Bill on Discrimination in Schools: Point and Counterpoint

Children must learn about our state’s racial past and all of its ugliness, including the cruelties of slavery, the 1898 Wilmington massacre, and Jim Crow

But students must not be forced to adopt an ideology that is separate and distinct from history, and that promotes “present discrimination” — so long as it’s against the right people — as “antiracist.”

A lot of people have a lot to say about Sen. Berger’s proposed bill addressing discrimination in school curriculum.

Nobody has opposed the substance of the bill, which says public schools can’t require students to affirm that “one race is inherently superior to another race,” among other discriminatory concepts.

Nevertheless, here are some points and counterpoints to some of the rhetoric:

Point: This bill whitewashes history and prevents teachers from telling the truth about our past.

Counterpoint: Just read the bill. It explicitly affirms the public school system’s mission to discuss “controversial aspects of history” and “historical oppression based on race.” Children must learn this. What the bill does not permit is requiring students to affirm that, for example, “one race is inherently superior to another race.”

Point: Critical race theory is just a concept taught in law schools and has nothing to do with K-12 education.

Counterpoint: Look to the texts that 1) are the foundation of critical race theory and 2) that school districts use to guide their “antiracism” culture.

A foundational CRT text, written by the founders of the CRT school of thought, describes the doctrine this way: “Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” That is CRT. The problem isn’t teaching about CRT; it’s teaching in CRT.

A widely-used text in school districts, “How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi, describes antiracism this way: Discrimination by race is “not inherently racist,” and “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” That is antiracism. The problem with antiracism is that it advocates for race-based discrimination. Sen. Berger’s bill doesn’t prohibit schools from talking about Kendi or others. It prohibits schools from requiring students to affirm or profess belief in discriminatory concepts.

Point: This doctrine isn’t in our schools so there is no problem.

Counterpoint: It’s true that there is no viral video (yet), like those seen in other parts of the country, of a North Carolina teacher berating a white student about white privilege.

But the doctrine has advanced to the point that, at an absolute minimum, it’s one level away from classrooms. Charlotte’s school district, for example, tells its students “it is no longer enough to be passively ‘not racist.’ We are called to be antiracists…As a society and a school, we are all compelled to do our part.” Durham’s city government calls on its schools to “be actively and intentionally antiracist as part of the struggle…”

If you think there’s no cause for concern, go ask some of the parents pouring into school board meetings what they think.