Critical race theory (CRT) has been dominating current discussions about the role of diversity and racial equity in education. The divisive rhetoric regarding if and how we should be teaching children about race has even caused violent outbursts, as we saw in a Virginia school board meeting last week. Many parents and administrators across America heavily and openly oppose its use in schools, often citing that it inflicts divisive racial narratives on young children, such as “[redefining] America’s history as a struggle between “oppressors” (white people) and the “oppressed” (everybody else),” as Parents Against Critical Theory puts it.
The core goal of critical race theory is to examine historical and societal processes while keeping racial identities and processes in mind, according to its original creators. However, it is clear that a warped interpretation of this goal, popularized by politically conservative news sources and commentators, will likely prevent the widespread usage of CRT in American schools. This may come as good news to its opposers, but it begs a new question: if not critical race theory, then what?
Some would argue that conversations about race don’t belong in the classroom to begin with. But again, widespread opposition towards a laissez-faire approach to racial education will likely prevent it from being fully adapted. This presents a chance for administrators, legislators, and citizens to work together to find educational methods and policies that represent a compromise between both extremes.
So where do we begin? The darkest corners of American history have been well hidden from students for centuries. All of this discourse, if anything, shows that we are no longer able to push our problematic history to the wayside. The modern manifestations of racial injustices experienced hundreds of years ago prove that we need to do a better job of ensuring history stops repeating itself.
The first step is adjusting our social studies classes to include the histories of those who have been traditionally oppressed. Lessons on civil rights movements should not be a footnote at the end of a 1960’s counterculture unit; they should be a unit of their own. This is not to say that all lessons of minority groups should be separate from the rest of the curriculum. Rather they should be given the same respect and time that predominantly white stories are.
The flaming controversy comes after we begin to adjust our history classes: what do students need to know specifically about racial identity? With CRT comes the debate of whether or not children perceive and/or understand racial differences; the American Psychological Association says they can as early as toddlerhood. Skidmore College Professor Leigh Wilton stated that “even if it’s a difficult topic, it’s important to talk with children about race, because it can be difficult to undo racial bias once it takes root.”
Once we begin talking about race to young children, we walk the faulty line of encouraging children to embrace their racial differences while understanding that we are all human inside. To be both different and the same all at once can be difficult for even some adults to comprehend.
At the end of the day, what is most important is that we teach the next generation of children to be empathetic to and understanding of our society, past and present. School is no longer a place of repetitive, formulaic memorization as it once was. It is a place of mental growth and academic discourse for all students, no matter their backgrounds. CRT will continue to serve as a political scapegoat, but it may be entirely thrown away in the end. Alternatively, arguments over its implications will hopefully lead us to a revamped racial education system that suits a wider range of American academic and personal needs.