Neighbor, A Handbook: Part 2(P), The Terms-Critical Race Theory(CRT)
“The problem is not bad people. The problem is a system that reproduces bad outcomes. It is both humane and inclusive to say, ‘We have done things that have hurt all of us, and we need to find a way out.’” -Mari Matsuda, law professor at the University of Hawaii and early developer of CRT
To begin
Before beginning to read, I’m going to ask each of us to close our eyes and see if we can answer two questions (extra challenge: write the answers down):
*What is Critical Race Theory?
*How is it part of our children’s schools?
Ok. Go ahead. Be as clear and specific as possible.
The weaponization of this term
No matter how we feel about CRT as a theory, Critical Race Theory is one of the clearest examples of the weaponization of a term that exists in this country. People are using it to tear us apart. It is in action as we speak. Despite this, studies show that most Americans have no real idea what CRT is.
The purpose of this book
The purpose of Neighbor is to help bring us into conversation, into relationship, into the work that enables us to live together as Neighbors. If we are to re-dedicate ourselves to one another, it’s critical to de-weaponize language so we can begin to talk. Not yell.
In that light, let’s move to a discussion of what CRT actually is. Full disclosure, it wasn’t a term I was familiar with until the 2020 White House memo blew it onto the national scene (1), so I’ve done even more research than usual before beginning to write this chapter. As always, I’ve included my sources at the end.
Definition
Critical Race Theory is a specific, graduate-level, academic lens used to examine and understand the U.S. in terms of how racism — and the way we have socially constructed race — affects, creates, and powers our structures, practices, policies, and therefore, our outcomes and opportunities.
What is an academic lens?
In a camera, the glass window we look through is the lens. I know everyone knows this, but bear with me for a moment and imagine a camera lens. That tiny lens allows us to focus on a very specific area with clarity.
Academic (scholarly) lenses are the same thing. Every scholar studies their area of expertise through a lens that’s very specific, gaining important knowledge about the world so we don’t have to. And we benefit.
For example, I know I don’t want to spend day after day in a lab studying the brain and nervous system of the fruit fly, but thankfully some people do, and so right now we’re gaining important insight into the human brain and autism.
Academic scholars and researchers spend their entire professional lives asking questions and learning more and more about how and why the world works the way it does — within the frame of their study. Often, one person’s area of focus intersects and informs another person’s area. Huge social, scientific, agricultural, etc, progress has been made because of this work. Though we don’t realize it, the world around us is the way it is in large part because of their discoveries, realizations, and understandings, and after, the solutions that have followed in response.
Geologists approach a place and see the construction and history of the land itself. Sociologists study how the people of that land exist together as groups. Archeolgists dig under its earth to see who was there before and how they lived. Other scholars discovered trans fats were bad for us, or spraying DDT over whole towns gave us cancer, or mold can have bacteria fighting properties.
There are also many many specific areas of academic researchers who study us humans — how we live, what hurts us, what helps us evolve. The field of psychology, for example, has helped humans heal their non-physical wounds and is broken into I don’t know how many specific lenses through which academics study the ways we are as emotional/psychological beings.
The field of law is no different. And within it exists, among many, the academic/scholarly lens: Critical Race Theory. As with all academic lenses, CRT encompasses decades of intense scholarly research.
The history of CRT’s formation
This history will be too quick and simple, but the articles I reference at the end provide excellent, in-depth information for anyone who wants to learn more (which I recommend).
For most of its 50+ year life, Critical Race Theory has been used in the legal world as a framework to examine how race, racism, the law, and its structures intersect and affect one another and our country.
Though Derrick Bell, a professor, legal scholar, and civil rights champion, did not create CRT, he is credited with the early thinking and work that inspired the lens. Troubled by the lack of real change after important civil rights legislations, in part, his work became focused on the law through the lens that racism is an unavoidable part of U.S. life and thinking. He studied how this lens expands/changes our understanding of our laws and legal process/systems and their outcomes (4) .
Around this time, there was another legal theory breaking new ground called Critical Legal Studies (CLS). Before CLS, the law and our legal systems had been generally viewed (both by scholar and citizen) as completely objective and unbiased, but these CLS scholars and their research revealed how legal decisions, laws, and punishments were not always objective or above politics. Their research examined how the law had not only been (and still could be) biased because of the history, culture, and humanity involved in the creation and administration process, but how this bias created laws and legal structures that supported and continued the bias (3).
When Dr. Bell left Harvard, his scholarly lens - popular across races and genders at the school - was left untaught. As a result, a group of legal academics and graduate students gathered to continue his work. “The students saw that stark racial inequality had persisted despite the civil rights legislation of the 1950s and ’60s. They sought, and then developed, new tools and principles to understand why” (4). This group became the originators of Critical Race Theory. Among them were Kimberlé Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris, Richard Delgado, Patricia Williams, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and Tara Yosso. As an aside, though opponents of CRT criticize it as a Black idea (though I’ve no idea what’s wrong with that), this group was racially diverse.
In conversation with CLS scholars and their academic lens, the scholars continuing Bell’s work broadened CLS theories to include race and racism. Their theory was that race and racism, when combined with a legal system that at times was biased, created and enforced an unjust social world that kept marginalized races in the lower tiers of society. The group also revealed that the law, and its institutions, omitted important scholarly work from marginalized groups as well as methods of research that mined new and unexplored ground. It was when Crenshaw, considered the founder of the term, used Critical Race Theory in an attempt to describe the legal theory at the heart of their work, that the term was born.
For most of its life, CRT has been largely used in the graduate (and beyond) academic world of law. The focus of CRT was not to divide people or undermine the law, but instead to improve how the law protected all U.S. citizens. The American Bar Association writes that CRT “scholars had witnessed how the law could be used to help secure and protect civil rights. Therefore, critical race theorists recognized that, while the law could be used to deepen racial inequality, it also held potential as a tool for emancipation and for securing racial equality” (3).
CRT is high level work conducted in professional circles and graduate level research. It focuses on policies and systems that are (at least in part) driven by racism and that continue marginalization.
Over time, CRT’s lens has also been adopted as a graduate level academic and professional lens through which to study other areas where systems and policies result in people being marginalized.
So, as an example, in law CRT may ask questions about the policies and systems tied to the bail system. In education, it may ask questions about policies and systems tied to school funding and why some schools have enormous funding and others, often schools with marginalized populations, are hugely underfunded.
No matter the area of study, the lens of acknowledging the existance of racism that’s a part of the theory allows examination of policies and systems in a new and important way. This isn’t a problem if uncovering racially biased policies and practices that then can be corrected/improved to ensure fairness for all citizens is the nation’s goal.
What CRT is
An academic theory that holds decades of scholarship
A lens for examining practices and policies and systems
A lens with which scholars can discover inequitable systems and, possibly, recommend solutions
A lens with which scholars can discover inequitable systems so others can recommend solutions
What it isn’t
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion education programs
A curriculum
Part of k-12 classroom curriculums
Racist
White-hating
Socialist
A sickness
A cult
Indoctrination
Un-Christian
The history of CRT’s weaponization
In September of 2020, two months before the presidential election, CRT launched from 50 years of legal and graduate-level obscurity into a term that created fear and loathing across a large swath of America. Inspired after he watched a Fox news talk show interview where it was mentioned, then President Trump issued a memo forbidding it (1).
Notice the timing.
Suddenly the term was everywhere — most notably in fiery political speeches, the news, and talk shows. Using words like cult, anti-American, propaganda, anti-White, and a sickness that was divisive, anti-CRT voices caused such a fear-based uproar that parents gathered to shout in anger at school board meetings, teachers grew afraid of being fired if a parent accused them of teaching it, people flocked to voting booths to support politicians who spoke against it, and politicians passed laws forbidding it.
And yet, even now, when reporters go out onto the streets (and even among our elected officials), most people can’t accurately say what it is. They may be clear on what they think it does (shame our children, invite in immorality, topple us into Socialism, cause hate of White people) but they don’t actually understand what the thing is that they claim has the power to do these feared things.
CRT, is it in our schools?
In 2020, when this storm hit the news, despite the fact that I taught in what many might call a progressive highschool in northern California, we pretty much all had to go look CRT up. It was a head scratcher. Not a part of our curriculums (nor other teachers I knew at other schools), CRT, we learned, was graduate level theory work. And yet the national conversation had it pinned in our own schools all the way down to kindergarten.
CRT was and is not part of K-12 education, nor is it usually part of college education. Can someone go find some exception to this? I’m sure they can. But it is almost exclusively never part of these years of education. It’s a high-level academic theory used as a lens for high-level academics to study the world.
Was my school’s history department trying to teach U.S. history that was broad and fact-based? Yep. Was that CRT, or CRT driven? Nope. Was our English department trying to bring in excellent literature representative of different U.S., and world, voices rather than just straight White European voices? Yep. Was that CRT driven? Nope. Did this approach to include varied excellent voices that represented not only our student body but our country’s citizenship take place, when it was appropriate, in all the departments? Yep. Was that CRT? Nope. An excellent student, and excellent citizen, is one who sees more than their own experience. This is true, too, for teachers. So, in my school are there DEI workshops? Yep. Is this because of CRT? Nope. In our school, the values were community, hospitality, integrity, spirituality, and individuality. To represent only one voice or to omit difficult history for the sake of keeping students comfortable, etc, was the opposite of these values. So, too, was the refusal to grow in order to best teach all of our students.
CRT is not part of our children’s K-12 education. The way that CRT can affect our K-12 schools was explained well in this EdWeek article. “Scholars who study critical race theory in education look at how policies and practices in K-12 education contribute to persistent racial inequalities in education, and advocate for ways to change them. Among the topics they’ve studied: racially segregated schools, the underfunding of majority-Black and Latino school districts, disproportionate disciplining of Black students, barriers to gifted programs and selective-admission high schools, and curricula that reinforce racist ideas. (2)
See how the things the article lists are high-level examinations of practices and policies and systems in order to discover where racism may contribute to the problem of inequity in education? These are not classroom activities, lessons, or curricular teacher training. My research turned up one CRT teacher workshop in North Carolina that was cancelled when politicians and parents learned of it, but whose focus was on examining some of the systems (like school lunch) that seemed to not be supporting their students of Color — it’s purpose was to understand what was not working and hopefully improve it.
Quick check in
So, ask. How well did I do answering the two questions at the beginning? What is Critical Race Theory? How is it in our schools?
Fear
When a term is made a weapon, the purpose is to use it as a tool for power. The creation of fear around CRT has certainly increased certain people’s power, especially politicians and some talk show hosts. It’s always always important to ask, what does this person gain? In the case of those doing CRT study, the gain is made clear from the beginning: to discover where racism affects our systems and ultimately make them more fair and equitable. Looking closely at this stated CRT goal, what is the goal of the other side? Think deeply.
But it has been made very scary for many people, and truth has usually not been a priority in the messaging. Fear sells news. Fear elects those who say they will defeat it. Because when people tell us our children are under attack, or our values are under attack, or America is under attack, if we don’t take a critical pause, that information goes straight to our reptilian brain and triggers the fight response.
With CRT this is indeed what’s happened.
CRT has been called “activist indoctrination” by dozens of senators, and people involved in discussions of racism, including the racism that is an undeniable part of our history, are now accused of shaming White children or of themselves being “accusatory or divisive” (4).
The messaging around CRT has made people so afraid and so angry that as more and more things are lumped into the public definition of CRT, they believe whatever they’re told, no matter how outlandish — lock, stock, and barrel.
Fear silences both clear voices and clear thinking.
This has been true with our educators. In the classroom, more and more teachers are minimizing how they teach out of fear, and many are no longer holding classroom discussions, as discussions in many schools are simply no longer safe, because who knows what a child will bring up and what a parent will hear. And yet, discussions, the ability to share opinions, thoughts, and data, and to listen to one another, are a critical part of every child’s growth. And of course, many teachers are simply choosing to leave teaching altogether both out of fear and because they, by being legally and parentally forced to omit history (as well as being made unable to acknowledge their students for who they are or who their parent/friends/family are), are unwilling to sacrifice their moral code.
The fear-messaging around CRT is also causing knee-jerk reactions. Threats. Complaints. Death threats. Beliefs based on no facts whatsoever. The desire to get rid of democracy. New laws.
From Sept. 2020 to Feb. 2022, every single one of the laws listed below were passed. In only one-and-a-half years, all of these laws were passed because of CRT-based fear-frenzy, and yet CRT has been an academic lens for 50 years. Is the reaction to a term’s weaponization obvious? Regardless of how anyone feels about CRT as one of many, thousands, of academic lenses, this intense knee-jerk series of legal reactions should give us all pause.
New Laws
This was a stunning element of writing this chapter for me. I had no idea how many laws had been passed regarding CRT since 2020 (even though it’s been around since 1970). Make no mistake, these are laws that silence.
With all the talk of the importance of the freedom of speech, and of small government, these laws create the opposite. Most of them silence our nation’s history and threaten the literal safety (physical, economic, professional, emotional) of our educators.
Note the bills that make illegal the discussion of real but difficult parts of our nation’s history. What does it mean when a nation decides it will speak only of its romanticized past? What does it mean when a nation makes it punishable to speak of things like slavery or the killing of native people or incarceration of Japanese-American citizens, or…?
For anyone familiar with AA, there is a thing called enabling. Enabling happens when family members and friends ignore a person’s alcoholism, by making excuses, being silent about it, pretending it’s not even there. When this happens, not only is the person supported in their life-threatening illness and resulting actions, but the harmful emotional and physical dynamics of that disease take over the family, hurting everyone, and continue to be passed along, generation to generation, until finally some brave soul says, “No more,” and looks the disease (and it’s resulting actions) straight in the face in order to heal generations of trauma and dysfunction. Ignoring our nation’s tough history is a form of enabling. Doing so will only make us, as a country, more ill and more weak. In that light alone:
These laws are astounding.
I’m including one entire list of new laws here because I think it’s crucial to see this legal backlash and to think critically about what it means. This list was as of Feb. 2022, so, 15 months ago. I’ll also attach a link to another more current list at the end. Please take a look.
The irony
The greatest irony of all is that these laws completely prove CRT’s theory that the law is racially biased and that through the systems it creates it silences the marginalized voices, and those speaking on their behalf, that it doesn’t want to hear. It punishes those who wants to tell the truth of our history. It punishes anyone who works to create a Neighborhood that has equity for everyone. These laws prove CRT to be true.
New laws as of Feb 2022
Below is a list of new state laws made in response to CRT. Some of these laws directly target groups marginalized due to sex, sexuality, and gender.
The list was published in Forbes Magazine in Feb. 2022, a year and three months ago. I have included it in its entirety. The journalist said: “Note that I’ve tried to keep focus on just the bills and laws focused on restricting K-12 teachers, and have not fully pursued bills/laws aimed at transparency (making teachers post all materials), nor does this list attempt to be inclusive of all bills aimed at LGBTQ students” (6).
It is also important to note that there are many laws (go look at Florida today) intended to control what happens at the college/university level. They are not included here, though I just read about three new in-process laws today.
I hope each of us reads through to the end. Remember that even if a particular state feels far away, or so very different, all of these states come together to create national laws, elect national leaders with their stories of who we are, and that every individual state law creates a potential foundation for national laws that cannot be challenged, or take years to challenge. Also remember that the de-education of any U.S. citizen affects us all, and most especially the futures of our children and their children.
When reading these laws, put on that critical thinking hat. Remember that vague language or language that can be interpreted in several ways — i.e. affirming, indoctrinate, promoting, advocating, and general topic terms like race or gender — make it really easy for the accuser to bring a case (whether about topic or intent) and very difficult for the accused to defend against. So, please read with this in mind.
I’ve decided to close this chapter with these laws, as they speak for themselves
Alabama
Alabama’s State Board issued an administrative rule prohibiting public K-12 schools from offering instruction that “indoctrinates” students in certain social or political ideologies. Now four bills are pending (HB 7, HB 9, HB 11, and HB 312) aimed at K-12 and colleges, forbidding the teaching or “affirming” of certain concepts connected to gender, religion, or race. Instructors cannot be required to share their view about “widely debated and currently controversial issues.”
Alaska
One pending bill (HB 228) would ban the usual certain concepts about gender, race, religion, ethnicity or national origin. Explicitly bans use of the 1619 Project. This bill would also allow parents to sue a school district for breaking the law.
Arizona
Arizona currently has an anti-crt law that covers state agencies. They currently have at least three bills in the pipeline (HB 2112, HB 2291)aimed at K-12 and colleges barring the promotion or advocating of certain ideas and concepts related to gender or race. The state Attorney General may bring a civil suit against violators. One of the proposals (HCR 2001) is for a constitutional amendment; that one forbids affirming ideas about race.
Arkansas
Arkansas passed its anti-crt law a year ago, aimed only at state agencies.
Colorado
Introduced just this month, HB 1206 prohibits promoting certain ideas related to race , sex, or ethnicity. It also forbids segregation or “making distinctions” based on race or ethnicity; a few months ago, there was complaint about a Colorado elementary school’s Families of Color Playground night.
Florida
Governor DeSantis was one of the first to issue an anti-crt edict, forbidding CRT and any other instructional materials that “distort” historical events, as well as banning the 1619 Project. Now two bills (SB 242, SB 148) aim to ban anything that makes students feel “discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress. Florida’s legislature is also contemplating what has become known as the “Don’t Say Gay bill (HB 1557), which bars schools from encouraging “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” DeSantis has said that he wants state gag laws to include the right for parents to sue over a civil rights violation is they believe a school or teacher has violated the law.
Georgia
Georgia has three brand new bills pending (HB 888, SB 377, SB 375). Covering K-12 and college, they ban training classroom employees to teach, act upon or encourage particular “divisive concepts.” In a particularly big reach, one bans K-12 schools from requiring students to engage in or observe a discussion of public policy.
Idaho
Idaho was an early adopter of anti-crt law, forbidding public schools from requiring any student to adopt the usual list of Critical Race Theory ideas. A newly proposed bill (HB 488) would add the right of private action to the law — the ability for a parent to sue the school — as well as loss of state financial support for violating the law.
Illinois
Illinois has two bills pending (HB 5494, HB 5505) that ban promoting or including particular ideas about sex or race. One also requires that Marxism and socialism be addressed. Parents may file objections to any affirmation of certain ideas, and they may also sue.
Indiana
Indiana’s previous attempt was scuttled when its sponsor suggested that it meant Nazis should get equal balanced treatment in the classroom. Now there are four new bills on their way (SB 415, HB 1362, HB 1389,HB 1134) that ban including certain ideas about sex, race, and state and national history. Also, bans on gender and race diversity training, compelling students to affirm certain ideas or any anti-American ideologies. And teachers may not talk about sexual orientation or gender identity without parental consent. Parents may sue, and the state may withdraw financial support.
Iowa
Last year Iowa passed a law forbidding the promotion or the inclusion in curriculum of certain concepts. Now there are four new bills pending (SF 478, SF 2043, SF 2037, HB 2053). One forbids any negative comments about the Pledge of Allegiance, while another forbids requiring teachers to discuss any controversial issues, and if teachers do so, they must take a balanced approach. Penalties are limited to discipline of the teacher or administrator involved.
Kansas
Kansas has just one bill pending. HB 2662 would forbid displaying, presenting or distributing any material containing “sexual conduct” including homosexuality. The bill is notable because it does not mention “explicit” material. This is a true Don’t Say Gay bill — any depiction of homosexuality would trigger it. The penalty would be criminal prosecution
Kentucky
Four new bills in Kentucky, including one introduced less than a week ago (HB 14, HB 18, SB 138, HB 487). These include bans on gender and diversity training, classroom instruction or discussion of certain topics, negative claims about American history, and any materials that contradict certain approved versions of US history. Penalties include the right of parents to sue and loss of accreditation.
Maryland
HB 1256 bans curricular inclusion of certain ideas about race and sex.
Michigan
Two bills have been in the pipeline since last year (SB 460, HB 5097). One bans the 1619 Project and certain “anti-American and racist theories” while the other forbids any materials that “could be understood as implicit race or gender stereotyping.” (Like several other states, Michigan has also seen focus on using the debate to promote school choice.)
Minnesota
Two brand new bills (HF 2778, HF 3301) are aimed specifically at Critical Race Theory, forbidding its inclusion in either the K-12 classroom or teacher training.
Mississippi
SB 2113 would forbid K-12 schools from requiring students to adopt or affirm certain beliefs about race or sex.
Missouri
Missouri has a whopping sixteen bills pending, all of them introduced since the start of 2022 (HB 2132, HB 2189, HB 1634, HB 1457, HB 1767, HB 1554, HB 1484, HB 1669, HB 1815, HB 1835, SB 638/676/734, SB 694, SB 645, HB 1474, HB 2428, SB 740). As you might guess, the list of bans is extensive. The 1619 project is specifically banned, as well as any concepts or materials from it. “Divisive concepts” are banned. Certain ideas about race and sex are banned (and, just to be thorough, one bill bans any questions about them on tests). Students must be presented with a positive picture of US history. Discussions of current policy issues are banned. Requires a principle of “non-indoctrination” in which all political, religious or ideological ideas must be presented with opposing views.
Montana
Montana has in many ways bypassed these issues thanks to a state Attorney General binding opinion issued in May of last year that Critical Race Theory and certain other “anti-racism” programs are discriminatory and violate the state and US Constitutions as well as civil rights law.
Nebraska
LB 1077 would ban teaching, advocating or promoting certain ideas about race or sex. Penalties include loss of state financial support.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire put many of its education reform ideas into the budget last year, including a ban on the teaching or promotion of certain ideas (leading to Moms for Liberty offering a bounty for any report of a teacher violating the law, which could result in the loss of the teacher’s license). Now HB 1255 looks to amend the 70-year-old teacher loyalty requirement, requiring teachers to denounce Marxism and socialism. It would also forbid teachers to present any negative portrayals of the Founders.
New Jersey
SB 664 and SB 598 ban the inclusion of certain concepts in the classroom. Teachers are also forbidden to discuss politics — either issues or candidates.
New Mexico
HB 91 specifically bans teaching Critical Race Theory, plus anything derived from it or overlapping with it. It also bans anything that creates feelings of “discomfort or guilt.”
New York
A8253 and A8579 involve bans on certain concepts in courses. One specifically bans the 1619 Project.
North Carolina
SB 700 includes a transparency section, but is otherwise one of the most and simple of these laws. “When the viewpoint of one of the two major political parties in the United States is presented…the viewpoint of the alternative political party shall also be presented and given equal weight…”
North Dakota
Last November, the state adopted a law banning Critical Race Theory “in any portion” and requiring that all instruction be “factual, objective.”
Ohio
HB 322 and HB 327 include rules that teachers not be required to discuss controversial issues, but if they do so, the discussion must be from many perspectives. No teaching “divisive concepts.”
Oklahoma
Oklahoma already has a law banning certain concepts and diversity training tied to gender, sex, or race. But there are nine more bills waiting in the legislature, several less than a week old (SB 614, SB 588, SB 1141, SB 1142, SB 1174, SB 1250, SB 1401, SB 1654, HB 2988, SB 1470). This is a motley group. It includes a bill that on the one hand requires an “unbiased education” but on the other requires that teachers not promote or endorse communism, socialism or Marxism — as well as banning classroom flags that promote the wrong ideas. Anti-American bias is forbidden by several of these. No course credit for political activity. No employing people who teach Critical Race Theory. No 1619 Project or anything including “related ideas.” Several include a private right of action, including the bill that would allow parents to sue a teacher for contradicting religious beliefs.
Pennsylvania
HB 1532 bans encouraging the adoption of a “racist or sexist concept,” making it one of several bills that could invite very different results than it sponsors might have in mind. And it includes the parental right to sue.
South Carolina
There is also a law on the books that absolutely forbids state money to be spent on anyone or anything that promotes certain ideas. More bills are on the way (H 4343, H 4392, H 4605, SB 982, HB 4799). These forbid any requirement for students to agree to certain concepts, including a ban on requiring students to agree with certain ideas about American history. One bill forbids discussion of “gender identity or lifestyles.” One bill includes action by the state Attorney General as a penalty.
South Dakota
South Dakota has three bills pending, two of which were sponsored by Governor Kristi Noem (HB 1012, HB 1337, HB 1309). These ban the inclusion of certain ideas related to race or sex in curriculum.
Tennessee
Tennessee was one of the first states to get on the crt-banwagon last year with a law that forbids the promotion of certain concepts in curriculum while requiring an unbiased, balanced discussion of the controversial parts of history. They now have five bills in the pipeline (HB 800, HB 2313, HB 2673). In addition to the banning of certain concepts, one of the bills bans any materials that “promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender issues or lifestyles” — another true Don’t Say Gay bill.
Texas
Texas passed a law banning certain concepts, class discussions of controversial topics and the 1619 project in March of 2021, then replaced it in August with a similar ban that added transparency requirements.
Utah
Utah passed its ban last year, forbidding material that promotes certain concepts related to sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Virginia
One of Glenn Youngkin’s first actions as governor this year was to ban crt via an executive order that forbids schools to require students to “adopt or affirm” certain ideas about race, ethnicity, sex or faith. Now five brand new bills are pending ( HB 781, HB 787, HB 977, HB 1068, HB 1126). These extend the same territory as the executive order, banning certain concepts; while the EO forbids making students adopt or affirm these forbid teaching or promoting the ideas. HB 1126 adds to the list by also forbidding the teaching or promoting of certain ideas about the United States or capitalism. It also includes a bathroom bill mandating bathroom use only by members of the same “biological sex.”
Washington
HB 1886 is a typical certain concepts ban, while HB 1807 specifically forbids making any teacher use the 1619 Project, How To Be An Anti-Racist, and anything related to Critical Race Theory. If teachers decide to use those things anyway, they must be objective.
West Virginia
West Virginia’s bills (HB 2595, SB 618, SB 45, SB 182, SB 498, HB 4016, HB 4011) all aim at forbidding schools and state agencies from teaching, including, or requiring agreement with certain concepts. One prohibits a list of specific topics, including Marxism, Maoism, communism, or critical economic theory — unless the teacher includes “the scope and scale of state sponsored terror and murder, absence of legal process and protection of civil and political rights, forced labor, economic inefficiency and starvations” that came with such philosophies. Penalties include professional discipline parental right to sue.
Wyoming
HB 97 bans the usual list of certain concepts, but for penalties it offers both private cause of action as well as charges brought by the local district attorney or the state Attorney General with a top fine of $5,000 per teacher, administrator and school district.
Current legislation pending per Pen America, click here.
In order to bring us together as Neighbors, working with one another for the whole, Neighbor: a Handbook is written with the hope of de-weaponizing both contemporary ‘hot’ language and our current divisive human practices. It’s audience is anyone it speaks to, but most especially people who are privilged in some way like I am. I’m releasing it one chapter at a time, and the first chapter is “Part One: Introduction.” This chapter will give you an overview of the whole project and its intent. If you’re enjoying Neighbor and haven’t yet followed me on Medium, please feel free to click the ‘follow’ option. If you’d like to receive an email when a new chapter is released, there’s an email icon next to the follow button that will make this happen. And of course, please feel free to share this book with anyone you feel would enjoy or benefit from it. Our Neighbor work begins with us, and then it extends beyond, so if you share it, please do so with Love. Most of all, thanks for traveling with me. I wish you well.
I have cited direct quotes in the body of this essay. But in general, my information has been largely drawn and disseminated from the following articles, and so I include them all here. They are excellent reads.
