant character education buttresses effectual character practice in culturally 
diverse classrooms. Rooted in an inclusive moral philosophy, culturally consonant character is 
organic and agentic, thus creating culturally situated citizens woven from varied tapestries 
(Johnson & Hinton 2018).  Such character practice engages and motivates all students. Cultural 
dimensions are employed to bridge a character education cultural rift culturally consonant 
character education balances the cultural features that shape character-oriented actions and 
goals, which include: 1) spirituality, 2) harmony, 3) affect, 4) expressive individualism, 5) 
communalism, and 6) social perspective of time. The first feature, spirituality, indicates an 
emphasis on the spiritual world in lieu of the physical.  Harmony accentuates “the whole rather 
than the parts that comprise the whole” (Johnson & Hinton 2018). It fashions a cultural 
synchronization that confirms the personal and cultural traits youth retain. By valuing each 
student, an educator builds an interdependent community in which all members are 
accountable not only for themselves but also for one another (Johnson 2007; Siddle 
Walker1996). Affect, the third dimension, places value on feelings and is most clearly illustrated 
in the explicit sharing of emotions in the classroom.  



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

66 

Expressive individualism respects differentness and creativity. An example includes how youth 
present themselves to others. This could include name choice, dress, and hairstyles.  
Communalism, on the other hand, places the group over the individual.  From a communalistic 
standpoint, group connection is a powerful aspect of identity, and benefits accrued by 
individuals are used in the advancement of the group. A style of communalism, other mothering, 
refers to the ability of African American grandmothers and other mothers to assume a parental 
role for children with whom they may share no household bond (Johnson & Hinton 2018). . 
Foster (1993), Beauboeuf-Lafontant (1999), and Johnson (2008) noted other mothering and 
social perspective of time in their work. Social perspective of time appreciates social interaction 
and interpersonal relationships. The importance of a social perspective of time deemphasizes 
physical time and highlights the collective bonds cultivated during an occasion. Fostering and 
maintaining these connections contextualizes time. In classrooms, social perspective of time 
may be performed through socialization and interactions involving discussion on topics 
germane to the course content or community events.   
 
Character development embodies an important function of American schooling. Traditional 
character development approaches shun the cultural and historical influence of race on moral 
development. To fail to recognize the power and pervasiveness of culture or race in the 
character development process inadvertently undervalues children (Johnson & Hinton, 2018). 
It is our goal to provide a theoretical foundation for culturally consonant character 
development that expands discourses on character and moral development so that all cultures 
may finally have a seat at the table.   
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

67 

References 
 

Bair, S. (2009). The struggle for community and respectability: Black women school founders 
and the politics of character education in the early Twentieth Century. Theory and Research in 
Social Education , 37(4), 570-600. 
 
Baerveldt, C., & Voestermans, P. (2005). Culture, emotion, and the normative structure of 
reality. Theory & Psychology, 15(4), 449-473. 
 
Baldwin, J. (1998).   Baldwin:  Collected essays (New York, Penguin).     
            
Benninga, J. (2013). Resolving ethical issues of school. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(1), 77-
88. 
 
Blum, L. (2002). I’m not a racist, but . . .”: The moral quandary of race (Ithaca, NY,  Cornell 
University Press). 
 
Boykin, A. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children, in :  U. 
Neisser (Ed.) The school achievement of minority children (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum) pp. 57-92..  
 
Bureau, U. S. C. (2013). American Factfinder fact sheet: Selected social characteristics in the 
United States, s.l.: s.n. 
 
Clark, J.S. (2012). Countering the master narratives in US social studies: Nannie Helen 
Burroughs and new narratives in history education. In C.A. Woyshner and C.H. Bohan (eds) 
Histories of Social Studies and Race, 1870-2000. 
 
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of black:  Diversity in African-American identity (Philadelphia, Temple 
University Press).  
 
Demuijnck, G. (2015). Universal values and virtues in management versus cross-cultural moral 
relativism: An educational strategy to clear the ground for business ethics. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 128, 817-835. 
 
DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk ( Chicago,A.C. McClurg & Co.).  
 
Dyer, R.  (1997).  White (New York, Routledge).            
 
Duer, M., Parisi, A. & Valintis, M. (2002). Character education effectiveness. ERIC Document 
Reproduction Service No.ED471100. 
 
Ford, D.Y. (2010). Culturally responsive classrooms: Affirming culturally different gifted 
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 50-53. 
 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

68 

Goodnenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: 
Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-80. 
 
Green, A. D. (2004). In a different room: Toward an African American Woman's ethic of care 
and justice. In Snarey and V. Siddle-Walker (eds) Race-ing moral formation: African American 
perspectives on care and justice (55-72). New York: Teachers College Press 
 
Griffith, J. (1997). Student and parent perceptions of school social environment: Are they 
group based?. Elementary School Journal, 98(2), 135-149. 
 
Hess, D.E. & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom evidence and ethics in democratic 
education. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.  
 
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice                 
New York:  Cambridge University Press. 
 
Hunter, J. (2000). The death of character: Moral education in an age without good or evil. 
New York: Basic Books. 
 
Connell, J.P., Spencer, M.B., & Aber, J.L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African 
American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493-
506. 
 
Johnson, C.S. (2011). Addressing the moral agency of culturally specific care perspectives, 
Journal of Moral Development, 40(4), pp. 471-489. 
 
Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. (2016). Creating culturally relevant community of learners and 
educators (CRCLE). In K. Gonzalez & R. Frumkin (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Effective 
Communication in Culturally Diverse Classrooms (pp. 40-65). New York:  IGI-Global. 
 
Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. (2018). A Morality of Inclusion. Curriculum and Teaching        
Dialogue, 20(1&2), pp. 73-86. 
 
Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. (in preparation). Step into My World. In C. Gist & T. Bristol (Eds.), 
AERA Handbook or Research on Teachers of Color. 
 
Ladson-Billings, G., (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a the remix. Harvard 
Educational Review, 84 (1), 74–84. 
 
McPhail, M.L. (2004). A question of character: Re(-)signing the Racial Contract. Rhetoric & 
Public Affairs, 7(3), 391-405. 
 
Mehlig, A. J. M. &. L. M., (2002). Elementary school teachers' sense of efficacy for character 
education. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 47-55. 
 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

69 

Mills, C. (1997). The racial contract (New York, Cornell University Press).     
      
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: a caring alternative to character education           
Williston, VT:  Teachers College Press. 
 
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd Ed.)           
Berkeley:  University of California Press. 
 
Orbe, M.P. & Roberts, T.L. (2012). Co-cultural theorizing: Foundations, applications, and 
extensions. Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 293-311. 
 
Opotow, S. V.  (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: an introduction, Journal of Social 
Issues, 46(1), 1–20. 
 
Osler, J & Hinton, H. (2015). Tri-squared qualitative and mixed methods analysis of 
perceptions of the effectiveness of the student athelete leadership academy (SALA): A 
character development and college preparatory program for young African American men. 
Journal on School Educational Technology, pp. 7-22. 
 
Puka, B. (1990). The liberation of caring: a different voice for Gilligan’s ‘different Voice’,  
Hypatia 5(1), 58-82. 
 
Raffel, J.A. (1998). Historical dictionary of school segregation and desegregation the American 
experience. Westport, CT: Greenword Press.  
 
Sagy, S. & Dotan, N.  (2001). Coping resources of maltreated children in the family: A 
salutogenic approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(11), 1463-1480. 
 
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In: Self efficacy, adaptation, 
and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 281-303. 
 
Opotow, S. V. (Ed.) (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction, Journal of Social 
Issues, 46, pp. 1-20. 
 
Smedley, A. (2001). Social origins of the idea of race, in:   C. Stokes, T. Melendez, & G. Rhodes-
Redd (Eds.), Race in 21st century America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press), pp. 
1-24. 
 
Thompson, A. (2004). Caring and color talk: Childhood innocence in white and black, in:  In V. 
Siddle-Walker & J.R. Snarey (Eds.), Race-ing moral formation: African American perspectives 
on care and justice (New York, Teachers College Press) pp. 23-37. 
 
U.S. Department of Education (2015). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 
Education Statistics. 



 
    Journal of Culture and Values in Education 

    Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019   Johnson, C.S. & Hinton, H. The Politics of Culture: Toward a 
Brilliant Diversity 

 

70 

Viik, T. (2016). Understanding meaning formation processes in everyday life: An approach to 
cultural phenomenology. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 31, 151-167. 
Weinberg, M. (1977). A chance to learn: The history of race and education in the United 
States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.