13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate
"5. Most of the divisive concepts bills aimed just at K-12 are probably constitutional, given that legislatures have a lot of power to decide curriculum. That doesn’t mean they are above criticism...
6. Banning specific curricular materials like The 1619 Project in public K-12 schools, whether or not you agree with doing so, is within the power of the government in many states...
7. Misleading reporting has muddied the waters.
People’s opposition to the bills has led them to seeing ghosts that aren’t there and to exaggerate the threats of even problematic bills.
FIRE opposed Florida SB 264 (which, while not explicitly an divisive concepts bill, has been swept up in the conversation) on the grounds that its extremely broad granting of rights to surreptitiously record professors would create a massive chilling effect in the era of “gotcha” videos. I was surprised to see that when the bill went viral, it wasn’t for that provision, but for something that wasn’t in the bill at all: an alleged mandatory political registry of students and professors...
8. Proponents and critics of the divisive concepts bills are largely talking past each other on the issue.
Proponents of the bills see them as banning sessions where preteens are made to apologize for their race privilege, or where biracial children have been told that one parent probably physically abused the other due to their oppressor status. They look at sections in the bills that ban teaching mandatory guilt, genetic essentialism, and racial superiority and wonder — and assume — that opponents of the bills must be proponents of teaching those concepts.
On the other hand, critics of these bills see bans on the 1619 Project, and vague clauses that arguably reach any discussion of slavery, and interpret them as a highly politicized mandate to teach a certain view of history intended to soften the horrors of slavery and minimize historical racism. They see those who support such laws as wanting children to learn a jingoistic and propagandized version of history. While some on each side are undoubtedly acting in bad faith, the majority are motivated by sincere and valid concerns, and both proponents and opponents are motivated to ignore the valid points of their opposition.
Each side’s distorted impression of the goals of the other side, and of what’s actually in the bills, has been an unfortunate side effect of the media coverage. Those listening to left-leaning outlets and pundits could be forgiven for thinking that the bills outright ban discussion of slavery. Those listening to right-leaning outlets and pundits could be forgiven for having no idea of the breadth and vagueness of a lot of the clauses in these bills, and the chilling effect they may create with teachers making good faith attempts to comply. The media coverage of these bills has been largely lacking in deep-dives into the actual text of the bills, instead relying on broad characterizations of their intent and the motivations behind those introducing them...
Most of what these bills prohibit are speech or patterns of behavior by teachers that even many of the critics of these bills would find problematic, and arguably would already run afoul of laws prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment. For example, North Carolina’s HB 324, mentioned above, prohibits public K-12 schools from “promoting” the following concepts:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
(2) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
(4) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
(5) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
(6) Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress [...]
These bills are a reaction to legitimately concerning documented cases of K-12 students being singled out due to their race and made to participate in exercises that are, arguably, racially discriminatory. I was disturbed to read some of the examples in my co-author — and FIRE colleague — Bonnie Snyder’s forthcoming book Undoctrinate: How Politicized Classrooms Harm Kids and Ruin Our Schools—And What We Can Do About It, such as:
- A biracial high school student in Las Vegas was allegedly singled out in class for his appearance and called derogatory names by his teacher. In a lawsuit, the student’s family alleges he was labelled an oppressor, told denying that status was “internalized privilege,” and told he needed to “unlearn” the Judeo-Christian principles imparted by his mother. When he refused to complete certain “identity confession” assignments, the lawsuit claims, the school gave him a failing grade. He has had to attend counseling.
- Third grade students in California were forced to analyze their racial and other “identities,” rank themselves according to their supposed “power and privilege,” and were informed that those in the “dominant” culture categories created and continue to maintain this culture to uphold power.
- Parents in North Carolina allege that middle school students were forced to stand up in class and apologize to other students for their “privilege.”
- Buffalo public schools teach students that all white people perpetuate systemic racism and are guilty of implicit racial bias.
- Elementary children at the Fieldston School in Manhattan were sorted by race for mandatory classroom exercises.
- A head teacher in Manhattan was caught on tape acknowledging that the curriculum at his school teaches white students that they’re inherently “evil” and saying, “we’re demonizing white people for being born.”...
9. Legislation is not the only way to address the aforementioned concerns...
Much of the behavior proscribed in the divisive concepts bills refers to patterns of discriminatory behavior that would probably already be illegal under federal anti-discriminations laws like Title VI, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in educational programs that receive federal funding...
10. Critical race theory isn’t a perfect term for the problematic behavior these bills are trying to address...
Like it or not, the acronym “CRT” as commonly used in 2021 doesn’t refer to the foundational texts and authors in the academic movement. It’s a shorthand for certain ideas that have filtered (in reductive forms or not) from CRT thinkers into the mainstream, including in bestselling books like “White Fragility” and “How to Be an Antiracist”...
many if not most of the bills ban teaching of these concepts, rather than critical race theory itself. Arguing that the bills are bad purely based on the semantics that they are not referring to “true” CRT is little more than deflection. Arguing that the term “CRT” as applied to the bills is a misnomer may be correct, but it won’t persuade anyone that the bills, or the concerns underlying them, should be abandoned. (Additionally, if the bills were banning something that isn’t actually taught in K-12, why bother with any pushback?)...
11. The California ethnic studies curriculum helps demonstrate what the proponents of these bills are afraid of.
After being vetoed last year for its casual anti-Semitism (along with other issues, such as ignoring a number of other ethnicities), California approved its model “ethnic studies” curriculum for K-12 in March. It looks exactly like what you’d expect it to look like after four revisions attempting to make it just barely not overtly anti-Semitic enough to pass. In its first iteration, the Los Angeles Times called it an “exercise in groupthink,” noting that it largely adopted radical talking points, while Bret Stephens of The New York Times described it as “tendentiously racialized,” asserting that it “magnifies differences” and “encourages tribal loyalties.” Most notoriously, the existence of Jews was omitted from the curriculum, a curious decision for a course that purports to address bigotry but manages not to mention the group most targeted by hate crimes, per capita...
12. What is the deeper cause of this battle? A breakdown in
societal trust and trust in expertise, particularly along partisan
lines."