Editor’s note: This blog was republished with permission from Robert Kim. You can view the original post on Heinemann.com. Watch Robert Kim, Cornelius Minor and Kass Minor talk about anti-CRT legislation as part of Heinemann’s ForwardEd series on Tuesday, August 24, at 7:30 p.m. ET.
Educators around the nation are grappling with so-called “anti-critical race theory” laws that are cropping up around the nation. What’s going on here, and how should educators respond to this development? Civil rights law and policy expert and Heinemann author Bob Kim breaks it down for us here:
What is critical race theory?
Critical race theory (or “CRT”) is a school of thought that explores and critiques American history, society, and institutions of power (including government and legal systems) from a race-based perspective. An intellectual outcropping of the critical legal studies and feminist legal theory movements of the 1970s, the CRT movement has contributed to a deeper understanding of how race has been constructed in and impacted the United States. It also poses key questions, such as: Has the American legal system and traditional civil rights litigation been effective at achieving racial justice? And if not, what should be done about that?
What are “anti-CRT” laws?
As of July 2021, 26 states have proposed legislation or executive actions banning or limiting the teaching of principles attributed to CRT in public schools. (To be clear: these proposals don’t have all that much to do with actual critical race theory.) So far, those bills have been signed into law in six states (Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas), and four other states (Georgia, Florida, Montana and Utah) have issued executive rules or memos with a similar purpose.
While the proposals vary in scope and content, one common goal is to discourage or prohibit staff training and/or curriculum and instruction in public K-12 and/or postsecondary schools that “stereotypes,” “scapegoats” or causes “discomfort or guilt” among members of a particular race or sex (or the government) by suggesting they are responsible for racism/sexism or are “inherently” racist, sexist or oppressive. Some proposals prohibit additional actions, such as “promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government”; “promoting division between, or resentment of” people of different races or classes; or even suggesting that “the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States” (a direct response to the 1619 Project).
Where did this “anti-CRT” movement come from?
Many state “anti-CRT” bills contain provisions similar to those found in documents issued by the former Trump Administration. In September 2020, the Trump Administration issued a memo to federal agencies directing them to identify and cancel any staff training programs that focus on “critical race theory” or “‘white privilege,’ or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.” Weeks later, President Trump issued an executive order that purported “to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating” by restricting the federal government and its contractors from conducting diversity training that examined systemic racism, white privilege and other issues involving race and gender bias. This executive order was revoked by President Biden on his first day in office, but its contents have since been replicated by state legislatures.
Can I still discuss and teach issues pertaining to racism or sexism in schools or staff trainings?
Yes. However, depending on whether an anti-CRT law is in effect where you teach or work or not, there may be a few restrictions on how you teach or provide training on these concepts. Check with your school administrator—and take a moment to look up your state to get clear on the rules of the road.
A scan of the provisions in states where anti-CRT legislation has passed reveals that educators and school training facilitators still enjoy wide latitude. For example, in Texas, educators can (and may be required) to teach topics related to the “history and importance of the civil rights movement” and “the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong.” In Idaho, any curriculum that was allowed before is still okay as long as no student is “compelled” to adhere to certain tenets ascribed to critical race theory. In Iowa, any otherwise prohibited content is allowable in staff diversity trainings if those trainings are voluntary—and even in mandatory trainings, trainers are allowed to respond to questions related to critical race theory (as described in the statute). And Iowa and New Hampshire educators or diversity trainers can still teach or train about “the historical existence of ideas and subjects” related to race and gender; “the inherent humanity and equality of all persons”; “sexism, slavery, racial oppression, or racial segregation”; “promote racial, cultural, ethnic, or intellectual diversity or inclusiveness”; or teach any topic otherwise prohibited in the legislation “as part of a larger course of academic instruction.” (In fact, many of these “anti-CRT” bills contain similar provisions that allow educators to continue teaching topics related to racism, sexism, history, the civil rights movement and anything that is prescribed under state academic content standards.)
Are the anti-CRT laws legal?
That’s a good question. States do have the broad discretion to control the content of classroom instruction or school employee trainings. But they can’t enact laws with a discriminatory purpose (for example, if they are directed harmfully at specific racial or ethnic populations). Laws can’t be so vague that it’s impossible for educators or state-funded contractors or trainers to decipher what’s allowable or what’s not. And laws that unduly restrict academic freedom or the ability of students to receive a diverse range of information and ideas may violate the First Amendment.
Remember also: Public school educators enjoy free speech protections when they choose to speak out on issues of racism, sexism and other matters of public concern in their personal capacities (i.e., on your own time). That said, in our highly connected world, even personal speech may impact the school community; in general, for public school educators, the more unconnected to work your speech is (as indicated by what, where, when, to whom and how you communicate), the greater your right to speak freely. Government employees do have a right to speak out at work, but this right is more limited than when they are speaking in their personal capacities.
What can I do to address anti-CRT laws?
These “anti-CRT” laws are creatures of state legislatures and/or governors. If you are experiencing a problem or unnecessary restriction related to your job, report it your local or state elected representative (or your union representative, if you have one). That’s your right. You may also wish to pay a visit to civil rights advocacy organization defending free speech or educators’ rights. (As a former ACLU attorney, I always appreciated calls from educators; they helped me to understand how laws or policies impact practitioners on the ground—whether or not I later represented them in court.)
At the school and community level, you may wish to raise the topic of “anti-CRT” laws at a staff or supervisory meeting. Your goal is to understand clearly what’s prohibited and what isn’t. (See above: there are a LOT of loopholes in these laws!) School trainers may wish to have a dialogue with school administrators prior to conducting professional development sessions to clarify permissible versus prohibited content. Get this in writing! And remember to keep the language of the anti-CRT provision front and center in these conversations.
Kumbuka Mhariri: Blogi hii ilichapishwa tena kwa ruhusa ya Robert Kim. Unaweza kuona chapisho la awali kwenye Heinemann.com. Robert Kim, Cornelius Minor na Kass Minor wanazungumza juu ya sheria ya kupambana na CRT kama sehemu ya mfululizo wa Heinemann's ForwardEd Jumanne, Agosti 24, saa 7:30 pm. ET. (Kabla ya hapo) Walimu kote nchini wanashindana na sheria zinazoitwa "nadharia ya ubaguzi wa rangi" ambazo zinaibuka kote nchini. Ni nini kinachoendelea hapa, na walimu wanapaswa kujibuje maendeleo haya? "Mwandishi wa haki za binadamu na mwanasheria wa haki za binadamu, Bob Kim, aliandika hivi: ""Kuna maoni mengi kuhusu jamii." Nadharia ya ubaguzi wa rangi (CRT) ni shule ya mawazo ambayo inachunguza na kukosoa historia ya Marekani, jamii, na taasisi za nguvu (ikiwa ni pamoja na serikali na mifumo ya kisheria) kutoka kwa mtazamo wa ubaguzi wa rangi. Kama sehemu ya utafiti wa kiakili wa masomo muhimu ya kisheria na harakati za nadharia ya kisheria ya wanawake ya miaka ya 1970, harakati ya CRT imesababisha uelewa wa kina wa jinsi jamii ilivyotengenezwa na kuathiri Marekani. "Hii pia inazua maswali muhimu kama vile: ""Je, mfumo wa kisheria wa Marekani na madai ya haki za kiraia ya jadi yamekuwa na ufanisi katika kufikia haki ya kikabila?""" Na ikiwa sivyo, ni nini kinachopaswa kufanywa kuhusu hilo? Ni nini sheria za "kupinga CRT"? Kuanzia Julai 2021, majimbo 26 yamependekeza sheria au hatua za utekelezaji zinazopiga marufuku au kupunguza ufundishaji wa kanuni zinazohusiana na CRT katika shule za umma. (Iwe wazi: mapendekezo haya hawana wote kwamba mengi ya kufanya na kweli muhimu mbio nadharia.) Kwa sasa, sheria hizo zimetolewa katika majimbo sita (Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee na Texas) na majimbo mengine manne (Georgia, Florida, Montana na Utah) yametoa sheria za utekelezaji au kumbukumbu zenye kusudi kama hilo. Ingawa mapendekezo hutofautiana katika wigo na maudhui, lengo moja la kawaida ni kukataza au kupiga marufuku mafunzo ya wafanyakazi na au mtaala na mafundisho katika shule za umma za K-12 na au baada ya sekondari ambazo <unk> stereotypes, <unk> scapegoats <unk> au husababisha <unk> usumbufu au hatia <unk> kati ya wanachama wa jamii au jinsia fulani (au serikali) kwa kupendekeza wao ni wajibu wa ubaguzi wa rangi au <unk> asili <unk> ubaguzi wa rangi, ubaguzi wa jinsia au ukandamizaji. Baadhi ya mapendekezo ya sheria hiyo yanakataza vitendo vingine kama vile "kuendeleza au kuunga mkono kupinduliwa kwa serikali ya Marekani kwa nguvu," "kuendeleza mgawanyiko kati ya watu wa jamii au tabaka tofauti au kuchukizwa na watu wa jamii tofauti," au hata kupendekeza kwamba "kuanzishwa kwa utumwa katika eneo ambalo sasa ni Marekani kulifanyiza msingi wa kweli wa Marekani." Harakati hii ya "kupinga CRT" ilitoka wapi? Sheria nyingi za serikali dhidi ya CRT zina masharti yanayofanana na yale yaliyopatikana katika hati zilizotolewa na Utawala wa zamani wa Trump. "Mnamo Septemba 2020, utawala wa Trump ulitoa barua kwa mashirika ya shirikisho kuwaamuru kutambua na kufuta programu zozote za mafunzo ya wafanyakazi ambazo zinazingatia ""nadharia muhimu ya jamii"" au ""heshima nyeupe"" au juhudi nyingine yoyote ya mafunzo au propaganda ambayo inafundisha au inapendekeza ama kwamba Marekani ni nchi ya ubaguzi wa rangi au uovu au kwamba jamii yoyote au kabila ni ubaguzi wa rangi au uovu. "" ""Masharti ya Utekelezaji"" ambayo ilidai ""kupambana na ubaguzi wa rangi na ubaguzi wa jinsia na ubaguzi wa jinsia na ubaguzi wa jinsia.""" Amri hiyo ilifutwa na Rais Biden siku ya kwanza ya uongozi wake, lakini tangu wakati huo imerudishwa na bunge la jimbo. Je, bado naweza kuzungumzia na kufundisha masuala yanayohusiana na ubaguzi wa rangi au ubaguzi wa jinsia katika shule au mafunzo ya wafanyakazi? Ndio, nina hakika. Hata hivyo, kulingana na kama sheria ya kupambana na CRT iko katika athari ambapo unafundisha au kufanya kazi au la, kunaweza kuwa na vizuizi vichache juu ya jinsi unavyofundisha au kutoa mafunzo juu ya dhana hizi. Angalia na msimamizi wa shule yako <unk> na kuchukua muda wa kuangalia juu ya hali yako kupata wazi juu ya sheria za barabara. Uchunguzi wa masharti katika majimbo ambapo sheria dhidi ya CRT imepitishwa inaonyesha kwamba waalimu na wasimamizi wa mafunzo ya shule bado wanafurahia latitude pana. Kwa mfano, katika Texas, walimu wanaweza (na wanaweza kuhitajika) kufundisha mada zinazohusiana na "historia na umuhimu wa harakati za haki za kiraia" na "historia ya utawala mweupe, ikiwa ni pamoja na lakini si tu kwa taasisi ya utumwa, harakati ya eugenics, na Ku Klux Klan, na njia ambazo ni kinyume cha maadili." Katika Iowa, maudhui yoyote ambayo ni marufuku inaruhusiwa katika mafunzo ya utofauti wa wafanyakazi ikiwa mafunzo hayo ni ya hiari <unk> na hata katika mafunzo ya lazima, waalimu wanaruhusiwa kujibu maswali yanayohusiana na nadharia muhimu ya mbio (kama ilivyoelezwa katika sheria). "Wanafunzi wa Iowa na New Hampshire wanaweza kufundisha au kufundisha juu ya ""kuwepo kwa kihistoria kwa mawazo na masomo"" yanayohusiana na jamii na jinsia; ""ubinadamu wa asili na usawa wa watu wote; ubaguzi wa kijinsia, utumwa, ukandamizaji wa kijinsia, au mgawanyiko wa kijinsia; kukuza ubaguzi wa kijinsia, kitamaduni, kikabila, au kiakili au ujumuishaji; au kufundisha mada yoyote iliyokatazwa vinginevyo katika sheria kama sehemu ya kozi kubwa ya masomo ya kitaaluma." Je, sheria za kupambana na CRT ni halali? Hilo ni swali zuri. Serikali za nchi zina uhuru mkubwa wa kudhibiti maudhui ya mafunzo ya darasani au mafunzo ya wafanyakazi wa shule. Lakini hawawezi kutunga sheria zenye kusudi la ubaguzi (kwa mfano, ikiwa zinaelekezwa kwa madhara kwa idadi maalum ya jamii au kikabila). Sheria haziwezi kuwa zisizoeleweka sana hivi kwamba haiwezekani kwa walimu au wakandarasi wanaofadhiliwa na serikali au waalimu kugundua ni nini kinachoruhusiwa na ni nini kisicho. Sheria zinazopunguza uhuru wa masomo au uwezo wa wanafunzi kupokea habari mbalimbali na mawazo inaweza kuvunja Marekebisho ya Kwanza ya Katiba. "Kumbuka pia: Walimu wa shule za umma wanafurahia ulinzi wa uhuru wa kujieleza wakati wao kuchagua kuzungumza juu ya masuala ya ubaguzi wa rangi, ubaguzi wa jinsia na masuala mengine ya wasiwasi wa umma katika uwezo wao binafsi (yaani, wakati wako mwenyewe).""" Kwa ujumla, kwa walimu wa shule za umma, zaidi ya uhusiano wa kazi ya hotuba yako (kama inavyoonyeshwa na nini, wapi, lini, kwa nani na jinsi unavyowasiliana), haki yako ya kuzungumza kwa uhuru ni kubwa zaidi. Wafanyakazi wa serikali wana haki ya kusema katika kazi, lakini haki hii ni mdogo zaidi kuliko wakati wao ni kuzungumza katika uwezo wao binafsi. Ni nini kinachohitajika ili kuondoa sheria za kupambana na CRT? Sheria hizi "anti-CRT" ni viumbe vya bunge la jimbo na / au magavana. Ikiwa una tatizo au kizuizi kisicho cha lazima kinachohusiana na kazi yako, ripoti kwa mwakilishi wako wa uchaguzi wa eneo au jimbo (au mwakilishi wako wa chama, ikiwa una moja). Hiyo ni haki yako. Unaweza pia kutaka kutembelea shirika la kutetea haki za kiraia linalotetea uhuru wa kujieleza au haki za walimu. (Kama mwanasheria wa zamani wa ACLU, siku zote nilithamini simu kutoka kwa walimu; walinisaidia kuelewa jinsi sheria au sera zinavyoathiri watendaji kwenye ardhi - ikiwa baadaye niliwakilisha mahakamani au la.) Katika shule na ngazi ya jamii, unaweza kutaka kuinua mada ya <unk>anti-CRT<unk> sheria katika wafanyakazi au usimamizi mkutano. Lengo lako ni kuelewa waziwazi ni nini kinachokatazwa na ni nini kisicho. (Tazama hapo juu: kuna Vitu vingi katika sheria hizi!) Wafundishaji wa shule wanaweza kutaka kuwa na mazungumzo na wasimamizi wa shule kabla ya kufanya vikao vya maendeleo ya kitaaluma ili kufafanua yaliyomo yanayoruhusiwa dhidi ya yaliyopigwa marufuku. Fanya hivyo kwa maandishi! Kumbuka kuwa na lugha ya anti-CRT katika mazungumzo yako.