If You COULD... What Would You Do?
The fundamental question, too rarely asked
IF YOU COULD PRESS A BUTTON, WHAT KIND OF WORLD WOULD YOU MAKE?
I often chide people to listen to their opponents. Too often we equivocate and justify and apply nuance and sympathy… when the positions are close to our own. For everything else we simplify and try to edge our opponents toward positions which are not just mistaken but are evil. It’s remarkably common and all it requires is that you ignore the words of those opponents and attribute some malice to them. With today’s polarization and social media that is an extremely easy trap to fall into, especially when you don’t actually read or listen to any of those opponents regularly.
For example: a person could listen to the less intelligent (but more passionate) Leftist creators on TikTok and believe that Florida’s anti-CRT laws are actually in place to keep black children from learning the history of racism and resistance in this country. They would have to ignore the fact that NO Republicans, in any poll, embrace this kind of racist end. They would have to ignore the actual text of the law (which is mostly concerned with avoiding race essentialism or racially-biased teaching and policies… the ironic thing is that the anti-CRT law actually doesn’t forbid the teaching of CRT ideas, but they must be taught as ideas and they must be taught in a race-neutral fashion). They would have to ignore the millions of decent, educated black people who support the law and a much greater number who support its aims. Critical Race Theory is (and has always been) a phenomenon which draws its strength from a mainly white cohort in academia (and teacher’s colleges). The typical CRT believer these days is a young white woman with a graduate degree. CRT is not-and never has been-a movement that is popular among black Americans. They would have to ignore the hundreds of tweets and interview answers and press conference soundbites of people like Christopher Rufo and Gov. Ron DeSantis, who make it clear that their quarrel is with the indoctrination-lite of the aborted AP Black History modules introducing highly questionable and ahistorical takes on Queer Theory and BLM protests (for example) and not with the teaching of black history. They would have to ignore the fact that in the wake of the laws Florida students spend more time learning about slavery and the civil rights struggle and other features of American black history than they used to. They would have to ignore the fact that literally NO ONE, ANYWHERE, OF ANY IMPORT, is calling for the reduction or dilution of black history instruction. They would have to ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe that millions of Republicans want black schoolchildren to not learn their history so badly that the issue would influence their votes and so they would duly reward DeSantis… but they all believe this secretly and have agreed among themselves to not post about it on social media or discuss it publicly. They would have to believe that DeSantis-a presidential candidate-would gain so much benefit from this (or perhaps hates black schoolchildren so much) that he risked the backlash which was guaranteed on the Left. In short, this hypothetical person would have to be nearly as unmoored from American public life and current events as those who believe that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of children.
Yet such people do exist; millions of them. I recently had a long exchange with one individual, during which he wrote that “redlining is critical race theory”, which isn’t so much mistaken as incoherent. It’s like saying commercial air travel is willpower or something. It can’t even be construed as a logical remark, as it’s phrased. I’ve written plenty elsewhere about Critical Theory and its various offshoots (they’re fast becoming my apparent subject of expertise-which depresses me to no end) but suffice it to say here: CRT is not a school of history or a viewpoint about American history. Critical Theorists don’t even believe in objective truth or historical event and they are staunchly against the education of students in history of any kind. When the New York Times launched a Critical Theory-tinged American history project which it named ‘The 1619 Project’ it was so panned and repudiated by professional historians that the Times had to issue dozens of retractions-first secretly and then with some public embarrassment. This wasn’t a surprise to those of us who understand Critical Theory. CRT doesn’t believe in historical events which can be taught in a classroom. They believe that the standards of historians (and scientists, and publishers, etc. etc.) are hopelessly infected by white supremacy and should be totally discarded, and while they are interested in classroom materials and syllabi it’s not due to a concern with the effective teaching of the students in question. Anyone who believes that Critical Theorists want black children to learn their history believes a proposition which is the exact opposite of the truth. If they doubt me I encourage them to explore Critical Theory for themselves, which is something that almost no one who opposes anti-CRT laws have actually done.
Someone would have to misunderstand virtually everything about what CRT is and they would have to ignore the statements and arguments of the anti-CRT crowd in their entirety to believe that Florida’s law is racist in intent. Of course it’s easier to attribute racism to your opponents. That immediately removes them from polite discussion or even consideration. If 45% of Americans were so racist that they were hostile to the idea of a public education in black history we would be in serious trouble. Fortunately that’s not the case.
The problem (well. one problem) is that there’s so much information out there now. People tend to validate the sources they agree with and find ways to minimize or discount those they don’t. The media only worsens matters. Google ‘Florida anti-CRT' and the first twenty or so results are from mainstream news sources more or less making the point that Florida’s law is somehow harmful to the instruction of black history (no details are ever provided of course), with every single one excluding any quotes or responses from DeSantis or the law’s supporters. The news organizations get around this by writing about ‘the debate’ and (exclusively) quoting activists and academics who support their stances. This is the kind of offal which has thoroughly corroded journalism in a mere ten years. News organizations have falsely reported (en masse) the black Americans are statistically more at risk from death at the hands of police, that trans people are being targeted for anti-trans violence, that the movement to restrict books in K-12 libraries is anti-LGBTQ, and that hundreds of juvenile graves have been discovered outside Canada’s native schools. None of these propositions is supported by the weight of available evidence.
If you’re concerned about the Florida law and you hear about a school board which is removing a book about Rosa Parks then this becomes evidence of a worrying trend… even though there’s absolutely nothing in the law which could be construed to support this act. The same person could hear about segregated school events (which is one aspect of CRT that has been applied more and more in recent years) or lessons about ‘whiteness’ and wave them away as isolated or minimal or not representative. Let me be clear: if you support freedom of speech (for anyone, not just teachers) and if you support the idea of a color blind society and fair standards for all (even as distant goals) then CRT is directly opposed to your political values.
We can cut through the noise about narratives and confusion about what’s actually happening and doubts about clarity or honesty or intent with a single question though: if you had total power in a policy area (like school curriculums, or book selections) what would you do?
What are your actual goals?
The people arguing for CRT (or arguing against the Florida law, which are not at all the same things) often equivocate or claim that there is no CRT in K-12 education, and invariably imply that their opponents are racist. Ask them what they would teach if they had absolute power though and their honest answer (some of them) would include:
explorations of ‘whiteness’ and the associated social ills,
an ‘intersectional’ focus on civil rights activism and how it intersected with feminism or ‘queer’ activism (which is a powerful tool to bind activist movements and is extremely important to CRT, but has almost no historical validity)
use of terms like BIPOC or an emphasis on the lenses of ‘colonialism’ or ‘white supremacy’ (politically charged ideas which mean something very different to the Left and are not supported by historical evidence)
views about the dominant economic benefits of slavery for the growth and construction of the US (again, important to the narrative but not historically accurate; slavery represented a fairly small and not very useful share of overall wealth since it was rarely reinvested and actually retarded the growth of technology and infrastructure in the South)
the current and massive impact of ‘systemic racism’ on the position of black people in the US today (something which is, to say the least, highly debatable and furthermore a terrible message for young students)
You can believe that some of these points are valid but the point is that they’re all contentious and all minority views among experts and all include intense political ramifications… and should therefore only be included in K-12 education with great caution (and certainly not taught as fact). Every one of these points is a minority opinion among Americans… so opposing them cannot, alone, indicate racism.
With that single question you move past all the debate about what CRT is, and what’s actually being taught, and which books are currently being removed (wrongly labelled ‘book bans’).
You can use the same technique with the debate over disciplinary policies (which, in many districts, now slightly privileges black misbehavior over other kinds), standardized tests and grading (which have been attacked for no other reason than that they produce racially disparate outcomes), or the debate over pornographic books in schools and school libraries… and the hundreds of non-pornographic books which have certainly been caught up in the furor.
Forget who’s anti-LGTBQ and who’s tolerant and who’s trying to protect or groom children. The selections below are from GenderQueer, the most commonly removed book by school districts (and therefore surely not a minimal or unrepresentative example).
Do you think such material should be available to elementary or middle school students? Keep in mind, this content is not the most graphic in the book.
Welcome to the majority.
Now maybe we can stop calling each other names, and begin discussing the curriculum materials and age appropriateness of media, setting political labels aside. I think 85% of parents just want their kids to be shielded from confusing and possibly harmful content and get a good education. Republicans aren’t racists (and so neither are Republican politicians) and Democrats aren’t groomers (ditto). The debate should be between all of those people and the minority of racists or radical leftists who want to create a cadre of activists or believe that children are sexual beings and age of consent laws are illegitimate state oppression (the actual position of Queer Theory).
So… let’s talk.