Should Americans Be Concerned About the Influence of Critical Race Theory on School Curricula?
October 28, 2022
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical perspective that has recently received much attention in the national news. It is unusual for academic theories to enter the popular consciousness. Because CRT has the potential to influence how students at the primary and secondary levels of education are taught, the theory should not be dismissed as merely academic. Although CRT has roots in academia that extend back several decades, the American public first encountered the topic about three years ago when “The New York Times published the 1619 Project, a compilation of essays, commentaries and poems that brought the idea of critical race theory out of academia for the first time by asking readers to center the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans in the country's national narrative (Camera 2021a). Consequently, the scope of CRT is extremely broad.
The expansive character of CRT has complicated efforts to define with precision the boundaries of the approach. As Dorman (2021) explains, “Part of the problem defining CRT is that its contours are so vague.” The ambiguous nature of the theory has led to disagreement regarding its implementation. For example, Dorman (2021) describes how the “vagueness has played out nationwide, with institutions disputing constituents' claims that they're implementing CRT.” Nevertheless, its influence has been felt at the primary and secondary education levels. As explained in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “owing to its complexity, CRT in its fully developed form was being taught only in law schools, colleges, and universities—though generalized versions of some of its claims did appear in the curricula of some public schools” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). Additionally, Rufo (2021) has collected evidence in the form of a database of over 1,000 stories illustrating how CRT has influenced the educational system. Based on his investigation, Rufo (2021) asserts that CRT has become “the operating ideology of our public institutions . . . from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems.” Because of its potential to influence how subjects are taught to young people with highly impressionable minds, CRT is worth a close look.
Critical Race Theory as a lens for historical interpretation
CRT offers a specific way of seeing the world and is thus a theoretical worldview. It is not a neutral framework for the interpretation of American history and institutions. Importantly, Critical Race Theorists argue that the sins of the past continue to infect the American political and legal systems. More precisely, according to Masiga (2022), CRT “examines how the legacy of slavery and segregation in the US is embedded in modern-day legal systems and policies.” In other words, CRT does not maintain that African Americans in contemporary America are at a disadvantage because of the lingering effects of defunct institutions like slavery and segregation but rather that the principles underlying those institutions are entrenched in our political and legal structure. CRT organizes and interprets historical facts and American institutions in a way that creates a vision of a society in which racist outcomes are the inescapable consequence of our social structure. As The Heritage Foundation (2022) describes the theory, CRT “makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life, categorizing individuals into groups of oppressors and victims.” Because it is a method of historical interpretation, CRT has the power to shape what teachers and students see.
Because it is an abstract theory, CRT is not likely to be taught as such at the primary and secondary levels. As Masiga (2022) explains, the theory is usually taught in university graduate programs. To the extent that CRT influences teaching standards (discussed below) and thus the way subjects such as history are taught in primary and secondary schools, the concern then is that students will learn to use the theoretical lens of CRT without recognizing it as a framework that teaches them to interpret historical facts and American institutions in a specific way. ???
The reader should keep in mind that the objection to allowing CRT to influence school curricula is not the same as opposition to teaching students about the history of slavery, segregation, and racism in America. CRT goes beyond these subjects. As Movius (2022) explains, “Through the lens of CRT, [some critical race theorists] push scholars past traditional questions about racism and encourage them to investigate the mechanisms that systemically reproduce inequity in American society.” Although they are not without value, such theories involve connecting dots across time and space in ways that may be highly speculative. CRT’s focus on the lasting impact of past institutions across multiple generations is especially subject to multiple interpretations. Teachers and students who lack special training in the application of theoretical frameworks to historical periods may draw conclusions that would fail to meet the standards of rigorous historical analysis.?
A theoretical framework like CRT is undeniably normative in nature. That is, CRT has specific values implicitly embedded in the approach. Of course, values always influence educational content to some degree. For example, when educational standards are created, specific study topics are selected. Topic selection involves decisions about which topics are the most important for students to learn. As Sawchuk (2022) explains, the formation of “K-12 standards is by definition a normative process. It demands that states reach consensus about what students should know.” Nevertheless, topic selection and the application of value-laden theoretical frameworks are two very different aspects of this normative process at work in education. The use of a normative theoretical framework adds an additional layer of normativity that extends beyond topic selection. In other words, the application of a framework like CRT in the teaching of history, for example, does not simply involve the selection of specific historical events for study. On the contrary, CRT instructs students as to how they should interpret those historical events. A primary concern is that young people are less likely to recognize when they are imposing a set of values or expectations on historical or current events that are prone to multiple interpretations. They are especially likely to be unaware of this tendency when they are encouraged to adopt only one way of thinking about such events.
Because of the problematic incorporation of CRT in school curricula, Republicans reacted negatively when “the Biden administration's Education Department published in its federal register a new proposal to prioritize federal grants for history to proposals that incorporate diverse perspectives” (Camera 2021a). The Department of Education cited as an example the 1619 Project and its emphasis on “the consequences of slavery” in terms of how American history is taught in schools (Camera 2021a). Many observers viewed this statement as encouragement for the incorporation of CRT in school curricula.
Congressional Republicans were quick to challenge the proposal. “In a letter addressed to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and signed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 36 of his Republican colleagues, McConnell argued the Biden administration's efforts are akin to ‘spoon-feeding students a slanted story’” (Camera 2021a). As discussed at greater length below, the reason the application of a specific theoretical lens to the teaching of history carries significant political consequences is that the version of history that students learn will influence how they will relate to one another in society, how they will feel about themselves, and how they will perceive competing government policies.
The letter from Congressional Republicans raised not only concerns about the story that CRT tells but also the consequences for students learning it. Senator McConnell expressed in the letter to Secretary Cardona that CRT’s emphasis on “past flaws [] splits our nation into divided camps” and that our educational system should instead underscore “the shared civic virtues that bring us together” (Camera 2021a). The support for an expanded role for CRT in school curricula also risks undermining bipartisan support for civics education at the national level. According to “Rep. Tom Cole, Oklahoma Republican who introduced bipartisan legislation with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat, to provide $1 billion in federal aid for civics education[,]” the proposal had the effect of “jeopardizing civics as a bipartisan priority” (Camera 2021a). By turning civics education into a politically contested terrain, the expanded application of CRT risks stoking disunity in the political realm as much as in the educational realm.
Critical Race Theory opposes classical liberalism
As the previous section established, CRT is a normative worldview that applies its theoretical lens to historical facts and occurrences. Its lack of neutrality is reflected in its opposition to classical liberalism. As Dorman (2021) explains, “The [CRT] movement itself came in reaction to the perceived failures of classical liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries.” According to Prof. Poon at Colorado State University, “the founders of C.R.T. critiqued liberal ideologies, and [] they called on research scholars to seek out and understand the roots of why racial disparities are so persistent, and to systematically dismantle racism” (Fortin 2021). Camera describes the origins of CRT as follows:
Critical race theory traces its origins to a framework of legal scholarship that gained momentum in the 1980s by challenging conventional thinking about race-based discrimination, which for decades assumed that discrimination on the basis of race could be solved by expanding constitutional rights and then allowing individuals who were discriminated against to seek legal remedies. However, some legal scholars pointed out that such solutions – though well-intentioned – weren't effective because, they argued, racism is pervasive and baked into the foundation of the U.S. legal system and society as a whole. (Camera 2021a)
In its opposition to the classical liberal ideals that are central to the American constitutional system, CRT offers a different, but by no means the only, way of addressing racial discrimination. The classical liberal approach has been to establish and enforce equal treatment of all citizens under the law. The CRT strategy involves a restructuring of the entire U.S. legal system and an even broader transformation of our entire society to achieve its goal of racial equality. Before rejecting the classical liberal approach to addressing the problem of race-based discrimination, one should acknowledge the role that the expansion of constitutional rights has played in ending slavery and racial segregation and guaranteeing the right to vote to all citizens. One should also consider how our legal system has evolved to prohibit race-based discrimination in housing, banking, and other areas. Similarly, before embracing the CRT approach to solving the problem of race-based discrimination, one should consider how much we risk losing if we dismantle a legal system that generations of Americans have developed through a commitment to the rule of law and the protection of economic and political freedom.
The power of a theoretical lens to alter perceptions
Theoretical worldviews have a tremendous power to alter the way one sees the world. Theoretical lenses have the potential to transform the positive into the negative (and vice versa) and the constructive into the destructive (and vice versa). CRT transforms what many regard as great achievements in the movement towards racial equality into setbacks. Critical race theorists refer to a concept called interest convergence to explain how seemingly positive advances may represent setbacks in the struggle for racial equality. As explained in The Encyclopaedia Britannica, “legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). Interpretations of this kind may frustrate individuals who strive to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly and equally under the law. At worst, they might deter individuals from seeking such improvements.
Multiple examples of the tendency of CRT to transform the positive into the negative may be cited. Consider, for example, how the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Critical Race Theorists have attributed this cherished ideal of American democracy to a racist foundation. As Movius (2022) explains, “In part, the ideology of racism can be tied to the First Amendment. Through the lens of CRT, it can be understood that instead of helping to achieve equality, it perpetuates the status quo due to protecting hate speech.” Rufo (2021) also explains how apparent advances in the struggle for racial equality are turned into their opposite when viewed through the lens of CRT. As Rufo (2021) states, “Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents ‘mere nondiscrimination’ and provides ‘camouflage’ for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression” (Rufo 2021). At what point does a theory that extracts negative content from seemingly positive legal changes begin to work against its own objectives??
Even the contributions of someone as renowned as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may be subjected to criticism under the CRT lens. In reference to Dr. King’s “I Had a Dream” speech, Movius (2022) describes Dr. King’s message that “a person should be judged by the content of his or her character, not by the color of his or her skin.” Movius (2022) then explains how CRT interprets this message: “While the ideology behind color blindness is derived from the desire to focus on people’s commonalities and shared humanity, it falls short in producing equity and, in the end, operates as a form of racism.” An important question to ask is whether our values and ideals are to blame or whether our collective failure to always live by them is at the root of persistent race-based discrimination. If the latter deficiency is the source of the problem, then an attack on American values and ideals creates confusion as to the source and even worse, we risk elevating an inferior set of values and ideals.
CRT threatens to diminish the sacrifices and achievements of Americans who have moved the nation in the direction of greater racial equality. According to one of the founders of CRT, “the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned the segregation-supporting ‘separate but equal’ doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), occurred when it did because (1) elite whites were concerned about potential unrest among Black former soldiers who had fought bravely for their country in World War II and the Korean War but were now expected to return to lives of oppression and exploitation by whites; and (2) the world image of the United States as an egregiously racist society threatened to diminish American influence among developing countries and to undermine the country’s strategic efforts in the Cold War against the Soviet Union” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). How beneficial is it to question the motives of individuals who took steps that culminated in what has been regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the fight for racial equality?
How might advocates of CRT-based learning think about their approach?
A legitimate concern is that teachers and administrators who operate with a CRT mindset may not be sensitive to the extent to which that theoretical lens influences perceptions. Indeed, the theory is often presented in terms that any American, regardless of political affiliation, would embrace. According to Camera (2021b), for example, “Advocates for a reimagined teaching of U.S. history – one that aims to help students understand why inequities persist in health care, housing, education and more – argue that embracing the hard lessons will better equip students to strive for the ideals of democracy on which the country was founded.” Indeed, even the founders of CRT frequently understood their approach in terms they believed were relatively straightforward. As Masiga (2022) explains, “what [CRT’s] originators intended at its conceptualization . . . was simply a way to examine the inequalities in American society through the lens of racial injustice.” As teachers and students devote more time and effort to the application of a single theoretical lens, they become ever less conscious of its normative character.
A neutral representation of CRT implies the total absence of controversy, at least among supporters of American democracy. Furthermore, the contention that CRT will help students learn how to implement and uphold democratic ideals gives a strong impression that the theory is not divisive in its approach or in its consequences. However, if students learn that the entire legal system is designed to create persistent inequities in healthcare, housing, and education among racial groups, then they are more likely to favor large-scale redistributions of wealth and income. On the other hand, if students learn that the legal system has been constructed to guarantee equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law regardless of race, then they are more likely to favor solutions to race-based discrimination that do not interfere with economic freedom. Therefore, to the extent that teachers and administrators believe that they are operating with a CRT perspective that is neutral and uncontroversial, they unknowingly guide their students down a single ideological path.
Theoretical perspectives, in general, may be presented as ways of discovering truths about the world rather than injecting social meaning into what is observed. As Masiga (2022) puts it, CRT “acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of colour, continues to permeate the social fabric of American society.” Someone quickly reading this description of CRT might think that the theory simply acknowledges the racist institutions of the past, but a closer look reveals that the theory acknowledges “the legacy” of these institutions. The theory thus maintains that the remnants of racist institutions persist and are integral components of contemporary institutions. Therefore, it is not enough to abolish the institutions; one must engage in continuous revisions to rid society of these relics. The point is that acknowledging institutions and acknowledging the legacy of institutions are two very different types of acknowledgment. Acknowledgment means to grant recognition to something known to exist. No one disputes that slavery or segregation existed as institutions. Teachers, worthy of the title, must recognize that these institutions existed, but the suggestion that the institutional remnants of slavery and segregation persist in modern institutions in ways that may only be revealed using the lens of CRT takes us far beyond the act of pure acknowledgment.
The potential impact of CRT on state teaching standards
The reason CRT has become a controversial method of instruction at the primary and secondary education levels is its ability to influence state educational standards. As Camera notes (2021b), “the federal government is prohibited from playing a role in setting curriculum, which is governed entirely by states and local school districts.” According to Sawchuk (2022), “State officials need to do the tough work of figuring out how to write expectations everyone can live with” (Sawchuk 2022). Sawchuk (2022) explains that the states revise and update the educational standards every seven years and that “[t]eachers are legally and professionally obligated to cover these standards, which are usually drafted by panels of teachers, content experts, and lay people” with an opportunity for “[public] feedback before final versions are adopted by state boards of education.” Although state educational standards are broad in scope, teachers do not have the legal or professional option to ignore them.
Sawchuk further describes how state teaching standards serve both to constrain teachers and to grant them considerable flexibility:
At its most basic, a standard is simply an expectation for what students should know and be able to do. It is not detailed enough to be a lesson plan—which lists the specific steps and methods teachers take to meet each standard, including lectures, discussions, and research projects—or a curriculum, which include the textbooks, primary source documents, videos, and so forth that underpin each lesson plan.” (Sawchuk 2022)
Educational standards thus pertain to topic selection and to learning outcomes. A specific theoretical lens can be used to guide and direct the writing of such standards. The establishment of educational standards is an avenue through which a theoretical lens like CRT may achieve its broadest reach. Once established, these standards will then be implemented in a variety of ways at the local level in the form of specific lesson plans.
Sawchuk also explains why state educational standards specific to history instruction are especially important. As Sawchuk (2022) notes, “Unlike education expectations in reading, science, or math, history standards serve a unique civic function. They are the starting point for textbooks—the narratives that make up most students’ first, and often only, introduction to the American story” (Sawchuk 2022). Therefore, they help shape how many students will think about their country and its history throughout their lives.
领英推荐
Many examples may be cited of the way in which CRT may be embedded in state educational standards. A recent review of the educational standards writing process in three states produced a wealth of information on this subject. Specifically, “Education Week reviewed hundreds of standards and thousands of pages of public comment relating to the standards-writing processes in South Dakota, Louisiana, and New Mexico, all of which took up revisions in 2021, and interviewed writers, educators, and state officials” (Sawchuk 2022). Just one sample teaching standard from New Mexico illustrates well how the influence of CRT on state teaching standards has generated public controversy. Members of the public provided feedback that included an objection to the following teaching standard: “Create an action plan for a more just and equitable America for diverse groups of people, including Native Americans and African Americans” (Sawchuk 2022). It is a short step from this statement to the background assumptions that America is a place where racial injustice is widespread and only collective action can create a better nation for diverse groups of people (since individual action alone generally cannot have a national impact).
The inevitable backlash against CRT
Because CRT has the potential to shape state educational standards, the proponents of CRT have unsurprisingly faced opposition. As Elnaiem explains (2021), “Eight states have passed legislation against ‘critical race theory,’ including Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennesee [sic], Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina. Twenty additional states have introduced, or plan to introduce, anti CRT-laws. Texas House Bill 3979 goes so far as to ban any attempt to claim that slavery and racism are not ‘deviations . . . from the founding principles of the United States’” (Elnaiem 2021). Because state educational standards impose a legal and professional obligation on teachers, proponents of the Texas bill fear that teachers might be expected to teach that racism is central to the American system of government. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica explains, the practical consequence of these bans on CRT-based instruction is that “the bans [have] tended to discourage any teaching, especially at the middle- and high-school levels, that presented nonstandard histories of racism in the United States or explored its real-world nature and effects” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). That is, the bans do not discourage teachers from teaching about the history of racism in the United States. Instead, they have discouraged teachers from teaching nonstandard histories of racism, such as CRT-based interpretations, that aim to locate vestiges of slavery and segregation in contemporary American institutions.
Laws that restrict the teaching of CRT have been criticized on the grounds that CRT is difficult to define. As Elnaiem (2021) argues, the “problem with these laws is that critical race theory has often evaded definition. It seems to be a catch-all term for any focus on structural racism.” Restricting the application of CRT using legislation does pose challenges, but the laws are not the source of the problem. The problem originates in the broad scope of CRT and its ability to affect state educational standards, which in turn shape the perceptions of American society that teachers and students develop and communicate.
How should history be taught?
Without question, historians know best how to teach history to meet the high standards that the discipline upholds for historical scholarship. At the same time, our inquiry suggests that we should avoid diminishing the sacrifices and efforts of so many Americans who have struggled to create an America in which social and political equality are guaranteed to every citizen. Furthermore, as Rufo (2021) emphasizes, “[CRT’s] premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow” (Rufo 2021). In other words, students need to learn about the racist institutions of slavery and segregation and the denial of (and struggle for) civil rights in the United States, but to encourage them to interpret all contemporary American institutions as tainted by these past evils is to train them to apply one interpretive method without instructing them regarding the art of historical interpretation.
One potential source of confusion in the debate about CRT-based history instruction is the use of the word “critical.” As Movius (2022) explains, “critical theories differ from non-critical theories. Non-critical theories focus on trying to understand or explain a particular aspect of an individual or society, whereas critical theories focus on critiquing and modifying society as a whole.” Therefore, references to the word “critical” in this context are not related to what teachers traditionally have had in mind when they teach critical thinking skills. That is, CRT is a critical theory in the sense that it aims to criticize and transform social relationships at the broadest level. By contrast, critical thinking usually refers to the practice of analyzing an issue from multiple perspectives and evaluating different interpretations of a problem using evidence and arguments. The application of a single interpretive framework that does not allow space for alternative modes of thinking contradicts what teachers typically mean by critical thinking skills.
How do we avoid the pitfalls of CRT-based instruction that involve the application of a value-laden framework that directs students to interpret American history in a specific way? One school superintendent who commented on the public feedback gathered in response to proposed educational standards, asked how we approach the teaching of history “in a neutral fashion, where kids are making decisions, and it doesn’t look like we’re telling kids what they need to think[]” (Sawchuk 2022). Of course, a subject like American history cannot be taught in a manner that is completely neutral or free of all value judgments. The selection of topics for study necessarily involves value judgments as discussed above. Nevertheless, departures from neutrality are a matter of degree. One way to approach history instruction in the pursuit of greater objectivity is to follow the advice of “Louisiana’s board-appointed State Superintendent Cade Brumley, a former social studies teacher, [who] wrote in a July op-ed that the standards should strike a balance between critique and patriotism, but should not include critical race theory, which he defined as ‘suggest[ing] America was intentionally founded on racism, oppression, supremacy’” (Sawchuk 2022). After the publication of the previously mentioned 1619 Project, President “Trump convened the ‘1776 Commission’ to counter the [CRT] narrative and develop a ‘patriotic’ curriculum that schools can use to teach U.S. history” (Camera 2021a). Although the Biden administration discontinued this work, the proposal may serve as a model for states as they draft educational standards that emphasize critical thinking skills and how adherence to the American ideals of political and social equality have helped the nation abolish the institutions that represented the greatest departures from those ideals. ???
The relationship between structural transformation and liberty
A tension exists between a political movement that seeks to eliminate race-based discrimination via structural transformation and one that aims to protect and enhance individual liberty via the expansion of constitutional and legal rights. A prominent CRT founder and Harvard professor, Dr. Derrick Bell, appreciated this tension. As Elnaiem explains:
At a time when many dismissed legal scholar Herbert Wechsler’s complaints against the neutrality of the Supreme Court in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education (which led to the end of state-mandated segregation in public schools), Derrick Bell, an anti-racist legal scholar at Harvard, surprisingly took him seriously. Wechsler argued: “If the freedom of association is denied by segregation, integration forces an association upon those for whom it is unpleasant or repugnant.” Bell was inclined to agree. To Bell, the Supreme Court directly intervened against the right of people to associate with whom they wish, for political, and not necessarily constitutional, purposes. (Elnaiem 2021)
Structural changes were necessary to bring an end to state-mandated segregation in public schools. Segregation in public schools and in public places that is achieved and maintained via coercive state means requires a structural solution. At the same time, as Prof. Bell noted, a point is reached when structural changes–for example, the use of coercive state means to compel integration–begin to interfere with individual liberties, such as the freedom of association.
At some stage, individual decisions about how to treat people must become the focus of efforts to bring race-based discrimination to an end. Too much emphasis on structural transformation can cause one to lose sight of the essential role of individual action in creating a society that gives every person the opportunity to live a life that is free of race-based discrimination. Critics of CRT have feared that the theory’s proponents have not assigned the proper weight to the role of individual behavior in their theory. According to Fortin (2021), critics of CRT have “wondered whether its emphasis on systemic problems [has] diminished the agency of individual people.” At what point must an emphasis on structural change give way to a focus on changing what is in people’s hearts?
There is a kind of frustration with racist tendencies that leads to a focus on structural changes as the solution to the problem of racism. Antiracists want to combat racism by pursuing structural changes, which can be made collectively. They cannot easily change what they really want to change, which is what is in people's hearts. Certainly, if this policy or that policy has a disproportionate racial impact, then that is an important topic for public discussion and if found to be the case, it requires correction, but to look for such inherent biases in all policies and foundations of the American legal and political structure mistakenly places one's entire faith in structural transformation. Fortunately, an appreciation for the limits of what structural changes can accomplish does not leave us with no way to combat race-based discrimination in American society. By aggressively spreading a message of political and social equality for all people and encouraging individuals to live according to this message in their daily lives, we can continue to build an America in which every person is treated with dignity and respect.
Sources
Camera, Lauren. “What Is Critical Race Theory and Why Are People So Upset About It?” U.S. News & World Report. June 1, 2021a. Web.
Camera, Lauren. “McConnell, GOP Urge Education Department to Resist ‘Activist Indoctrination’ in Curriculum.” U.S. News & World Report. April 30, 2021b. Web. ?
Dorman, Sam. “What is critical race theory?” Fox News. May 14, 2021. Web.
Elnaiem, Mohammed. “What Is Critical Race Theory?” JSTOR Daily. September 2, 2021. Web.
Fortin, Jacey. “Critical Race Theory: A Brief History.” The New York Times. November 8, 2021. Web.
Masiga, Juliet. “What is critical race theory?” World Economic Forum. February 10, 2022. Web.
Movius, Sarah E. “Critical Race Theory.” Theoretical Models for Teaching and Research. Joy Egbert and Mary Roe. Pressbooks. Accessed on October 26, 2022. Web.
Rufo, Christopher. “Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It.” Imprimis. Volume 50, Issue 3. March 2021. Web.
Sawchuk, Stephen. “Revising America’s Racist Past.” EducationWeek. January 18, 2022. Web.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Basic tenets of critical race theory.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2022. Accessed on October 26, 2022. Web.
The Heritage Foundation. “Critical Race Theory: Facts, Issues, and Solutions.” heritage.org. 2022. Accessed on October 26, 2022. Web.
United States Constitution. Amendment I.
Photo: Hogue, Theresa. “Oregon State University: education.” Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). January 20, 2011. flickr.com.
License for Photo: Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0