Over the last year American schools have seen an explosion of teacher training and classroom instruction based on critical race theory (CRT), which explores how racism is supposedly perpetuated in every aspect of society. Several state legislatures have moved to ban classroom instruction that reflects some of the more extreme and pernicious assumptions of CRT. Earlier this week Kentucky state representative Joseph Fischer introduced Bill Request 60, which prohibits local school districts or individual school councils from including or promoting a series of concepts in any course, curriculum, or instructional program.
Specifically, the bill would bar teaching or instructional materials that assume or suggest the following:
- One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
- An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
- An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
- Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
- An individual’s moral character is determined by his or her race or sex;
- An individual, 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;
- An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex;
- Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
- The Commonwealth or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
- Values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs can be assigned to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex;
- Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; or
- Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people.
Most Kentuckians would readily agree that most of the views expressed above are reprehensible and have no place in the state’s classrooms. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, however, voiced what sounded like opposition to the bill, arguing that “I think once you start legislating what can and can’t be taught in schools, especially in the framework of politics, it gets really dangerous.”
Of course, Kentucky law and regulation already establishes a framework of educational standards that provides a basis of what gets taught in our schools, although it does not, to my knowledge, prohibit any specific concepts from P-12 classrooms. But which of the above viewpoints does Governor Beshear believe the children of the Commonwealth should be taught? Does Governor Beshear believe that teaching an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, should be allowed?
Kentucky Education Commissioner Jason Glass, always a predictable parrot of the Governor’s views, voiced his own opposition to the bill, saying that it limits “free speech” and is a “politically-driven effort to manage our local classroom teachers.” But does Commissioner Glass really believe a “local classroom teacher” should be teaching kids that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex?”
Beshear and Glass’s reactions are typical of the defensiveness we have seen from political Leftists in response to efforts to challenge or curb CRT. On the one hand, CRT defenders claim that CRT doesn’t actually promote these kinds of extremist views. But if that’s the case, why the fuss if Kentuckians, quite reasonably, want to stipulate that such views have no place in the state’s classrooms? (In fact, Rick Hess and Max Eden of the American Enterprise Institute have repeatedly documented how these far-Left assumptions routinely surface in CRT programs and are central to CRT itself).
On the other hand, CRT defenders want to claim that these views aren’t, in fact, extreme but are quite reasonable and somehow essential to making our schools less racist. That sounds like the view of Jefferson County Public Schools superintendent Marty Pollio, who told the Courier Journal that Rep. Fischer’s bill would somehow interfere with the district’s efforts in “expanding the curriculum to better represent the student population we serve” and that it would “potentially disrupt our plans to reduce the achievement gap in JCPS.”How does he figure that?
Most of the minority families in Pollio’s district would strongly disagree with the views prohibited by Bill Request 60 and would strongly agree that they have no place in our classrooms. Furthermore, a curriculum can be culturally diverse without promoting the assumptions of CRT. And most importantly, the divisive and wrong-headed assumptions of CRT actually make it harder to close achievement gaps, as I wrote recently for the Chalkboard Review.
Kentuckians are not wrong to be concerned about the underlying (and sometimes explicit) assumptions of critical race theory and how they might influence classroom teaching, including its tendency to making sweeping, racialist generalities about white people that, if applied to any minority group, would be considered disgusting. But one of the most toxic elements of CRT is its assertion that if you challenge any of its assumptions, you are simply proving the point that you are a racist. One cannot take exception to CRT extremism based on legitimate and reasonable concerns; you must be “politically motivated” and opposed to racial equity.
Of course this isn’t true. Even though real racial progress in this country has been made (something CRT advocates are loathe to admit or flat-out deny), actual racial bias on the part of educators probably continues to exert some impact on student outcomes. The question is how do we best address that problem? Superintendent Pollio may be right that curriculum makes some difference in that effort, but a culturally responsive curriculum – like the lessons offered by the group of Black scholars and activists 1776 Unites demonstrates – doesn’t have to embrace the racist assumptions of CRT. In fact – it should challenge the notion that people can be classified as victim or oppressor based solely on their skin color.
Furthermore, the best antidote to the exceedingly low expectations too many educators have for poor and minority students isn’t shaming based on their skin color, but challenging them to offer more rigorous instruction for all students. As I wrote for Chalkboard Review:
Instead of imposing ineffective, CRT-inspired equity trainings or ideologically-driven curriculum on students, what if we just showed educators the research on low expectations and then trained them in understanding what high-quality, rigorous instructional resources look like and how to use them? For all students. From my own personal experience when I’ve confronted teachers and administrators with the Opportunity Myth research, they recognize the pattern and tendency to use the past performance of struggling students to justify giving them low-quality assignments, and they immediately want to help their schools do better…
Most teachers and school administrators really do care about their students and doing better by them. They know achievement gaps exist and that closing them is at least partly within their control, even – and especially – if they reject the totalizing assumptions of critical race theory. And they know that becoming more effective in their teaching practice is the most powerful way to get there.
Governor Beshear and Commissioner Glass want you to believe that you have to accept the extremism of critical race theory to address issues of racial equity in schools. This is not true. They are misleading you because they endorse the ideology at the heart of CRT and value virtue signaling to their Leftist political allies more than having a real conversation about how to improve the learning experiences of all students – something CRT will not do.
Kentuckians are right to reject critical theory and its teaching in our schools and to insist that we get back to a meaningful focus on improving education for all students.