Our political madness seems to have no end. It is just so frustrating that any dialog about matters of national interest continues to be consistently waylaid by insulting or extremist talk, spotty concerns for truth, partisan soundbites, and a rabid passion to be oppositional on any issue imaginable. One of the latest topics to gain the spotlight is how slavery and the experience of Blacks are conveyed in our schools.
[Note: This post was originally written two years or so ago, but the situation it describes has gotten worse. Then the culprit was critical race theory, now it’s DEI: the more things change, the more they stay the same.]
In broad terms the underlying educational issue is whether and how teachers should present the substantial research and texts that document our dark history of racism in this country and its continuing effects. The public debate, however, is painted in terms of Project 1619 and critical race theory vs those who—and here I am confused about what to say—those who love rather than hate their country? those who see racism as no longer an issue? Something else?
In any case, such simplistic framing of the educational issue can only feed divisiveness that is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It will of course lead to educationally overreaching state legislation, pressure on and from school boards, and ultimately pressure on schools and teachers to get in line. None of this will serve truth, students, or our schools; but this is what quite a few people seem to want.
The question is whether there is any path out of this quagmire. To some extent, the moderate conservative Ross Douthat attempts to find one in a series of three Saturday opinion pieces in the New York Times from June 26 to July 10. On the politically positive side, he sees some on the right joining progressives in opposing the romanticization of the Lost Cause (the Confederacy) and the Confederate flag, rallying behind Lincoln rather than Lee, and admitting historical racism and the failure of the ideals of 1776 to extend beyond white male property owners.
He rightly recognizes that the real nub of current disputes is how to teach about racism today, specifically the issue of historical racism influencing inequalities of the present. While he notes that those on the right have resisted the issue, Douthat himself asserts that the evidence behind structural racism is strong, adding that over one-half of college-educated Republicans think it should be taught in our schools. Another moderate conservative also lent his support to the idea of a structural racism that continues to affect Blacks negatively (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/opinion/how-racist-is-america.html).
On the other hand, he identifies two concerns which he sees as involving more radical approaches from the left. First, the view that Whites should be confronted over their privilege and confront their sins. I have on occasion witnessed the mixed results of such an approach. Although there will be no progress without education and diversity training, focusing on guilt is educationally unsound and politically unwise, and falls short of the moral high road and approaches Nelson Mandela used in ending apartheid in South Africa.
In the process of education, the larger picture should be kept in mind: the systematic disadvantaging of particular racial, religious, or other groups is a world-wide phenomenon. Whites have not been the exclusive agents of this across the globe now or throughout history. The challenge is to root this out, wherever or whatever the particulars, and fight against the historically pervasive tendency to act as if the requirement to treat others morally does not extend to those who look, think, or act differently.
I would also suggest that somewhat better than the language of privilege, which can be associated with ideas of entitlement and undeserved rank, might be the language of advantage. After all, what is most at issue, I think, is that the advantages and benefits that come for some with life in this country be shared equitably. Patterns of disadvantage do raise moral issues; and although not a moral requirement as such, a moral society will be committed to do what it can do to overcome such disparities.
Although it is certainly not the job of schools to figure out what programs we should adopt to undo the continuing effects of racism, it is part of their role to examine the evidence, raise the issue of how these patterns counter the ideals for which we believe we stand, and work to nurture in students the moral perspective of promoting the common good and avoiding disadvantaging any group.
Douthat’s second concern is that structural racism will be used to explain all racial disparities and shortfalls in perfect equity. I agree with that concern. Complex social patterns rarely lend themselves to monocausal explanations. My worry would be that this caution be used as a far-ranging loophole that ends up ruling out most, even all shortfalls. Investigations of the phenomenon in question must be conducted in a process that involves an honest pursuit of truth. While it is not the job of schools to figure out what programs we should adopt to undo the continuing effects of racism, it is part of their role to examine the evidence, raise the issue of how these patterns counter the ideals for which we believe we stand, and work to nurture in students the moral perspective of promoting the common good and avoiding disadvantaging any group.
At the same time as Douthat acknowledges that our schools must teach the darker aspects of our history, his more general final concern is that there be so much focus, even at the earliest grades, on the negatives that students will not also see the more heroic and inspiring stories that also are a part of American history and that help spawn love of country. Although I would not use his terminology of a patriotic education, I do think, and I hope, most of us would want our children to learn what there is to celebrate and be thankful for in our history and way of life. The positive and negative cannot become an either/or, but must be a both/and. On the other hand, Douthat does recognize that there are contexts where even young children need to know dark truths upfront. And in an admission of just how difficult the educational process will be, he suggests “there is no escape from hard historical truths, no simple way to raise educated Americans.” To me, this is a task for educators to figure out, not politicians.
So, in general terms, I see in his analysis a positive blueprint for finding common ground on educating our children. Unfortunately, however, I see no evidence that there are sufficient numbers on the right, which he identifies as demagogic, who are ready to embrace this approach. There is substantially more support for confrontation. Indeed, Christopher Rufo, the right-wing activist, has been quite effective in spreading the idea among Republicans that critical race theory is now actually rife in our schools. But here’s the thing: Rufo is not engaged in a serious critique of critical race theory, but reveals his partisan intentions in stating that the theory “is usually deployed under a series of euphemisms, such as equity, social justice, diversity and inclusion, and socially responsive teaching.” This sweeping view will be used to light a fire under legislators, school boards, and parents to call for curtailing in one way or another ethnic studies courses, scholarly appraisals of historical racism, and in particular, classroom discussions of how racism caused patterns of disadvantage that still negatively affect Blacks and others. Indeed, in the school district where I live in California, there is a movement to recall all school board members, be they Republicans or Democrats, at least in part because they approved an elective high school ethnic studies course!
Education is a profoundly moral enterprise. Ideally, schools provide an environment that works to nurture the better angels and moral identity of our future citizens.
Opening up our classrooms and schools to such partisan politics and tactics, left or right, undermines an institution that can stand as a bulwark against our political madness in educating our future citizens. After all, our founders were strong advocates for public education as the key to maintaining responsible self-government. The broad purposes of education and the passions of teachers embrace critical thinking, honest pursuit of truth, fulfillment of each student’s potential, the goal of nurturing students who use their talent and skills in ways that are purposeful, meaningful, and beneficial to society, and the maintenance of school community in which all students feel valued and included in the curriculum and from which they learn to appreciate differences, embrace the diversity that constitutes America, and support common purposes and respect for others. Education is a profoundly moral enterprise. Ideally, schools provide an environment that works to nurture our better angels and a moral identity. The possibility and hope exist that if they do their job well, they will nurture future citizens who rise above the anything but moral way we are currently governing ourselves. (For a full description of the what, why, and how of moral education, please see my Nurturing Decent Human Beings: The Case for Moral Education in Our Schools—www.amazon.com/dp/B0918PXMJM.)
Admittedly, there seems to be this fear among those on the right that teachers, administrators, and educational bureaucrats are liberals who convert students to their beliefs and who easily fall prey to the messages of radical left activists. Douthat himself seems to succumb to such thinking. I cannot speak for the bureaucrats but in my career as an educator I met no teacher or administrator who fits that description. Educators by and large embrace the goals and purposes of education as discussed above in the previous paragraph. Some of these goals may fit well with liberal outlooks, but they are not adopted because teachers are liberals. They adopt them because education is a moral enterprise and they are educators in a country that needs to nurture citizens who are decent human beings equipped for self-governance.
In any case, in addition to attempts to control curriculum, some legislatures have used the tactic of putting limits on teachers in regard to how or whether they present controversial issues. There are two dangers to this. First, I would say it is imperative, particularly in our time, for schools to make sure that at various points students gain experience in evaluating such issues through research and reason, with a focus on honest search for truth. At the end of the process, it would be appropriate for the teacher to convey his or her reasoned take on the issue, signaling that, yes, this is what educated adults do: reason out their beliefs and conclusions—it is not just a task set for children in schools. Second, there has been a proliferation of what is considered a controversial issue: vaccines, masks, climate change, 2020 election results, evolution, etc. Issues where the preponderance of evidence cannot be counted as matters of controversy, even if some happen to disagree. And in line with what Douthat argues, structural racism with its continuing effects has strong evidence behind it, and cannot be considered a legitimately controversial issue that teachers need to avoid or pretend to be neutral.
Time will tell how much schools will be affected by the latest pressures from partisanship directed to how race and other matters are taught. There may be some reprieve this fall since, absurdly enough, passions around schooling may be focused on COVID, masks, and vaccines.