So let’s take a step back and ask, what is CRT, anyway?
Critical Race Theory is a theory of history and law in the United States. It’s a body of academic and legal research first developed in the late 1970s and 1980s and currently taught in some graduate-level university classes and law schools. It is not taught in any K-12 public schools in California. It has never been taught in Temecula public schools.
The main tenets of CRT include*:
Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. [One example: Jews used to be referred to as a “race.”]
Racism in the United States is normal. It is the frequent experience of most people of color.
Legal advances or setbacks for people of color have tended to serve the interests of dominant white groups. (For example, equality legislation in the 1950s and 1960s may have partly reflected the U.S. government’s desire to improve the country’s image abroad, especially in developing countries.)
Members of minority groups are stereotyped differently over time based on white interests or needs.
No individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. For example, a Christian Black woman is not simply a Black person. [You’ll notice this is the opposite of some parents’ fear that their child will be viewed only through a racial lens if CRT is taught.]
People of color are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding racism and its effects.
CRT has been criticized academically because:
It seems skeptical of objectivity. For example, one doesn’t have to be Black to understand and speak accurately about racism.
Advocates of the theory tend to want to impose equitable outcomes in law, academics, or economics without regard for neutrality, equality, fairness, and merit.
CRT advocates tend to treat any criticism as evidence of racism, either overt or covert.
*Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
If CRT isn’t taught in Temecula schools, who cares if it’s banned?
The resolution passed by TVUSD trustees Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez isn’t a simple ban of CRT. It contains language that is vague and questionable; for example, this statement used as a justification for the ban: “WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory (‘CRT’) is an ideology based on false assumptions about the United States of America and its population;”
Another vague statement implies that other theories are banned, but they are not defined: “WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks will not be used as a source to guide how topics related to race will be taught;” [emphasis added]
About two-thirds of the way through, the resolution abruptly begins banning “doctrines derived from Critical Race Theory” that refer not only to race, but also to sex.
In addition, the resolution also bans specific concepts. It’s the vague wording and the banned concepts that cause problems for teachers, students, and the authorities that approve AP and IB courses. Here’s the full text of the resolution. (It’s watermarked “DRAFT” but is the final document the board majority passed.)
Let’s take a look at some of the concepts the resolution bans.
“1. Racism is racial prejudice plus power…”
What’s the role of power in racism? Racial prejudice has existed throughout human history, with “race” defined differently by different groups, from tribes fighting over territory to government-sanctioned genocides in the Ottoman Empire, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, and elsewhere. Does racism exist in a society if one group does not have power over another? This concept seems worth discussion, especially in a high school history class.
“2. Racism is ordinary, the usual way society does business.”
From redlining to anti-Mexican rhetoric to attacks against random Asians during the recent pandemic, racism seems unfortunately common. If a middle-class, college-educated white man feels safe jogging in his community, shouldn’t a middle-class, college-educated Black man feel the same? Your Black, Hispanic, and Asian friends may have different day-to-day experiences than your white friends. Another concept that seems worth discussing.
“4. …the ‘dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times…’”
Has the dominant group in our society viewed minority groups in different ways over time? Early 20th Century books and movies portrayed Blacks as childish, but 50 years later they were more often shown as naturally violent. Immigrant minority groups like Swedes, Italians, and Irish were once portrayed as stupid, criminal, or drunken, but are now viewed the same as other white people. How can you learn about U.S. history without exploring the changing portrayals of ethnic and racial groups over time?
A big problem with the anti-CRT resolution is that teachers and students are left fearful that they’ll be in trouble if they discuss or ask these or similar questions in class. Yet exploring concepts like these teaches students to think critically and gives them tools to understand our history and our society.
A second big problem is that Temecula students and families of color feel that the ban is aimed directly at them and their history in the U.S. The three trustees claim that the ban does not affect the teaching of Black history. We find it difficult to understand how Black history or U.S. history as a whole can be taught with this ban in place. And in any case, school board trustees should not pass policy changes that potentially affect part of our community without substantial input from families.
Read about how the resolution was passed and what the consequences have been.