Whose Character Are We Actually Developing?

Picture a camper who consistently lets others speak first, downplays their accomplishments, and defers to the group. A counselor, genuinely wanting to help, pulls them aside to work on "confidence" and "speaking up for yourself."

But what if this camper isn't lacking confidence at all? What if they're practicing deeply held cultural values around humility, collective harmony, and respect for group wisdom? In this moment—however well-intentioned—the camp has sent a clear message: your way of being is wrong. Our way is right.

This happens every day at camps across the country. And it represents a fundamental problem with how we approach character development.

The Myth of Universal Character

When we talk about character development at camp, we often reference values like respect, responsibility, integrity, and leadership as if they're universal truths. But here's what we're missing: these concepts aren't neutral. They're culturally constructed, and the ways we define and demonstrate them are deeply shaped by whose cultural norms we've centered.

Respect through direct eye contact? That's rooted in white, middle-class communication norms. In many Asian, Latinx, and Black cultural contexts, averting eyes with authority figures is how you show respect.

Independence and self-reliance as markers of growth? That's Western individualism. Many cultures center interdependence, collective success, and community responsibility as the foundation of strong character.

"Using your voice" and "speaking up" as universal goods? For cultures that value humility, indirect communication, and collective decision-making, these behaviors might signal self-centeredness rather than leadership.

The problem isn't that camps hold these values. The problem is when we act as if they're the only valid way to demonstrate good character—and when we pathologize campers whose cultural values differ from dominant norms.

What Gets Lost

Consider the Black male camper whose animated, call-and-response communication style gets labeled "too loud" or "disruptive." Or the camper from a collectivist culture who's penalized in a recognition system that rewards individual achievement over communal contribution.

These aren't just missed opportunities for inclusion. They're moments of harm. When campers must constantly code-switch, translating their authentic ways of being into forms acceptable to the dominant culture, it's exhausting work that privileged campers never have to do. And it sends a devastating message: who you are isn't enough.

This extends beyond individual interactions to our entire character development infrastructure. Our recognition systems. Our discipline policies. Our conflict resolution frameworks. Whose cultural values are embedded in these systems? Who thrives without adaptation, and who must constantly translate themselves to succeed?

A Different Approach

Culturally responsive-sustaining character development recognizes that character exists within cultural contexts. It doesn't ask camps to abandon their values—it invites expansion. It calls us to genuinely study the character development frameworks that exist in Black, Indigenous, Asian, Latinx, and other communities and weave these perspectives throughout camp's approach.

This means creating space for multiple cultural frameworks to coexist. Teaching campers about different communication styles and validating various ways of exercising agency. Exposing everyone to multiple conflict resolution approaches rather than positioning Western direct communication as superior. Revising recognition systems to honor diverse expressions of character rather than privileging one cultural norm.

It requires examining our assumptions: What do we unconsciously believe "good behavior" looks like? Whose cultural values are we privileging in our activities, policies, and everyday interactions? Who might be marginalized by approaches we've never questioned?

Beyond Good Intentions

Many camps pride themselves on treating everyone the same. But when campers come from vastly different cultural contexts, treating everyone identically actually perpetuates inequity. True inclusion requires actively centering the cultures and values that have historically been marginalized.

This work is uncomfortable. It demands critical self-reflection, ongoing learning, and willingness to acknowledge that well-intended programs have sometimes caused harm. But continuing to operate character development frameworks that position some campers' cultural values as deficient while elevating others as standard is simply not acceptable.

At its best, this approach is liberatory—freeing campers from choosing between camp acceptance and cultural authenticity, building communities where diversity strengthens everyone's development, and supporting young people who can both honor their own values and move powerfully across cultural contexts.

The work is urgent and ongoing. But for those of us who love camp and believe in its power, creating culturally responsive approaches to character development isn't optional. It's essential to becoming the inclusive communities we aspire to be.