Something Wicked
2 California school boards, backed by a Conservative PAC, have erased chattle slavery, the Trail of Tears, & the Civil Rights Movement from their history books...
A few weeks ago, Joseph Komrosky, recently elected to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education, proposed a resolution condemning critical race theory (CRT). The resolution called CRT a "racist ideology" and "divisive" and states that it is "based on a false assumption" that "assigns moral fault to individuals solely based on an individual's race."
Komrosky and other candidates endorsed by the conservative PAC ieFamilypac, who won seats on the school board in Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore, have expressed their desire to “restore” parents' rights and protect children from what they believe is inappropriate and divisive curriculum related to sex and race. Komrosky has also proposed a resolution condemning racism in the school district, quoting Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech. The Temecula Valley school district has experienced at least two reported incidents of racism involving students in recent years.
On Tuesday, December 13th, Komrosky’s and ieFamilypac got their way. Amid a chorus of boos and jeers, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) governing board voted 3-2 to adopt a resolution banning the teaching of CRT in Temecula schools. The board also adopted a resolution condemning racism, stating that the current TVUSD policy "only cites discrimination and bigotry through the lens of equity."
The resolutions were met with opposition from students and educators within the district.
During the meeting, more than 30 people, including TVUSD students and educators, spoke about the resolution to ban the teaching of CRT. The majority of these speakers opposed the resolution. Some argued that the new board members were "ignoring the complexity of the theory," while others stated that far-right politicians and ideologues have used CRT to scare white voters. Opponents of CRT claim that the theory marginalizes children of primarily western European genetic heritage (a.k.a., white) and makes them feel guilty for the wrongdoings committed against minorities in the United States.
John Rogers, an education professor at UCLA, has commented on the controversy. He stated that critical race theory is an academic field of study that examines how racism is embedded in law, public policy, and social institutions and is primarily taught at the graduate and law school level. He pointed out that "no state department of education in the country has encouraged districts to teach CRT." Rogers' research has shown that more than two-thirds of U.S. high school principals reported political conflict at their schools in the past year, with half reporting that parents or community members had sought to restrict or challenge what schools teach about issues of race and racism.
Progressive group Temecula Unity has condemned the board’s action and plans to speak at school board meetings, stating that the new policy is "vague and gray" and coming from one group, 412 Church Temecula Valley, whose pastor has ties to many candidates endorsed by the Inland Empire Family PAC. Other residents have expressed concern that the resolutions may be an attack on the work the district has done on equity, access, and inclusion.
Why Are School Systems Banning the Teaching of American History?
CRT has recently received much attention in the right-wing media, with Fox News mentioning it over 1,300 times in four months. This attention is partly because CRT has become a controversial issue, with some people opposing it because they believe it portrays all white people as oppressors and all Black people as helpless victims.
However, these portrayals of CRT are inaccurate and exaggerated. In reality, CRT is a theoretical framework that examines how racism is embedded in law, public policy, and social institutions. It has been developed and advanced by scholars in academia and is not focused on assigning blame or guilt based on race. The broad, negative portrayal of CRT in the media and by some opponents is confusing and misleading to academics who have studied and contributed to the field.
CRT does not attribute racism to individuals or groups of people based on their race. Instead, it posits that racism is embedded in the laws, regulations, rules, and procedures of U.S. social institutions, such as the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and the healthcare system. These systems often produce differential outcomes for people of different races.
Many Americans may be unable to differentiate their identity from the social institutions that shape it and may therefore feel personally attacked when CRT points out the racism inherent in these systems. Others may recognize the racist history of the U.S. but have bought into the belief that the country is now an equitable democracy and are unwilling to acknowledge that this is not the case for everyone. CRT aims to shed light on the ways in which racism continues to impact society and to promote equity and justice.
Those who discuss CRT are not trying to hold white people living today responsible for the actions of people in the past. Rather, they argue that white people have a moral responsibility to address the ways in which racism continues to impact society and to work towards an equitable democracy. Efforts to suppress this important national conversation are hindering progress toward this goal.
Some supporters of CRT bans often quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement that individuals should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, but they often ignore the context of this quote and its true meaning. In reality, King was advocating for an end to discrimination based on race, and CRT aims to do the same by examining the ways in which racism is embedded in society and promoting equity and justice.
The approach taken by some Republican-led state legislatures to ban the teaching of CRT in schools is a way to reverse progress on issues related to race, including voting rights and police reform. This is a harmful idea that does a disservice to children. Laws prohibiting the mention of race, racism, gender, or sexism in the classroom would have a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss and would provide cover for those who do not want to confront the truth about the history and current state of race relations in the United States. Ironically, the very act of passing laws against CRT serves to confirm that racism is deeply embedded in the law. It is important to have open, honest discussions about race and racism to address and challenge systems of inequality.
Some parents may be concerned about their children learning about difficult or complex issues in school that they may be unable to address. As a college professor who does teach CRT as one of the many theoretical frameworks that I bring into the classroom, I have observed that students are often shocked by how little they have learned about inequality. They are upset with their schools, teachers, and parents for not providing them with a more comprehensive education on these issues.
This presents a dilemma: teachers in K-12 schools are not teaching CRT, but they are trying to respond to students asking questions about protests and why Black people are more likely to be killed by the police.
Ultimately, we cannot adopt a colorblind ideology in a society far from colorblind. Everyone sees the reality of racism, whether they acknowledge it consciously or not. If we truly love America, we should want it to be the best it can be. Instead of avoiding the issue of racism in America, we should confront it head-on. Our children and our country will be better for it.