When camp directors and counselors talk about character development, they often reference universal values, such as respect, responsibility, integrity, perseverance, and compassion. Yet when we examine whose definitions of character are being used and whose ways of demonstrating “good character” are recognized and rewarded, we often find a troubling pattern. The character development frameworks at many camps — even those with the best intentions — can privilege dominant cultural norms while marginalizing the rich character traditions that campers and staff from diverse backgrounds bring with them.

It’s time for a fundamental reimagining of character development at camp — one that recognizes character is culturally constructed, contextually expressed, and most powerfully developed when camps create space for multiple cultural frameworks to coexist and enrich one another.

The Problem with “Universal” Character

Picture this common camp scenario: During a group activity, a camper from an Asian-American background consistently defers to others, lets peers speak first, and downplays their own accomplishments when praised. A well-meaning counselor pulls them aside for a conversation about “standing up for yourself” and “being confident.” The counselor views this as a character development moment, helping a camper build self-esteem and assertiveness.

But what if this camper is practicing values deeply embedded in their cultural upbringing: humility, group harmony, respect for collective wisdom? What if the perceived lack of confidence is actually the camper skillfully navigating cultural values around modesty and interdependence? In this moment, the camp’s character framework, centered on individualism and self-promotion, has pathologized culturally grounded ways of being.

Or consider another scenario: A Black male camper is animated and expressive when talking with friends, using call-and-response patterns and incorporating physical movement into conversation. A counselor interprets this as “too loud” or disruptive, redirecting the camper toward “inside voices” and “calm bodies.” Once again, a narrow definition of appropriate behavior — rooted in white, middle-class communication norms — has marginalized culturally specific expressions that, in many Black communities, signal engagement, authenticity, and connection.

These aren’t hypothetical situations. They happen every day at camps across the country, and they represent a fundamental misalignment between camps’ stated commitments to inclusion and their actual character development practices. When we treat character as universal and fail to recognize that concepts like respect, responsibility, and even kindness are expressed differently across cultures, we inadvertently position some campers’ ways of being as deficient while elevating others as the standard.

What Is Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Character Development?

Culturally responsive-sustaining character development recognizes that character exists within cultural contexts. The qualities we associate with “good character” (and how we demonstrate those qualities) are shaped by the cultural communities in which we’re raised and the values those communities hold dear.

This approach asks camp professionals to examine whose cultural values are reflected in their character frameworks. When our camps talk about respect, whose definition is being used? When we teach responsibility, are we teaching individual accountability (emphasized in many White, Western contexts) or collective responsibility (emphasized in many Indigenous, African, Asian, and Latin cultures)? When camps act as if individual accountability is the only way to understand responsibility, we marginalize campers for whom family and community obligations are paramount.

A sustainable culturally responsive approach doesn’t require camps to abandon their values. Instead, it invites camps to expand their understanding of how character can be expressed and to actively learn about the character traditions of represented communities. This means genuinely studying the character development frameworks that exist in Black, Indigenous, Asian, Latin, and other communities and weaving these perspectives into the camp’s approach throughout the summer.

Unpacking Cultural Values in Character Development

How might some common character traits emphasized at camp be understood through different cultural lenses?

• Respect. In many White, middle-class contexts, respect is demonstrated through eye contact, firm handshakes, and speaking up. In many Asian, Latin, and Black contexts, respect might be shown through deference to elders, averting direct eye contact with authority figures, and remaining quiet to show one is listening. A culturally responsive camp recognizes both frameworks as valid and creates space for campers to practice respect in ways that align with their cultural values.
• Independence. Camp programs often emphasize self-reliance, individual problem-solving, and personal achievement — values aligned with Western individualism. These may conflict with values around interdependence, collective success, and community problem-solving central to many cultures. A culturally responsive approach balances individual growth with activities that celebrate communal success.
• Assertiveness. Many camps teach campers to “use your voice,” “speak up for yourself,” and “be a leader” — framing these as universal goods. But in cultures emphasizing humility, collective decision-making, and indirect communication, these behaviors might be seen as self-centered or disrespectful. They could also be defined differently, so it’s important to consider nuance when teaching a concept like leadership. A culturally responsive camp teaches about different communication styles and validates multiple ways of exercising agency.
• Conflict Resolution. Western models emphasize direct communication, expressing feelings, and finding win-win solutions through compromise. Many cultures prioritize saving face and maintaining harmony, involve family or community mediators, or use indirect communication. There is validity to both approaches. A culturally responsive camp exposes campers to multiple conflict-resolution frameworks.

Practical Strategies for Implementation

So how do camps actually implement this approach? Here are some concrete strategies:

• Start with critical self-reflection. Before camps can develop and sustain culturally responsive character programs, staff should examine their own cultural values and biases. What assumptions do we make about what “good behavior” looks like? What cultural values are we unconsciously privileging? This work requires ongoing self-examination, ideally through structured protocols with colleagues who can offer different perspectives.
• Involve families in defining character goals. Create opportunities for families from diverse backgrounds to share what character development means in their communities and how they define certain concepts such as respect, accountability, and independence. Use these conversations to broaden camp’s character framework.
• Audit activities through a cultural lens. Review activities, recognition systems, and discipline policies. Ask, “Whose cultural values are reflected here? What explicit and implicit messages are being sent? Who might feel marginalized by these approaches?”
• Create affinity spaces. Provide opportunities for campers from similar cultural backgrounds to gather, share experiences, and explore character development within their own cultural frameworks without constantly translating their perspectives to the dominant group.
• Teach explicitly about cultural differences. Create intentional programming where campers learn about different cultural frameworks for understanding character. Use examples and reflective discussions to help campers develop cultural humility.
• Revise recognition and discipline systems. Many camps’ recognition systems and discipline policies are deeply rooted in dominant cultural values. Examine these critically and revise them to recognize multiple cultural expressions of character, creating multiple pathways to recognition and ensuring discipline policies don’t disproportionately target campers whose cultural communication styles differ from dominant norms.
• Diversify your staff. Camps cannot develop and sustain culturally responsive character programs without staff who bring diverse cultural perspectives from varied racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds.
• Practice restorative justice. Traditional discipline approaches emphasize individual accountability and punishment. Restorative justice practices, rooted in many Indigenous communities, emphasize healing, relationship repair, and community accountability — aligning more closely with communal cultural values.

The Role of Privilege, Bias, and Microaggressions

We cannot discuss culturally responsive character development without addressing how privilege, bias, and microaggressions shape camps’ approaches to character.

Camps must reckon with whose ways of demonstrating character require no adaptation or code-switching. Campers from dominant cultural backgrounds can simply show up and be themselves — their communication styles, ways of moving through space, and expressions of emotion are all validated as appropriate. Campers from marginalized backgrounds often must constantly adapt, translating their cultural ways of being into forms acceptable to the dominant group. It’s exhausting work that privileged campers never have to do.

Even well-intentioned camp staff carry biases that shape how they perceive campers’ character. Research shows Black children are more likely to be seen as aggressive when displaying the same behaviors viewed as assertive in White children (Eberhardt, 2020). Girls are often socialized toward empathy and nurturing, while boys are directed toward courage and leadership, limiting both groups’ full character development. Camps must actively work to identify and interrupt these tendencies.

When campers regularly experience microaggressions — subtle messages that their ways of being are wrong or unwelcome — their character development is fundamentally compromised. Creating truly culturally responsive character development environments requires vigilance in identifying and interrupting such occurrences.

Moving Beyond Good Intentions

Many camps pride themselves on welcoming everyone and treating all campers the same in their approach to character development. But good intentions aren’t enough. Treating everyone the same when campers come from vastly different cultural contexts actually perpetuates inequity. True inclusion requires actively embracing the cultures, values, and ways of being that have historically been marginalized at camp.

This work is often uncomfortable. It requires camps to examine practices they’ve held dear, question assumptions about what “good behavior” looks like, and acknowledge that some campers have been harmed by well-intended character development programs. It demands ongoing learning, critical self-reflection, and a willingness to make mistakes and keep trying.

Continuing to operate character development programs that position some campers’ cultural values as deficient while elevating others is harmful. Camps that are truly committed to developing character in all campers must do the hard work of creating sustainable culturally responsive approaches that recognize character development as culturally situated, contextually expressed, and most powerful when diverse cultural frameworks are valued and sustained.

Conclusion: Character Development as Liberation

At its best, culturally responsive character development is liberatory. It frees campers from having to choose between camp acceptance and cultural authenticity. It liberates staff from the burden of enforcing character norms that don’t align with their values. And it liberates camps from narrow definitions of character that limit everyone’s full humanity.

When camps embrace this approach, we create spaces where campers can develop the sophisticated skills to navigate multiple cultural contexts while remaining rooted in their own cultural values. We build communities where diversity isn’t just tolerated but recognized as essential to everyone’s character development. And we help shape a generation of young people with both strong character and critical consciousness about how character operates across cultures.

Photos courtesy of McGaw YMCA Camp Echo, Evanston, IL.

References

Eberhardt, J. L. (2020). How racial bias works — And how to disrupt it. TED2020. ted.com/talks/jennifer_l_eberhardt_how_racial_bias_works_and_how_to_disrupt_it

NYSED. (n.d.). Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework. nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/crs/culturally-responsive-sustaining-education-framework.pdf

Chanika R. Perry, EdD, is the director of impact programs at Hands On Atlanta and an adjunct professor in Teachers College, Columbia University’s Summer Principals Academy program. Prior to these roles, she was a high school principal in Atlanta. She has been involved in the fields of youth development and education for over 25 years, mostly in NYC and Atlanta.

Lance W. Ozier, EdD, has been on the faculty of The City University of New York since 2009, having also taught courses at Teachers College, Columbia University. Born and raised on a Georgia farm, he now lives in New York, and has taught and worked in Atlanta and NYC classrooms for nearly 30 years. Lance received a Hedley S. Dimock Award from ACA in 2015 and also served on ACA’s Research Advisory Committee.

Chanika and Lance have been friends for over 20 years, worked together at Project Morry for over a decade, and continue to collaborate as cofounders of Conversation Forward (conversationforward.org), promoting meaningful exchange and connection.