Source: Michael S. Goldstein
State legislators know nothing about Critical Race Theory (CRT). Descended from Critical Theory (CT) created by the Marxist German Frankfurt School, CRT is the latest effort to divide Americans by race and create a hierarchy of victimhood to use in the war against America’s history and our free-market economy, with the goal of turning the United States into a Marxist state.
Do our state legislators fear CRT as the existential national threat it is? Are they or are they not willing to expunge its divisive concepts from our educational system, and are they willing to stay the course to achieve this end? Reviewing their legislative behavior, apparently they are not.
Although state legislatures have the authority to write effective anti-CRT legislation, the evidence demonstrates that thus far their members do not have the fire in their bellies to make this work. It now becomes the task of America’s grass roots to take action to ensure that our elected state legislators and governors enact effective anti-CRT legislation, laws that include the means to eliminate its divisive concepts from our schools.
An ad hoc working group in which I participate has drafted model anti-CRT divisive concepts legislation to educate state legislators on what language must be included in such legislation to make their bills effective. In doing so, we reviewed anti-CRT bills proposed, and laws passed, in several states. Most statutes are extremely weak and are incapable of halting the teaching of CRT divisive concepts in our schools. Why were such ineffective laws adopted? Our presumption was that although the authors of the bills wanted to include stronger language in their legislation, they could not gain enough support for passage from their legislative colleagues, and from governors who would have to sign the bills, without first stripping their bills of language which would realistically enable them to eradicate the indoctrination of our children in CRT divisive concepts in the real world that is our education system today.
We found that our presumption was correct. Members of our working group were included in a conference call among state legislators who had sponsored what turned out to be marginally or totally ineffective anti-CRT bills that became law, and sponsors of bills which had not yet passed committees to be sent to their House and Senate chamber floors for a vote. These sponsors took what they could get passed, but the resultant statutes are insufficient to accomplish the task.
Legislators and governors who support only bills that will not bring the teaching of CRT divisive concepts in our schools to a screeching halt are merely virtue signaling. They want the voters to believe that they are protecting their children and the nation from this noxious, racist curriculum meant to transform America into a collective state which will control the entire economy and strip individual citizens of their individual rights.
Bills which will in fact remove CRT concepts must constitute an impenetrable legal brick wall which will completely block CRT indoctrination of our students. Such laws first must contain language strong enough to block from the schools all types of funding which would support CRT divisive concepts-facilitating programs. Secondly, they also must include penalty provisions sufficiently robust to deter providers of CRT divisive concepts from indoctrinating our children.
Funding – These statutes must block all sources of funding for CRT divisive concepts teaching in our schools. This includes all federal sources and individual states’ sources, including prohibition of grants from a state agency to a state or local educational agency. One state’s Department of Education is offering grants to local school districts, schools, and teachers to teach the 1619 Project curriculum. All private funding sources must also be blocked. The statute must clearly make it unlawful for an educational entity, from the state down to the individual teacher, to solicit, accept, or use any such funds for any purpose related to preparing teachers for, planning for, or teaching any of the CRT divisive concepts prohibited by the statute.
Enforcement – Some states have already included language to the effect that a teacher who teaches the divisive concepts prohibited by the legislation is at risk of losing his or her teaching certification. Other states are trying to include language mandating that a student who attends any class in which these concepts are taught will not receive credit toward graduation for completing that class.
However, the most effective deterrent will result from placing the main enforcement of the law not in the realm of bureaucratic action, but in the hands of the parents and guardians of the students who are damaged by the indoctrination they are receiving. There should be in every anti-CRT statute a private right of court action, not just for equitable relief (i.e., a judge ordering the school board to stop teaching the statutorily prohibited divisive concepts because they are violating the law in doing so), but in addition, for money damages (compensatory, consequential, and punitive) judgments in favor of damaged student/parent/guardian plaintiffs against both the state and local boards of education, including their individual members, and against individual teachers who teach these concepts in violation of the statute.
Appropriate model statutory language regarding both funding and enforcement is available from Proclaiming Justice to The Nations (www.PJTN.org) by contacting the author directly by email at MGoldstein@PJTN.org.
Citizen Action — Influencing your state legislators to pass effective legislation is one more responsibility for our grassroots citizens who vote them into office, especially the parents and grandparents of the children being indoctrinated. Our citizens who are already educated, or who are presently becoming educated, on the seriousness of CRT racism and indoctrination in the schools and the consequence both to the children and to our nation, must engage in this effort. All concerned voters should contact their own state representatives and senators; each member of a state house and senate K-12 and higher education committee; the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate, and their governor’s office, to express their concern and to demand that effective anti-CRT divisive concepts legislation be drafted and passed into law in their state. Look online for their contact information on your state house and senate and governor’s websites. Call them on the phone and leave detailed messages stating your requests. Send them strong but civil emails. Make appointments to meet with them as individuals or groups, either in their offices in the state capital or in their districts. Let them know that you support and will elect legislators who take this matter seriously and who will legislate affirmatively by incorporating clear-cut language to cut off funding from these programs and imposing effective penalties for violations. Let them know that neither you nor your friends and neighbors, who are their constituents, will elect candidates or reelect incumbents who fail to do so.