One problem I have with any discussion of the use of Critical Race Theory in schools is that trustworthy sources of information on what is actually happening—in classrooms and in school board meetings—are difficult to find. My impression is that most reporters for the “mainstream” media think according to the categories used by one party…
One problem I have with any discussion of the use of Critical Race Theory in schools is that trustworthy sources of information on what is actually happening—in classrooms and in school board meetings—are difficult to find. My impression is that most reporters for the “mainstream” media think according to the categories used by one party in the debate, proponents of CRT. This makes their accounts suspect. In a recent Philadelphia Inquirer story, opponents of CRT were portrayed as loud, disruptive, shouting. Proponents were described as clapping enthusiastically in support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This begs, among other things, the actual meaning of the catchphrase “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Often abbreviated DEI, it comes with an agenda different from each of its component words taken independently. While opponents of CRT may well have shouted their heads off at the meeting, I wonder what else happened, and what got left out. More insidiously, a WaPo reporter on the CRT-in-schools debate used the word “Whiteness” in a lede as if “whiteness” actually existed; surely “whiteness” is a CRT construct. During the height of the George Floyd protests, I often felt I was living in a suburb of Lake Wobegon in which all the cops were racist and all the protesters peaceful. In this year’s episode, all good schools teach CRT.
On an intellectual level, what drives me crazy about this debate is the false dichotomy whereby any objection to CRT is presented as a move to conceal or obscure the role of slavery and segregation in American history. Arguably, CRT has no place in the teaching of history, which should be an attempt to understand, rather than an invitation to pass judgment. Children need to learn that difference. I would suggest that if CRT must be taught in schools at all, then it should be taught critically, as a perspective that can be evaluated, rather than a truth that can at last be told.
One problem I have with any discussion of the use of Critical Race Theory in schools is that trustworthy sources of information on what is actually happening—in classrooms and in school board meetings—are difficult to find. My impression is that most reporters for the “mainstream” media think according to the categories used by one party in the debate, proponents of CRT. This makes their accounts suspect. In a recent Philadelphia Inquirer story, opponents of CRT were portrayed as loud, disruptive, shouting. Proponents were described as clapping enthusiastically in support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This begs, among other things, the actual meaning of the catchphrase “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Often abbreviated DEI, it comes with an agenda different from each of its component words taken independently. While opponents of CRT may well have shouted their heads off at the meeting, I wonder what else happened, and what got left out. More insidiously, a WaPo reporter on the CRT-in-schools debate used the word “Whiteness” in a lede as if “whiteness” actually existed; surely “whiteness” is a CRT construct. During the height of the George Floyd protests, I often felt I was living in a suburb of Lake Wobegon in which all the cops were racist and all the protesters peaceful. In this year’s episode, all good schools teach CRT.
On an intellectual level, what drives me crazy about this debate is the false dichotomy whereby any objection to CRT is presented as a move to conceal or obscure the role of slavery and segregation in American history. Arguably, CRT has no place in the teaching of history, which should be an attempt to understand, rather than an invitation to pass judgment. Children need to learn that difference. I would suggest that if CRT must be taught in schools at all, then it should be taught critically, as a perspective that can be evaluated, rather than a truth that can at last be told.