I think, therefore IB

As IB Diploma Programme teachers, we are committed to encouraging students to think critically, question assumptions, and use accurate language. One term we need to handle with particular care is “race.” While the word is common in everyday conversation, it is not a scientific concept—and in academic contexts it can reinforce misconceptions rather than deepen understanding.

Why “race” is unscientific

Modern genetics has shown that humans are remarkably similar at the DNA level. Around 99.9% of our genome is shared across the species, and the small variations that do exist do not line up neatly with the socially constructed categories we call “races.” For example, two individuals from different regions of Africa may be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone in Europe or Asia.

What we call “race” is therefore not a biological fact but a social construct—a way that societies have historically divided people based on superficial traits such as skin colour, hair texture, or facial features. These traits are shaped by environmental adaptation and a handful of genes, not by deep divisions in the human genome. Moreover, ideas of “race” shift depending on place and time: in the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; in Brazil, dozens of categories exist based on skin shade; in other contexts, different boundaries are drawn. This fluidity underscores its lack of scientific grounding.

The risks of using “race” in class

If we use the term uncritically in our teaching, we risk reinforcing the false impression that humanity is divided into fixed biological groups. Historically, such thinking has been used to justify slavery, colonialism, and eugenics. For students learning to question and evaluate knowledge, this would be a serious step backwards.

What to use instead

As IB teachers, we can model more precise and meaningful language. When discussing human variation, identity, or population differences, consider terms such as:

• Nationality (e.g., Japanese, Nigerian, Canadian)
• Geographical origin (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Northern Europe)
• Ethnicity (e.g., Samoan, Han Chinese, Pashtun)
• Religion (e.g., Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian)
• Cultural or linguistic groups (e.g., Spanish-speaking communities, Francophone West Africa)

In the sciences, the word “population” is widely preferred. For example, biologists may refer to “populations of West African ancestry” or “South Asian populations” when describing genetic studies. These terms avoid the pseudo-biological weight of “race” while allowing for accurate discussion of human diversity.

A classroom example (Psychology)

In IB Psychology, students often study cultural influences on behaviour and cognition. A student might write:
“This study compared memory in two different races.”

As teachers, we can guide them to phrase it more accurately:
“This study compared memory in participants from collectivist East Asian cultures and individualist Western cultures.”

This not only avoids the misleading term “race” but also draws students’ attention to the real variable being studied—cultural dimension and context. It also reinforces the IB aim of encouraging critical thinking about research design and interpretation.

Our responsibility

The IB emphasises international-mindedness, respect, and critical thinking. Avoiding the term “race” is part of that responsibility. Instead, we should help students appreciate the complexity of human diversity and recognise that identities are multiple, overlapping, and dynamic. By choosing our words carefully, we not only uphold scientific accuracy but also encourage our students to think in ways that are more inclusive, respectful, and intellectually rigorous.

---

If you found this post interesting, please  subscribe to the blog so you don’t miss future updates and reflections on IB teaching practice.