Further, it’s not that CRT should not be explained in a classroom. It’s that the assumptions and conclusions of Black oppression in the U.S. should not be the basis of reaching history, or English, or math. Presenting CRT is fine. Using it as a lens for teaching everything else is not fine.
Trainspotting, David. Just because you don’t personally see it doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence. Maybe it’s a moral panic but I think there are instances of it in less “red” places.
That's a fair point, but I think we should have evidence of a problem before we start legislating solutions.
Federalism allows different parts of the country to find their own way of doing things, and if the problem is chiefly in "less red" places then red state solutions won't solve the problem anyway.
The bottom line is that I haven't seen anyone point to school where CRT is being taught, particularly against the wishes of the parents.
To clarify: do teachers “give up” their First Amendment rights in the classroom? Answer. It’s complicated. In K-8 classes, teachers have little room for personal opinions on controversial issues, especially those that could affect delivery of the approved curriculum. In high schools and especially colleges, students are more able to discern personal opinions versus official curriculum.
If a teacher spends a unit on CRT for 4th graders, that will raise flags. In college not really. However, the state does have the ability to direct educators to not consider CRT in formulating curricula.
It seems like a tidier approach to CRT (from a conservative perspective) would be teaching the theory (at a level where students can engage with it productively) and to teach it critically. Look at the theory and ask:
1. Is it a useful theory scientifically in that it generates testable hypotheses that can be tested to measure how well it explains the world?
2. Is it a useful theory as a historical lens, in that it provides plausible explanations of present-day outcomes arising out of historical places, people, and events?
3. How does the usefulness of the theory vary based on the field and time period in which it is used to evaluate? Is CRT a useful tool for crafting personal banking regulations? Is it a useful tool for determining which planet NASA sends its next probe to?
4. How has the theory evolved since its inception and why? Is it charting similar developmental paths as other theories (such as historical intelligence-based theories) or is it something unique and original?
The problem that too many people have is that we don't teach *enough* critical thinking skills where our citizens are comfortable taking ideas and taking them apart to see how they work and where those ideas are useful. Instead, too many folks fall back to emotionally-motivated "reasoning" and we end up with folks like Pringle attempting to ban something he clearly doesn't understand, and opportunists like Tucker Carlson twist the idea and misexplain it enough to make his audience respond viscerally (boosting his ratings in the process).
I think that if more folks engaged with some of the modern CRT proponents, they'd discover that there's less there than meets the eye.
I think that the core arguments of CRT (structural inequality baked into our system through a series of historical choices) have merit and are one of many useful tools for crafting policy that works that inequality out of the system for the betterment of everyone.
Where I depart as a fellow-traveler is when everyone's telling me that I should take the modern proponents of the theory seriously, and when I do, I find that there's not a lot there.
Take Kendi for example - lots of folks are looking for him for leadership, given his "antiracism" schtick, but if you read his book, "antiracism" is a shallow bromide that states that "racism" is anything that increases disparity between racial groups and "antiracism" is anything that decreases disparity between racial groups. This might have *some* use if the ONLY metric that matters in your world is disparity between racial groups, but we live in a world that has many more dimensions than that, so Kendi's antiracism isn't all that useful when you're trying to make decisions outside the racial sphere.
And if you dig into Kendi's institution-hopping over the course of his career, where he sets up "antiracism centers" at various universities, you'd rightfully be expecting to see some concrete policy proposals or other products of his approach. Instead, you get empty policy pages[1] that use a lot of high-flying language, with no actual policy to consult as an example of how to apply his theory in the public sphere. In this sense, his antiracism centers no more useful than similar ego-boosting exercises like Liberty University's Falkirk Center, where the game isn't to do anything actually USEFUL, but instead to set up platforms to imbue the principals with more credibility than they've actually earned. And once the hosting institution catches on, there's always another one ready to serve as the next host of the principals' grift.
I still have yet to dig into Robin DiAngelo's book, but I will be VERY surprised if it's anything more than a similar collection of bromides and tautologies that sound profound, but are really marketing bits for her seminar business.
The Right isn't the only side of the aisle who knows how to grift.
One person operating in this area who I really respect is Carol Anderson at Emory University and the historical work she's done in clearly illustrating Americans' history of racial strife in "White Rage"[1]. She actually DID the work and documented a lot of American history that folks SHOULD learn, but people like Pringle are eager to sweep under the rug. Where Kendi traffics in nebulous disparities, Anderson recounts the various historical events that led us to a present where we can see where the systemic inequality that the actual CRT scholars have been highlighting comes from.
"In one study, the researchers created resumes for black and Asian applicants and sent them out for 1,600 entry-level jobs posted on job search websites in 16 metropolitan sections of the United States. Some of the resumes included information that clearly pointed out the applicants’ minority status, while others were whitened, or scrubbed of racial clues. The researchers then created email accounts and phone numbers for the applicants and observed how many were invited for interviews."
"Employer callbacks for resumes that were whitened fared much better in the application pile than those that included ethnic information, even though the qualifications listed were identical. Twenty-five percent of black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10 percent got calls when they left ethnic details intact. Among Asians, 21 percent got calls if they used whitened resumes, whereas only 11.5 percent heard back if they sent resumes with racial references."
The link offers what seems to be a fair assessment. Yes, there may be discrimination by application reviewers despite what the official policy is. It is also true that some applicants just need to include information to show they would fit in. The paper is short. There is a comments section which is worth reading. Some advise losing the victimhood. Most are whines about being discriminated against from every group imaginable - Asians (a lot), Blacks, Muslims, Europeans and Jews.
"Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts."
"This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants' income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting."
"The yearlong analysis, based on 31 million records, relied on techniques used by leading academics, the Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to identify lending disparities."
"It found a pattern of troubling denials for people of color across the country, including in major metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Rockford, Ill., St. Louis and San Antonio. African Americans faced the most resistance in Southern cities - Mobile, Alabama; Greenville, North Carolina; and Gainesville, Florida - and Latinos in Iowa City, Iowa."
Is that based on racism or statistics? I really do not know but I would be surprised if it were racist considering the reputation of Wells Fargo and Bank of America which have numerous branches in the area. When I lived in Atlanta I had black neighbors in nice neighborhoods. Same in Augusta. I don't know much about Hispanics because they weren't present in great numbers then. My next-door neighbor (originally from Florida) was named Hernandez. That was 50 years ago.
After spending 50 years working and living elsewhere, I returned to my home county. I live in a gated, mostly middle class, community with a golf course that has black residents and club members. This is in a county that during the segregation era had only one high school for the black students in a five-county area.
No studies, no newspaper reports - just personal observations.
CRT is in my grandkinds online learning. Different states buy different curriculum. Every subject is infused with race commentary and so much so that even a 8 yr old picks it up.
Right off the bat my eight yr old thrid grader had an assignment that asked her to pick her skin color and there were all shades of brown going to black. She's white. it went to bad to worse over the year.
The education system is teaching little but indoctrinating a lot - especially in democrat controlled areas. It's either that or today's youth has somehow decided that the traditional American way of life is a turn-off.
"Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated."[1]
Educational indoctrination isn't just a Blue State Phenomenon.
Having lived in red states almost exclusively, I can truly say that I was never I was never taught creationism. Evolution was taught in all the public schools I attended, starting in the 1940s.
I'm still looking for data on this, but I'd be VERY interested to see to what extent the push to include creationist accounts in science class overlapped with the later phases of the '80s Satanic Panic[1]. I'd speculate that as the Satanic Panic petered out, you had a lot of newly-energized Evangelicals ready to direct their attention elsewhere (creationism, bringing back school prayer, etc.). I don't have any hard data points that link these two cultural phenomena (yet), but I would be VERY surprised if they weren't inter-related.
Patriotism, capitalism, obeying the law, helping your neighbors and self-reliance. It does not include rioting, burning, looting, arson or trespassing the US Capitol. The traditional American way might even include civil discourse rather than jumping into a discussion with a combative attitude.
Our history has dozens of examples of these things. Indian rebellions, slave rebellions, tax rebellions. They all included murder, arson, and looting. I would be willing to bet I can prove our country isn't the capitalist dream you think it has been either but that would take longer than a short comment to do.
I can name a few more but most of them were leftist mob actions and protesters looking for relief from the Great Depression. Today, most of the social programs they sought are entrenched in the entitlement programs administered by overpaid bureaucrats. Hardly anyone is aware of the fact that over 50% of births in the USA are paid for by Medicaid. Self-reliance is largely gone. The nanny state is here.
I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that. I just think there is a disconnect on who or what is to blame. When 50% of people can't afford to have kids in a capitalist society then that society has failed. Capitalism has failed.
They probably could afford it if two people were involved in paying for it. Very few of us can afford everything we want. It requires self-control to live within our means. It's all part of the traditional American way.
Remembering history requires a "warts and all" approach. Anything else is childish.
What do you understand Critical Race Theory to actually be? Not whether it's good or bad: just, what is it?
Define "today's youth", please. I've seen this said about Millennials since it became hip to rag on 'em. The oldest are 40, many are married, and/or parents (and some possibly grandparents). Many have a mortgage, and are holding steady jobs. It's kinda like every other generation preceding, really: just with certain differences.
Or did you mean something else by "traditional American way of life"?
Yeah I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. I do believe the percentage of Americans who hate capitalism, are less patriotic, less law abiding, less self-reliant and favor a nanny state is increasing with each generation.
There have always been Americans that hated capitalism. That's different than people who maintain a capitalist system while also counteracting the negative aspects (because everything has positives/negatives). Capitalism is a tool, one that I equate to fire: controlled/regulated, and it is extremely useful (think an internal combustion engine). Let run rampant, and it consumes all available fuel before burning out (like a wildfire).
When you talk about patriotism: what is your definition?
Do you think people are less law-abiding (even in the face of dropping crime rates)? Or is it perhaps that modern news elevated crime that occurs around the nation and world in ways you'd likely never experienced in previous decades?
When you talk about self-reliance: again, what do you mean? Paying rent/mortgage, growing wealth, something else? Is it really any different than other generations?
A lot of this just sounds like a stereotypical "kids these days".
Crime rates are tricky. When you have 5000 people blocking an interstate highway, is that one crime, 5000 crimes or zero crimes? The same for mobs denying people access to places of business, or a peaceful meal or use of a sidewalk? When there are 300 people burning a Wendy's in Atlanta that's probably one case of arson but 300 criminals are involved.
From what I've read about so far, the teaching of radical racial concepts seems to consist of isolated examples, mostly in blue states or blue cities. But it doesn't seem to be widespread. I think since most parents, regardless of their political affiliation, would bristle at hyper-woke views on race being taught to their kids, the school boards would hear an earful if that were the case. Parents can always replace members of the school board through elections, so I think that serves as a good check on public schools, to where most of them will probably think twice before implementing toxic, woke concepts on race into the classroom.
It can be a sticky issue when parents are forced to pony up tax dollars to public schools that are teaching objectionable things to kids. It's one thing if its a college or university, where attendance is not mandatory, and kids are by that time, full grown adults paying tuition. There is one issue that unites almost every conservative. I feel that it might go a long way in dealing with these and other kinds of issues, and that is School Choice. That way, parents have options should they deal with these and other kinds of problems with the public schools their kids attend.
Further, it’s not that CRT should not be explained in a classroom. It’s that the assumptions and conclusions of Black oppression in the U.S. should not be the basis of reaching history, or English, or math. Presenting CRT is fine. Using it as a lens for teaching everything else is not fine.
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see any evidence that is happening.
Trainspotting, David. Just because you don’t personally see it doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence. Maybe it’s a moral panic but I think there are instances of it in less “red” places.
That's a fair point, but I think we should have evidence of a problem before we start legislating solutions.
Federalism allows different parts of the country to find their own way of doing things, and if the problem is chiefly in "less red" places then red state solutions won't solve the problem anyway.
The bottom line is that I haven't seen anyone point to school where CRT is being taught, particularly against the wishes of the parents.
I suppose we will not know until recall efforts are done but you may wish to look at Loudon County VA.
My understanding is it exists primarily the higher education/masters-level.
This from last month seems informative:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
Fair points. The manner in which different theories and beliefs are presented do matter.
To clarify: do teachers “give up” their First Amendment rights in the classroom? Answer. It’s complicated. In K-8 classes, teachers have little room for personal opinions on controversial issues, especially those that could affect delivery of the approved curriculum. In high schools and especially colleges, students are more able to discern personal opinions versus official curriculum.
If a teacher spends a unit on CRT for 4th graders, that will raise flags. In college not really. However, the state does have the ability to direct educators to not consider CRT in formulating curricula.
https://kappanonline.org/underwood-school-districts-control-teachers-classroom-speech/
It seems like a tidier approach to CRT (from a conservative perspective) would be teaching the theory (at a level where students can engage with it productively) and to teach it critically. Look at the theory and ask:
1. Is it a useful theory scientifically in that it generates testable hypotheses that can be tested to measure how well it explains the world?
2. Is it a useful theory as a historical lens, in that it provides plausible explanations of present-day outcomes arising out of historical places, people, and events?
3. How does the usefulness of the theory vary based on the field and time period in which it is used to evaluate? Is CRT a useful tool for crafting personal banking regulations? Is it a useful tool for determining which planet NASA sends its next probe to?
4. How has the theory evolved since its inception and why? Is it charting similar developmental paths as other theories (such as historical intelligence-based theories) or is it something unique and original?
The problem that too many people have is that we don't teach *enough* critical thinking skills where our citizens are comfortable taking ideas and taking them apart to see how they work and where those ideas are useful. Instead, too many folks fall back to emotionally-motivated "reasoning" and we end up with folks like Pringle attempting to ban something he clearly doesn't understand, and opportunists like Tucker Carlson twist the idea and misexplain it enough to make his audience respond viscerally (boosting his ratings in the process).
I think that if more folks engaged with some of the modern CRT proponents, they'd discover that there's less there than meets the eye.
"I think that if more folks engaged with some of the modern CRT proponents, they'd discover that there's less there than meets the eye."
Does that mean it's harmless or merely useless?
I think that the core arguments of CRT (structural inequality baked into our system through a series of historical choices) have merit and are one of many useful tools for crafting policy that works that inequality out of the system for the betterment of everyone.
Where I depart as a fellow-traveler is when everyone's telling me that I should take the modern proponents of the theory seriously, and when I do, I find that there's not a lot there.
Take Kendi for example - lots of folks are looking for him for leadership, given his "antiracism" schtick, but if you read his book, "antiracism" is a shallow bromide that states that "racism" is anything that increases disparity between racial groups and "antiracism" is anything that decreases disparity between racial groups. This might have *some* use if the ONLY metric that matters in your world is disparity between racial groups, but we live in a world that has many more dimensions than that, so Kendi's antiracism isn't all that useful when you're trying to make decisions outside the racial sphere.
And if you dig into Kendi's institution-hopping over the course of his career, where he sets up "antiracism centers" at various universities, you'd rightfully be expecting to see some concrete policy proposals or other products of his approach. Instead, you get empty policy pages[1] that use a lot of high-flying language, with no actual policy to consult as an example of how to apply his theory in the public sphere. In this sense, his antiracism centers no more useful than similar ego-boosting exercises like Liberty University's Falkirk Center, where the game isn't to do anything actually USEFUL, but instead to set up platforms to imbue the principals with more credibility than they've actually earned. And once the hosting institution catches on, there's always another one ready to serve as the next host of the principals' grift.
I still have yet to dig into Robin DiAngelo's book, but I will be VERY surprised if it's anything more than a similar collection of bromides and tautologies that sound profound, but are really marketing bits for her seminar business.
The Right isn't the only side of the aisle who knows how to grift.
[1] https://www.bu.edu/antiracism-center/policy/
One person operating in this area who I really respect is Carol Anderson at Emory University and the historical work she's done in clearly illustrating Americans' history of racial strife in "White Rage"[1]. She actually DID the work and documented a lot of American history that folks SHOULD learn, but people like Pringle are eager to sweep under the rug. Where Kendi traffics in nebulous disparities, Anderson recounts the various historical events that led us to a present where we can see where the systemic inequality that the actual CRT scholars have been highlighting comes from.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rage
"I think that the core arguments of CRT (structural inequality baked into our system through a series of historical choices) have merit"
I could agree that this was true a few decades ago but who are the ones now making the choices?
Another example is in the hiring process[1]:
"In one study, the researchers created resumes for black and Asian applicants and sent them out for 1,600 entry-level jobs posted on job search websites in 16 metropolitan sections of the United States. Some of the resumes included information that clearly pointed out the applicants’ minority status, while others were whitened, or scrubbed of racial clues. The researchers then created email accounts and phone numbers for the applicants and observed how many were invited for interviews."
"Employer callbacks for resumes that were whitened fared much better in the application pile than those that included ethnic information, even though the qualifications listed were identical. Twenty-five percent of black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10 percent got calls when they left ethnic details intact. Among Asians, 21 percent got calls if they used whitened resumes, whereas only 11.5 percent heard back if they sent resumes with racial references."
[1] https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews
The link offers what seems to be a fair assessment. Yes, there may be discrimination by application reviewers despite what the official policy is. It is also true that some applicants just need to include information to show they would fit in. The paper is short. There is a comments section which is worth reading. Some advise losing the victimhood. Most are whines about being discriminated against from every group imaginable - Asians (a lot), Blacks, Muslims, Europeans and Jews.
Modern banks for one[1]:
"Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts."
"This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants' income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting."
"The yearlong analysis, based on 31 million records, relied on techniques used by leading academics, the Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to identify lending disparities."
"It found a pattern of troubling denials for people of color across the country, including in major metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Rockford, Ill., St. Louis and San Antonio. African Americans faced the most resistance in Southern cities - Mobile, Alabama; Greenville, North Carolina; and Gainesville, Florida - and Latinos in Iowa City, Iowa."
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html
Is that based on racism or statistics? I really do not know but I would be surprised if it were racist considering the reputation of Wells Fargo and Bank of America which have numerous branches in the area. When I lived in Atlanta I had black neighbors in nice neighborhoods. Same in Augusta. I don't know much about Hispanics because they weren't present in great numbers then. My next-door neighbor (originally from Florida) was named Hernandez. That was 50 years ago.
After spending 50 years working and living elsewhere, I returned to my home county. I live in a gated, mostly middle class, community with a golf course that has black residents and club members. This is in a county that during the segregation era had only one high school for the black students in a five-county area.
No studies, no newspaper reports - just personal observations.
"Is that based on racism or statistics?"
The methodology used to generate the conclusions in the study are available here:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/revealnews.org/uploads/lending_disparities_whitepaper_180214.pdf
I haven't had time to dig into it fully, but all of your questions should be answered in the above whitepaper.
Should have been more precise. Three high schools. One of which served black student in a five-county area.
As always, you are a voice of reason and intellect that seems so hard to find on the right these days.
CRT is in my grandkinds online learning. Different states buy different curriculum. Every subject is infused with race commentary and so much so that even a 8 yr old picks it up.
Right off the bat my eight yr old thrid grader had an assignment that asked her to pick her skin color and there were all shades of brown going to black. She's white. it went to bad to worse over the year.
The education system is teaching little but indoctrinating a lot - especially in democrat controlled areas. It's either that or today's youth has somehow decided that the traditional American way of life is a turn-off.
"Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated."[1]
Educational indoctrination isn't just a Blue State Phenomenon.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/09/schools-still-dont-teach-evolution/598312/
Having lived in red states almost exclusively, I can truly say that I was never I was never taught creationism. Evolution was taught in all the public schools I attended, starting in the 1940s.
Things changed due to the culture wars.
I'm still looking for data on this, but I'd be VERY interested to see to what extent the push to include creationist accounts in science class overlapped with the later phases of the '80s Satanic Panic[1]. I'd speculate that as the Satanic Panic petered out, you had a lot of newly-energized Evangelicals ready to direct their attention elsewhere (creationism, bringing back school prayer, etc.). I don't have any hard data points that link these two cultural phenomena (yet), but I would be VERY surprised if they weren't inter-related.
[1] https://www.vox.com/culture/22358153/satanic-panic-ritual-abuse-history-conspiracy-theories-explained
I was lucky enough to avoid it, due to age and location, but it was definitely a thing - maybe more Aughts, though.
Abstinence-only education is another good example, though.
wtf is the "traditional American way?"
Patriotism, capitalism, obeying the law, helping your neighbors and self-reliance. It does not include rioting, burning, looting, arson or trespassing the US Capitol. The traditional American way might even include civil discourse rather than jumping into a discussion with a combative attitude.
Our history has dozens of examples of these things. Indian rebellions, slave rebellions, tax rebellions. They all included murder, arson, and looting. I would be willing to bet I can prove our country isn't the capitalist dream you think it has been either but that would take longer than a short comment to do.
I can name a few more but most of them were leftist mob actions and protesters looking for relief from the Great Depression. Today, most of the social programs they sought are entrenched in the entitlement programs administered by overpaid bureaucrats. Hardly anyone is aware of the fact that over 50% of births in the USA are paid for by Medicaid. Self-reliance is largely gone. The nanny state is here.
I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that. I just think there is a disconnect on who or what is to blame. When 50% of people can't afford to have kids in a capitalist society then that society has failed. Capitalism has failed.
They probably could afford it if two people were involved in paying for it. Very few of us can afford everything we want. It requires self-control to live within our means. It's all part of the traditional American way.
Remembering history requires a "warts and all" approach. Anything else is childish.
What do you understand Critical Race Theory to actually be? Not whether it's good or bad: just, what is it?
Define "today's youth", please. I've seen this said about Millennials since it became hip to rag on 'em. The oldest are 40, many are married, and/or parents (and some possibly grandparents). Many have a mortgage, and are holding steady jobs. It's kinda like every other generation preceding, really: just with certain differences.
Or did you mean something else by "traditional American way of life"?
Yeah I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. I do believe the percentage of Americans who hate capitalism, are less patriotic, less law abiding, less self-reliant and favor a nanny state is increasing with each generation.
There have always been Americans that hated capitalism. That's different than people who maintain a capitalist system while also counteracting the negative aspects (because everything has positives/negatives). Capitalism is a tool, one that I equate to fire: controlled/regulated, and it is extremely useful (think an internal combustion engine). Let run rampant, and it consumes all available fuel before burning out (like a wildfire).
When you talk about patriotism: what is your definition?
Do you think people are less law-abiding (even in the face of dropping crime rates)? Or is it perhaps that modern news elevated crime that occurs around the nation and world in ways you'd likely never experienced in previous decades?
When you talk about self-reliance: again, what do you mean? Paying rent/mortgage, growing wealth, something else? Is it really any different than other generations?
A lot of this just sounds like a stereotypical "kids these days".
Crime rates are tricky. When you have 5000 people blocking an interstate highway, is that one crime, 5000 crimes or zero crimes? The same for mobs denying people access to places of business, or a peaceful meal or use of a sidewalk? When there are 300 people burning a Wendy's in Atlanta that's probably one case of arson but 300 criminals are involved.
From what I've read about so far, the teaching of radical racial concepts seems to consist of isolated examples, mostly in blue states or blue cities. But it doesn't seem to be widespread. I think since most parents, regardless of their political affiliation, would bristle at hyper-woke views on race being taught to their kids, the school boards would hear an earful if that were the case. Parents can always replace members of the school board through elections, so I think that serves as a good check on public schools, to where most of them will probably think twice before implementing toxic, woke concepts on race into the classroom.
It can be a sticky issue when parents are forced to pony up tax dollars to public schools that are teaching objectionable things to kids. It's one thing if its a college or university, where attendance is not mandatory, and kids are by that time, full grown adults paying tuition. There is one issue that unites almost every conservative. I feel that it might go a long way in dealing with these and other kinds of issues, and that is School Choice. That way, parents have options should they deal with these and other kinds of problems with the public schools their kids attend.