I’m re-posting my July 4th column on CRT. I do this in the wake of the Virginia election, where Critical Race Theory in schools was an outsized issue. I start by noting that there is just no compelling evidence that CRT is taught anywhere in K-12 as more than a one-off mistake. So, much of the criticisms of CRT in schools are made in bad faith. This is not much different than the factual distortions of the 1619 project that were needed to support its otherwise unsupportable thesis. But, we live in a world, where bad faith arguments are common, and as citizens need to better search out for what is true and useful, and what is false and must be discarded.
I know Virginia well. I grew up in Great Falls, and worked at a horse farm adjacent to Governor-Elect Youngkin’s home. I went to high school a half mile from Governor McCaullife’s home, and I went to college with Ralph Northam. I have had friends in the general assembly from both parties.
More than half of Virginians are transplanted citizens. Virginia has a much higher share of African-American citizens, and Asians and a much smaller share of white citizens than is the national average. It is the 7th most educated state in the nation.
Virginia was a smallish, backward state from the end of the Civil War until the 1970’s. The collapse of Virginia’s economy was not due to emancipation, that was a long term boost to productivity. The 1860 Census listed 88,000 men aged 20-30. By 1865, 30,000 Virginian’s had been killed in action. The place literally fell apart after 1865 because of a generational trauma not seen anywhere else until World War One. It didn’t recover until the growth of Northern Virginia, Tidewater and Richmond in the last decades of the 20th century.
The new population came from everywhere, mostly college educated, and without family connections to the moral stench of the Confederacy. That didn’t mean perfection. Virginia v. Loving wasn’t decided in 1967, and the college I attended (VMI) wasn’t open to black men until the 1960’s, or women until 1997. Still, it is hard to overstate the change in Virginia. Here’s one example.
I attended VMI from 1980-1984, and roomed with a total of 13 different guys. Only one of them was from Virginia. Only one had a family member graduate from VMI (his dad, and Air Force Colonel), and only one other was from the south (son of a engineer at the Huntsville Space Center). This was not a place of the ‘old south’ of whom we mostly mocked.
In the wake of Youngkin’s victory there will be a lot of claims of racism about Virginia voters. No doubt that exists, but the claim of broad racism cannot survive empirical scrutiny. It takes enormous intellectual gymnastics to explain away an African-American immigrant woman winning more votes than Youngkin in the Lt. Gov’s race as a simple by-product of otherwise pervasive white racists. We are in the midst of a Gold Medal performance of those mental gymnastics.
In the past few months, what I still feel was largely bad faith campaign against CRT in schools helped animate voters. But, I need to be a bit humble on my perceptions about this. For, every time claims of ‘no CRT in schools’ were made, along came evidence of a training module or curriculum design with some sort of CRT making its appearance. There are literally dozens of them. Have these made it to the 2nd grade classroom? I don’t know. But it clearly turned the election, and it was not just a single gaffe from Gov. McAuliffe, who was an effective, centrist governor just a few years ago.
I will write more about it in future columns, but suffice it to say that elements of CRT instruction can be deathly toxic. I read the transcript of a CRT speaker here at Ball State a few weeks ago. It began by rejecting the existence of Muncie, or Indiana or the USA. The lands were, she said, occupied. That is a pretty common opening (a Land back statement).
She has every right to claim that the USA, the State of Indiana and its residence are illegal occupiers. But, opponents of CRT have every right to tie that statement to those who support CRT and its instruction. This talk framed specifically the notion that “for no less than twelve years in our elementary and secondary school educations, that the core curriculum is by and large the domain of white Euro-Western perspectives and ways of knowing.”
This is a viewpoint aimed directly at K-12 schooling, with CRT as its central organizing element. It was a sponsored talk, given at a university, so belongs squarely in the public domain, just like everything my Center publishes or presents. It should thrive or not based upon full exposure, the open inquiry of ideas, or what Jonathan Rauch calls the Constitution of Knowledge.
I call it toxic, because it is going to be viscerally rejected by voters at all levels. Yes, much of the CRT complaints overstate the role of CRT in schools — often to a stunning degree. Yes, it is used for partisan political purposes, often by unsavory folks. Maybe the CRT folks are noble, inspired and will eventually change the world into their vision. We should consider that this what they wish to do, since activism activism is right there in every definition of CRT.
I meekly suggest that CRT be judged on its merits. There will be some aspects from which we may learn important lessons, in the same way reading Das Kapital explains finance, but taking Karl Marx much further is catastrophic. But, it is also impossible to offer a clear treatment of 19th and 20th century economics without it. In that way, some parts of CRT may improve the instruction of history. I wish to maintain an open mind on that, though CRT proponents aren’t pursuing that goal. They want something far different.
Some of their goals are perplexing. They argue that race is a social construct, but later argue that ‘colorblindness’ is a liberal notion, that perpetuates deeply institutionalized injustices. I mean, pick one or the other (and yes, I know they claim a deeper point here, but they don’t make the case).
They reject much of the west’s methods of knowledge, in what is an unambiguously post-modern rejection of truth. These claims are common, but rarely specific, for the very reason that specificity is devastating to their thesis. Examples of K-12 instructional material arguing the ‘whiteness’ of math’s focus on getting ‘right’ answers used to be funny tropes. They are increasingly common, and I guarantee you a math teacher in your local school has attended a workshop on the issue.
Those worried about the rise of Trump’s notions of ‘truth’ will perceive an eerily common thread in these ideas. Both are grim visions on which to tie our future.
My progressive friends are sure to claim the CRT kerfuffle is nothing. I largely did so in a column just 120 days ago (reproduced below). I assure you, that the past 120 days have provided far more fuel to the CRT file in schools than you believe. Protests to the contrary will deliver a few more electoral results akin to Virginia’s this week. You’d be far better off heading E.J. Dionne’s advice to “"They also have to make a compelling argument for how schools can offer an honest accounting of the role of racism in American life that also honors the country’s achievements."
My conservative friends are sure to claim CRT is ruining schools. I don’t think there’s remotely any evidence that this is true, but as long as progressives feel compelled to build the case (as they are unwittingly doing), you have every right to ask them about it. I feel certain you don’t need my leave to do so, but have at it.
In the meantime, I have a better vision of how to handle a frank conversation about our imperfect nation. I hasten to add that after two and a half centuries, this imperfect nation of ours still happens to be the most perfect yet founded. And that by a wide margin.
The ideals of Independence Day and Critical Race Theory
Independence Day weekend is a good time for reflection. The style of that rumination needn’t be tedious; after all, hamburgers, beer and s’mores beckon. For me, it’s as simple as re-reading the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The words can be so familiar that we fail to absorb just how radical these ideas were and remain. It begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident...”
Written at a time when our nation was ruled by a heredity king and one in five people were enslaved, the perfection of these words continue to resonate. That world-changing revolution made clear that the principles that tore us from England were few but transcendent. These ideas came directly from the Enlightenment, and its core argument that individual liberty, reason and tolerance formed the basis for civilization. The Declaration repeated five interlocking ideas.
They begin with the idea that each of us has inherent value, which is preserved by rights or protections. These rights are given to us by God, not government. This liberty cannot lawfully be denied as it flows from the simple act of being human, not from religion or ancestry or race. Governments exist to secure these rights. Great Britain failed to do so. For these reasons we broke the bonds with England, and became a new nation.
These ideas remain shockingly radical and inspiring. When asked what sentence could not be translated into Newspeak, George Orwell (a subject of a later, different King George) offered that lone sentence from our Declaration of Independence. These words are repeated today by protestors in Hong Kong, and by those striving to craft a Constitution in Afghanistan. Ironically, those ideas penned by a young Virginian slaveholder remain the most important and liberating political sentence ever written.
Our infant nation and its founders got the words and ideas right in 1776. But we failed, often spectacularly, to match our words with deeds. More than a decade later, as our founders labored with the Constitution, they acknowledged those looming shortcomings as we strived for a “more perfect Union.” They did not view it as perfect in 1788, and we must not think it so today. This column is too short to list our failures to match our national behavior with our ideals. It is sufficient to note that we permitted the enslavement of millions of people who both Enlightenment’s reason and our own Declaration of Independence made clear should be full citizens.
Today there is growing tension over the interpretation of the historical events I describe. Some of this is natural. Scholars seek to emphasize different parts as we learn more and see the world through a more distant lens. Still, I know of no sentient adult who believes our great nation is perfect. Neither do I know of anyone who has offered a better definition of ideal government than that outlined in our founding. For the sake of honesty, we ought to acknowledge both these truths.
No better example exists than that of the 1619 Project, the New York Times critique of American racial progress and institutions in America. This admonishment of the United States is framed around our failure to realize the goals of our founding documents. There are faults with the 1619 Project, but It hardly offers a new vision. The only really radical part of the 1619 Project lies in hearkening back to the as yet unfulfilled words of 1776.
A louder debate surrounds what is called Critical Race Theory. A number of states have passed legislation limiting what portions of this approach can presented in school classrooms. This is fast becoming a touchstone of our culture wars. However, insofar as I can tell, CRT isn’t taught in any Indiana classrooms. Maybe that’s because CRT remains a subject to be taught and challenged in college or graduate school.
Still, there is a body of derivative work of CRT that focuses instruction on the role of racial identity. Though the examples in K-12 are blessedly few, there are documented instances of students being separated by race for instruction. In the worst of these examples, elementary students are then made to admit guilt of systemic racism, or told that they are victims of these systems. It should come as no surprise that these classroom practices likely violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We don’t need new laws, just effective courts.
As is the purpose of the culture wars, much of this debate diverts us from more important work. We do need to continue to talk and write about race in America. Both the 1619 Project and CRT may be poor vehicles for a constructive discussion. But, if that is so, the burden lies with their critics to summon better ways to confront lingering issues of race. We cannot legislate ideas away, nor restrict access to them. The only effective way to confront a bad idea is with better ones.
The failings I observe with CRT lie in its rejection of the individual. This should not be hard to fight and we need not appeal to the 18th century language of the Enlightenment or our founding documents. We could easily call upon the words of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King, Jr. or John McWhorter to challenge the racial identitarian precepts of Critical Race Theory.
Still, for the diehard critic of CRT, there’s some risk of reading the work of these authors. In finding that much of CRT is misguided, you may also find parts of it ring true. This would be particularly true if you read Douglass’ speech “What to the Slave is July 4th” or listen to Baldwin’s interview with Dick Cavett in 1968. Both will make you uncomfortable, and give you a lingering sense that despite our immense progress, we all have a longer road to travel. Together.
If the 1619 Project and CRT provoke us to find ways to "form a more perfect Union," we should be grateful for them. In a free nation, discussing even bad ideas has merit. If these ideas are mistaken, we should still thank their authors for sharpening our argument. We should also thank them for providing another opportunity to explain those self-evident ideals upon which our nation was founded, and that we rightly celebrate on this holiday.