Critical Race Theory (CRT) has recently become another battleline separating political adversaries. Is systematic racism embedded in our culture? Has it shaped public policy and societal norms? Yes, I suppose so. In theory, then, does CRT pit people of color against white hegemony? Yes, well, sort of, that’s one way of looking at it. Could be these questions are answered with a cautious “yes.” It is important to mention that CRT is not taught in our public schools and that for many years it has been mostly an academic dialogue in higher education, nothing more. What, then, does one conclude about corollary issues such as academic freedom, free speech, and constitutional rights?
Touchy subjects, all this mishmash, so state legislators in Idaho, Tennessee, Iowa, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, have decided to forbid disseminating critical race theory in classrooms, not that it ever was promoted in K-12 school systems. About a dozen states are currently considering similar legislation. Politicians at the state level pass the bills and pay the bills, so they get to dictate to educators what is in lesson plans. Simply put, that means that a teacher or professor would break the rules if he or she were to describe the Jim Crow laws as state-sponsored racism, which they were. A discussion of the Civil War or the Tulsa race riots (and massacre) would certainly lead to troubling issues of racial discord, so several state governments would have us limit the discussion and scope of these historical realities. Lessons on the civil rights movement likely would be muted—all such topics reduced to footnotes in curricula—if a finger were pointed at the powers that be as a cause of fueling friction. Class discussions on diversity (along with diversity training) and “wokeness” would be put to sleep. Lord help us if a free spirit teacher told students that early in Tacoma’s history the city leaders, including the mayor, Jacob Weisbach, forcibly removed Chinese railroad workers from our City of Destiny. Subsequently, a mob of 500 while citizens trashed the migrants’ living quarters, burning their possessions. Our city’s shame, known as the Tacoma Method, became an example for other towns to get rid of undesirable ethnics once the railroad tracks were laid and the usefulness of the cheap workforce was depleted.
If the anti-CRT contingent prevails, school boards and college trustees will be charged with the responsibility of keeping critical race theory suppressed. Teachers would be afraid for their jobs if a parent were to object to a lesson on, say, the Trail of Tears being a great injustice to Native Americans. No touchy subjects. Let’s not talk about and learn from the institutional racism that has been a shameful part of America’s history. Any dialogue of ingrained racism will be prohibited, and the offender censured, or worse. Even if the lesson of the day simply restates the obvious, it will be verboten.
Opponents of CRT assert America is going through a cultural battle, and they may have a moot issue in claiming that state-sponsored racism is, oddly, a reverse form of racism itself (blaming wholesale controlling authorities for divisiveness). The anti-CRT voices claim America has recently pretty much become colorblind and does not need to load guilt onto a well-meaning and meritocratic white majority that has been steering this country for hundreds of years. They also believe that pounding the drum against CRT will be an advantageous vote-gathering tactic when the next cycle of congressional elections come round.
Proponents of CRT, chiefly academics, progressives, and social scientists, want an objective look at the origins and outcomes of racism. CRT started as a scholarly theory but has subsequently become a political tug of war. Their claim is that we have a long road ahead for our country to become colorblind and to assure that we are a country delivering “liberty and justice for all.”
Lost in the discussion is academic freedom. In K-12 public school systems, teachers are mandated by school boards to teach from a preapproved curriculum, which is not written by those presenting lessons in the classrooms. And school boards are often steered by political pressure coming from state level decision makers. Ideally, classrooms should be the teachers’ domain, a place where ideas may be freely addressed without official interference, but that is clearly not the case in K-12 public schools. Neither teachers nor parents can dictate what is on a syllabus. School boards have sovereignty to define what is and is not taught in their districts.
So, if a teacher addresses his or her students about CRT, academic discussion or not, trouble is bound to arise. Sadly, political correctness will enter the lesson plans all over America. In college, sure, critical thinking is encouraged, but not in K-12 if the school board bans it. Proselytizing at any educational level (be it for creation theory, political protest, censorship, and so on) seems out of place in education, but open discussions meant to invest students with intellectual inquiry ought to be encouraged.
The arguments here result in who gets to wield the bullhorn, who controls the lesson plans, and how do lessons defend neutral and politically objective applications of discovery for students.
The struggle over teaching evolution, sexual education, and controversial literature has been with us for decades, if not longer. Now we can toss CRT onto the pile.