DON'T BAN DISCUSSIONS, JUST TEACH A cOMMON cORE:

The problem is that Rufo is lying. He and his supporters are counting on people to not read the legislative texts, and instead take anti-CRT activists at their word. This is a mistake. Most of these bills, including many of the ones that have become law, go much further than simply banning compelled speech. If allowed to stand, a pall of orthodoxy will settle over classrooms in a way unseen in years.

Consider this language from Tennessee's anti-CRT bill, which Governor Bill Lee signed into law last month.

"An LEA [public school authority] or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:" [emphasis added]

The law then lists proscribed concepts, but that need not detain us here. What matters is that the law prohibits mere inclusion of those concepts, as distinct from and in addition to their promotion. That means even a neutral, objective discussion is off the table. An exception is carved out for some historical events, but many others, as well as current events, are subject to the ban. The moment you include one of these ideas in your curriculum, you've broken the law.

For instance, it is currently illegal in the state of Tennessee for teachers to include any material in the classroom that promotes "division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people." How is a civics teacher supposed to operate within those limits? Can she have her students watch a modern presidential debate? Evaluate a partisan campaign ad? Engage with virtually any polemical work of journalism or political philosophy? I don't see how.

Similar bills recently became law in Oklahoma and Texas. Both prohibit K-12 public school teachers from requiring or "mak[ing] part of a course" one of the proscribed concepts. Not "promoting" or "teaching as true" or "compelling students to affirm." Just "make part of a course."

(Lest there be any doubt about intent, an earlier draft of the Texas bill specified that the ban would apply only to material that served to "inculcate" one of the proscribed concepts, but state legislators removed this language at the last minute.)

The problems here are obvious. One of the forbidden concepts is the idea that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex." Banning that sounds reasonable enough, right? Now suppose a social studies teacher in Houston wants to assign Alexander Stephens' 1861 "Cornerstone Speech." It is a watershed address in American history and the clearest articulation of the Confederate position. It is also a speech built around the idea that black people are inferior to white people. What is that teacher supposed to do? And given the sensitivities of students, their parents, local politicians, and activists, what must the teacher be willing to risk?

It's not hard to see what went wrong. Legislators in these states want to ban teachers from assigning antiracist gurus like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. They want topics like "white privilege" out of the classroom, no matter how objectively discussed. Unfortunately, they've drafted bills so broad and clumsily written that entire historical eras and swathes of contemporary events would be barred from discussion.

Tweet   @brothersjudd