Video 1: Black Lives Matter
The first video attempts to explain the origins of Black Lives Matter. It's mostly harmless and informative. But around the 5:00 mark it mentions Michael Brown, saying he was unarmed and shot multiple times and that the officer wasn't charged. It leaves out that Michael Brown was beating the cop and reached for his gun when he was shot.
The video mentions the death of Breonna Taylor but leaves out the part where her boyfriend began shooting at the cops, who then returned fire.
The video also leaves out thousands of white people killed by cops every year, which obviously isn't the point of Black Lives Matter but its exclusion leads the young viewer to the conclusion that White people are free from police violence.
These are little nitpicky things, but their exclusion helps explain why some parents are raising an issue.
Can you imagine a video of George Floyd that just talked about his criminal past, how he was high on fentanyl, how he said "i can't breathe" while still standing, his history of heart problems, the number of cops killed in the line of duty each year? All these things are true, but they would leave out important context that would lead the viewer toward a particular conclusion that sounds like victim-blaming.
Nothing about the video is factually wrong, but it does present a story that will lead a child to believe a particular narrative. A more complete, albeit complicated narrative, would present each individual shooting as part of a complex story. Sometimes it's an evil police officer; sometimes it's racism; sometimes the deceased is actually a dangerous criminal; sometimes it's bad laws, policies, and incentives; and sometimes it's just an awful tragedy.
The fairest complaint of this video is that it tackles a complex problem by framing it as a simple narrative and it may be too complex for young students to fully grasp.
The fairest argument in favor of the video is that, as a society, we do not know how to have this conversation about race. Putting off uncomfortable conversations is ignoring a problem which will not go away.
My nuanced take is that those in favor of the video think they have all the facts but they don't. You have some facts, including facts that many other people do not have, but that is not the same as having all the facts.
A nuanced discussion about systemic racism in police shootings would look like this, but it will go way over the heads of 5th graders. This is a good opportunity for others to step up with suggestions for having these conversations, filling in the gaps via ideological diversity, and avoiding attempts to shut down speech, which is sadly the option opponents are choosing.
Video 2: Antiracism and Anti bias training
Around the 6 minute mark, the teacher talks about the fickle idea of race. The video later shows an image of hands and the spectrum of pigment to call attention to the complexity of color. The teacher says this is evidence that race is a social construct. I would say that one cannot build a satisfying taxonomy of race/color, making it an unreliable category. But that's why I'm not an elementary teacher.
Anyway, I mostly agree with this content and think it is good to share with young children. However, around the 7 minute mark she then goes on to say that this "social construction" of race was created to keep one group in power over another, and seems to suggest the idea of race was invented by the early colonial settlers. For an anti bias training, this content has an awful lot of bias.
If you are going to show students this take about how America has been steeped in racism from its foundation, you should couple it with Danielle Allen's Commencement speech, which is closer to the idea of viewing U.S. history through the progression and failures to live up to our founding ideals.
Allen starts by quoting the Declaration of Independence, musing that "It’s not just about individual rights—about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—it moves from those rights to the notion that government is something that we build together to secure our safety and happiness."
Allen tells the students that it is "our job at the end of the day is to build institutions that secure our shared rights. That means understanding the user manual." It's a great speech in and of itself, but all the more powerful when you reflect on how an African American woman can find such inspiration in our founding document. In this version of America, students feel empowered by recognizing that we were gifted with this power and have a responsibility to one another.
Instead of a tool of oppression, Allen views the legacy of our founders as a tool for moving toward prosperity. You can criticize this view but you cannot convince me it's wrong and the video's version is correct.
I'm fine with someone having a different interpretation of America's founding. But I think it's fair for a parent to see this and think our children are being taught one version of history as the "correct" one. It might be a small thing, but it will feel like they are losing the culture war by progressives flooding the curriculum with antiracist orthodoxy.
Steelmanning
The criticism of the pushback is that "you just don't want to teach about the history of racism" or "you're trying to protect your feelings from getting hurt." While the anti Critical Race Theory bills being introduced can have the effect of making it virtually impossible to teach about the history of racism, and have a chilling effect on free speech, the general worry coming from this crowd is more about the narrative around these topics is controlled by educators who do not view the world through the same lens as some parents. (In case it isn't clear, I think these bills are a terrible idea and do more harm than good.)
People outside of progressive circles use the academic term "Critical Race Theory" because they don't have the language to describe what they are seeing, which feels to them like progressive activism. And they want their kids to get an education without being turned into progressive activists.
The arguments in favor of the curriculum changes say that racism is a problem and if we are going to solve this problem, we need to educate people about it. So if you are against educating kids about racism, it must be because you want to keep racism in place and assert your white supremacy. They also argue that this sort of education is a corrective for the decades of public education that left out the important stuff about racism.
The Objectivity Problem
For most of U.S. history, public education, whether intentional or not, has optimized behavior in the direction of patriotism. It achieved this by focusing on the accomplishments of (mostly) great white men and ignoring, or downplaying, tragedies like the Trail of Tears and the Tulsa Massacre.
Notice that I never said this version of education lies. It just leaves out events in order to lead the learner to a particular conclusion that orients behavior to patriotism.
Now, if the purpose of public education was to create patriots, the purpose of the new curriculum change is to create antiracist activists. They both use the same rhetorical tool of leaving out nuance to lead the student to a particular conclusion.
A good metaphor for the exclusion of America's tragedies, in order to create patriotic students, would be to call it punching minorities in the face. There are two answers to this: punch back or adopt a "no punching" resolution. It appears modern educators have chosen the former.
I'm obviously a "no punching" kind of guy but I'm in a losing battle here. I don't think I can convince progressive educators that aiming for objectivity is even possible (see part III for my take on objectivity). Here is a long Twitter thread arguing something as seemingly as objective as science cannot help but be political, therefore justifying the intentional injection of one's politics into the classroom.
Three Types of Reactions to these Videos
Ben does not believe in systemic racism, or at least doesn't believe it's important enough to be front and center in elementary education curriculum. Therefore he works to stop these changes but does not feel the need to offer alternatives. Since he follows Chris Rufo and James Lindsay, he believes that these changes are just part of an attempt at an ideological takeover of our schools, rather than his beliefs being led by motivated reasoning (something like status quo bias).
Robin believes systemic racism is not only real, but the most pressing issue facing America today. Since she is highly credentialed, she believes that she is led by The Facts, has done the work, read the right books, etc., etc., rather than being led by motivated reasoning (eg confirmation bias leading her to preferring a narrative that frames history in a Oppressor vs. Oppressed lens). Since she believes her education led to this view, then it stands to follow that educating others will bring them to share that view, which is how we've ended up where we are today.
Coleman recognizes systemic racism, but believes the solution lies in expanding the project of liberalism and Enlightenment values. He sees inequity as a panoply of different scenarios, each deserving its own solution. He believes that mandated bias trainings and compelled speech are not only anathema to liberalism, but thwart the very efforts of Robin's antiracism. Since he reads Steven Pinker and IDW types, he believes he is above the partisan pettiness of Ben and Robin, rather than being led by motivated reasoning (eg fear of civil war and the end of liberalism due to polarization).
Robin is unable to distinguish Ben from Coleman. Coleman is unable to convince Robin that liberalism is the answer. Coleman believes that Robin is moving in the right direction but using the wrong tools. His dilemma is in deciding if he should join up with Ben in preventing Robin from using the wrong tools, believing that Ben is moving in the wrong direction.
A Plea for Communitarianism
My children are being raised Catholic. I have never complained that my public school was failing to teach my children about the glory of God, the meaning of the sacraments, or how to pray to the rosary. My children get that at Sunday School.
No one has ever complained to our priest that a Sunday School teacher was indoctrinating her child with Critical Christian Theory. Everyone is there voluntarily. We're there to be indoctrinated.
My point is that there is nothing stopping parents from forming a community civic organization that meets weekly to discuss this history of racism and the importance of activism with their children.
My super hot take: I don't care.
It really doesn't matter to me what version of history we teach or what gets excluded because schools no longer hold a monopoly on information.
A quick summary on my education as it relates to US history and race:
I learned all of this after the age of 30 and with nothing more than my laptop and a $15 monthly subscription. I didn't even mention all I've learned from Wikipedia and free podcasts.
Teach it. Don't teach it. But stop acting like high school is "our one chance to get it right."
