Should The States Ban Critical Race Theory In Schools?
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has successfully pushed for a new rule banning Critical Race Theory from ... [+] the classroom. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Getty Images  In 2021, Republican legislators in nearly half of all states have introduced bills to regulate how schools teach about race. The State of Florida recently joined the ranks of states that explicitly ban teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the classroom. The new rule bans theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards including the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory . . .. The rule also bans use of New York Times 1619 Project, which argues that Americas real founding date was the day the first slave ship arrived. That depends on a lot of questions. There are many different laws and bills out there and they vary widely in content. Since Florida is a large swing state and its governor, Ron DeSantis, is an early frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President, this post will focus on Floridas CRT ban. CRT means different things to different people, but Florida has defined it as the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons.  This is closely tied the idea of structural racism. At its most modest and straightforward, it is the idea that minorities, especially Black people, suffer from racism even when they arent being currently victimized by racially prejudiced people. For example, if black renters couldnt get a home loan in 1940, that means that today fewer black people own homes and their homes are worth less on the market. Structural racism also means that seemingly neutral laws, such as single family zoning, keeps Black people out of white neighborhoods because such zoning laws make it too expensive for them to move into an area. So far, so good. Its educational for students to learn how some seemingly neutral laws have racist origins and continue to perpetuate racial inequality today. When CRT is criticized, its defenders often defend this version of CRT. But CRT advocates often go well beyond this. For example, some school districts encourage the formation of racially-segregated affinity groups in which white people can discover together their group identity. They can cultivate racial solidarity and compassion and support each other in sitting with the discomfort, confusion, and numbness that often accompany white racial awakening.  There are good reasons for states to push back against programs that encourage white racial solidarity or that encourage a sense of collective racial guilt. Because structural racism holds that all white people benefit from current racist laws and structures, it is somethings used to argue that all white people are individually racist. Parents are understandably upset when their children come home from school feeling negatively about the color of their skin. The new Florida rule focuses on another excess of Critical Race Theory: the idea that America was founded on the principle of racism and is a fundamentally racist country. As the distinguished law professor Daniel Farber has put it (in the context of refuting it): racism is part of the DNA of the American legal system, a sort of genetic flaw. I think that really is a fair statement of the heart of critical race theory.  It is perfectly appropriate for states to push back against this sort of excess. It is the job of state and local government to determine what values the public education system strives to instill in its students. Just as it would be appropriate for the state to forbid public schools from teaching that slavery was a positive institution, it can forbid schools from teaching that slavery was the defining characteristic of Americas founding. Another question is whether these laws are the best ways to achieve that goal. A lot of the anti-CRT laws are badly drafted. A number of them, for example, forbid teachers from making students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex. Pegging the law to a students subjective feelings is asking for trouble. Of course learning about the horrors of slavery might make some white students feel discomfort or guilt. This is what leads some defenders of CRT to claim that these laws will make it difficult to teach students about important, historical facts regarding race in America. The law is certainly within the constitutional power of the state. Courts have held that government has the constitutional power to control curricular issues and decide on teaching materials without violating the First Amendment. Ideally, rather than forbidding any teaching of CRT, the law would require that a diversity of viewpoints on race be taught. Students could learn a lot from a truly rigorous conversation about whether the police use disproportionate force against minorities or whether the economic status of minorities is improving. CRT is an important critique of America regardless of whether one agrees with it. Surely there are ways for the states to reign in the excesses of CRT without banning the teaching of it altogether.