Ethnic studies has been controversial in California since the years leading up to the establishment of the nation’s first ethnic studies department at San Francisco State in 1969. Now, 50 years on, we have another roiling ethnic studies controversy, this time over a “Model Curriculum” for high school students.

Three months and 5,000 public comments after receiving a draft model curriculum, the State Board of Education last week sent it back saying it needed overhauling.

In the immortal (and slightly edited) words of Ronald Reagan, there we go again.

The idea of an ethnic studies curriculum is good for many reasons. How can we object to students learning about the histories, cultures, successes and challenges of the various groups making up our diverse populace? There is also a very credible study showing that taking an ethnic studies course in ninth grade substantially increased low-achieving students’ high school attendance, GPA and course credits.

But the board was right to reject the curriculum; it has numerous problems. Here are three that should be top priority for fixing.

First, the term “ethnic studies” is outdated and should be reconsidered. Ethnic studies is no longer just about “ethnicity.” The field now includes, as the model curriculum itself says, “ethics, respect, and appreciation for all people, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and beliefs.”

While deeply flawed, the document is motivated by a desire to help students learn about and value the diversity of human experiences, encourage them to treat all individuals with dignity and respect, expect others to do the same, and take action when individual and group rights are not respected.

The fact is we are diverse in many ways. Ethnicity just gets at part of it. It’s time to recast “ethnic studies” more expansively, something along the lines of “diversity studies,” or maybe “California population studies.”

Second, even within the limited “ethnic” frame, many groups are invisible or nearly so. Armenian, Greek, Hindu, Irish, and Jewish are hardly or not even mentioned. Jewish groups and individuals have been particularly vocal in objecting to the under- and misrepresentation of Jews. Jews are mentioned four times (excluding the appendices, which come from the University of California Office of the President): Once in reference to “Lionel Cohen and his famous Lionel toy trains,” once in relation to the history of Arabs in the U.S., and twice in relation to Arab stereotypes about hating and wanting to kill Jews.

There is a lengthy section addressing stereotypes of various groups. But not a word about Jewish stereotypes. Nor about the Jewish Holocaust. Anti-Semitism barely registers and is not in the glossary.

Third, the language in the document undermines its message. As with any field, there is legitimate technical terminology. But greater transparency would help advance the agenda of inclusivity and respect. The footnote on the very first page attempts to justify the terminology: “Throughout this model curriculum, language is used that deliberately offers an alternative to traditional wording that could have a particular context within the dominant culture.” But what in the world does that mean?

Or this “essential question”: “How have people historically responded to dehumanizing systems and other social constructs?” The question is not only opaque; it’s incoherent. Another example: Ethnic studies “is the xdisciplinary, loving, and critical praxis of holistic humanity — as educational and racial justice.” Much of the language reads like self-parody.

If this curriculum only speaks to scholars and students of ethnic studies, the cause is surely lost.

Ethnic studies began as an effort to dignify the histories and experiences of marginalized ethnic groups — African Americans, Latinos, Asians and Native people. As our collective consciousness about the different types of diversity has grown, so too the representation and discussion of diversity should mature. Whatever it’s called, the reworked ethnic studies curriculum would be an excellent place to demonstrate this maturity.

Claude Goldenberg is a former first grade and middle school teacher and Nomellini & Olivier Professor Emeritus of Education at Stanford University.