Why National CRT Legislation May Be Our Only Option
Book display of works on critical race theory at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Courtesy of Flickr.
James Baldwin stated that “the paradox of education is precisely this—that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which they are being educated.” Once again, education has returned to the forefront of the political arena. Critical Race Theory, also known as CRT, initially a research tool to acknowledge racism’s role in our legal systems, is now the all-encompassing term used to identify race-conscious, or just race-related, teaching materials. Divided between liberals who wish to confront America’s racist past, and conservatives who want to turn from it, CRT is the new central issue in the ongoing debate on how to teach our nation’s history. To move the conversation forward and prevent a divided country similar to the civil war era, national CRT legislation is our best solution.
Currently, over 36 states are pushing legislation that will limit the teachings of race, racism, and marginalized communities in classrooms. Despite the ongoing conflict, Congress and President Biden have yet to take action. As a result, the U.S. has failed to resolve the debate with a response that prioritizes the deconstruction of inequality.
Without nationwide instruction on the damaging existence of racism and the contributions of people of color throughout history, students will continue to receive the false messages of white supremacy that fuels our nation’s struggle. In an interview with the Harvard Gazette, Historian Donald Yacovone states that older history textbooks were “like syringes that injected the toxin of white supremacy into the mind of many generations of Americans.” The article goes on to explain how, when reading “A History of the United States” by Noah Webster (author of the Webster Dictionary), Yacovone found a common theme of white supremacy and a lack of Black history. He explains that although significant changes have been made since then, these themes remain at the foundation of our approach to American history. In addition to deprogramming white supremacy, CRT has the ability to empower students of color and foster a welcoming and inclusive learning environment. Research states that a culturally conscious curriculum can increase students’ attendance, course completion rates, decrease the drop-out rate for Black boys, boost graduation rates, and even improve, political engagement.
National legislation for CRT in education is necessary for a myriad of reasons: one being the lack of consistent curriculum between red and blue states. Rather than students receiving an honest, inclusive account of our history, the extent of their social and historical education will continue to be determined by their zip code. Unfortunately, this trend of segregated learning has already begun. Democratic states like New York and California are working to incorporate Black history into graduation requirements, state funded-scholarship eligibility, and other areas of education. Meanwhile, states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have placed restrictions on the teaching of any concepts deemed synonymous with CRT. If this continues, almost half of American students will notreceive culturally conscious education, forming a mason dixon line of representation. This result would be catastrophic not only for students in rural, conservative areas but for the nation as a whole, as a lack of awareness will continue to prevent us from addressing our systemic inequalities. Through enacting CRT legislation at the national level, students will be able to receive a diverse curriculum regardless of their zip code or state politics, preventing further geopolitical divide.
Some may argue that primary and secondary curricula should continue to be controlled at the state and district levels, as that is where most current regulations originate. However, the misguidance, fear, and discomfort of white parents and students continues to prevent the adjustment of curricula by school districts. A recent article in Psychology in Action states that “while some white people may respond to information about their group status by focusing on dismantling the systems of privilege that lead to racial inequities, the negative responses of denying or distancing are much more common.” This denial of privilege can drive individuals to reframe the situation to make white people out as victims, a phenomenon known as digressive victimhood. This need to remain the victim is a tool of white fragility, or the defensive reactions white people have to avoid discussing racism, and is the foundation of conservative citizens’ relationship to the CRT debate.
By claiming that CRT curricula makes white students “feel guilty” and hinders their freedom of speech, conservatives are able to shift the conversation away from the current failings of our education system. As a result, the cries for representation are lost in guilt-driven accusations of reverse racism and communism dating back to the Cold War. The digressive victimhood of white parents and students is then reinforced by conservative representatives, who portray support for anti-CRT initiatives as a means of ensuring future electoral success. This leads to the protests and death threats to school boards from white parents that have prevented school officials from objectively assessing their curricula. Unfortunately, this trend of digressive victimhood is prevalent not just in the CRT debate, but in any conversation about confronting America’s shortcomings and dismantling our racial hierarchy (ex. police brutality, affirmative action). The CRT debate is not an isolated issue, but a part of the larger cultural war we continue to wage against one another.
CRT legislation is necessary because this issue brings us to a national crossroads. Our democracy can collectively choose to dedicate itself to the work of acknowledging the past, or ignore it and continue to jeopardize our future. Therefore, such legislation for CRT would require participation from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives who wish to champion “American liberty” must be willing to listen to those advocating for inclusivity and honesty. Without a push from our nation’s highest offices toward acknowledging these issues, the country will remain in a constant cycle of white fragility and Black suffering. Without it, who will we become? A union built on progress confined by regional politics? A nation divided between tradition and advancement? The solution cannot be isolated; it must be large enough to create a cultural shift. We must collectively assume responsibility for our nation’s prosperity.
Nicholas Brown is a Staff Writer for the Columbia Political Review and freshman in Columbia College. He is planning to study Political Science and African American Studies.