Fairfax School Board Defends Race-Centric Curriculum

Introduction

Recent posts on this site have outlined the process by which the Fairfax County School Board has reshaped the curriculum for social studies courses to focus on issues of “privilege,” “equity,” “power” and “bias.”  See “Development of New ‘Anti-Racism’ Curriculum in Fairfax County,” Jan. 16, 2022; “Fairfax County’s Race Centric Curriculum for U.S. History,” Jan. 21, 2022.

Since then, several members of the Fairfax County School Board have defended the curriculum.  They have also attacked those who have criticized the Board’s approach.  The occasion for their remarks were resolutions at the February 10 School Board meeting to recognize Black History Month and Public Schools Week.

If followers of this website want to understand what the Board is doing in our schools, and why they are doing it, it is well worth taking the time to read what they said at the meeting.

(Alternatively, the full video of the February 10 meeting can be viewed HERE.  The speeches are between time stamps 12:49 and 49:45.)

As you will see, the Board members want to go far beyond teaching our children the facts of our history.  Under the umbrella of “teaching history,” they advocate what they call “critical thinking,” by which they mean indoctrinating youth with the notions that in today’s world, some students are “privileged,” that others lack opportunity, and that racism is a significant, ongoing problem which prevents some students from succeeding.  The Board also believes that our youth should be taught to be activists in the “equity,” “social justice,” “anti-racist” causes favored by the Board.

In the next section, we will let the words of the Board members speak for themselves.  This will be followed by an analysis and critique.

What Does the Board Advocate?

Board Member Karen Keys-Gamarra (member-at-large) introduced the resolution honoring Black History Month and spoke in favor of it.  She said:

“Public education is about educating the public.  In public education, we teach history; all of it.  Critical to education is critical thinking.  In public education, we have to discuss the facts, and we have to analyze them.  It is contrary to the educational experience for anyone, elected or not, to try to hinder discussions that emanate from the critical thinking process.  That effort is not education, but rather is an effort to regulate thought, and is a continuation of the effort to prevent full discussion of our collective history.  We cannot temper or hinder the educational process with arbitrary standards designed to protect the comfort of some while disregarding the needs of many.  This is not equality.  That is not free speech, and it has no place in education.  If we do not respect the process of education, we most assuredly allow the ugliest parts of our history to repeat itself. … In this current political climate, there has been a sanctioning of something other than legitimate political discourse.  [Ms. Keys-Gamarra then related a recent communication from a constituent that contained a racial slur. She outlined the past history of lynchings, cross burnings, etc., and continued]: This stresses the need, not only of Black History Month, to teach history; all of it.  Until we teach the full breadth of the American experience, there will be those who will reach back and try the tactics of the past to gain advantage.”

The next speaker was Dr. Ricardy Anderson (representing the Mason District of Fairfax County).  She began by reciting the accomplishments of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and continued:

“More recent examples of this type of activism are reflected in the Black Lives Matter movement, the 1619 project, and other initiatives that foster intentional reflection and investigation to weed out the root causes which perpetuate inequity, injustice, discrimination and lack of access to opportunity.  Currently it appears that recognition of obstacles that continue to exist today due to the lasting effects of discrimination and institutionalized patterns of disparity cannot be discussed without a perceived intent of division.  Recognizing differences in advantage, whether social, educational or economic, should not imply racism or be perceived to promote divisiveness, but rather to present a chance to address long-standing issues, make corrections, and hopefully increase understanding and expand opportunity where none exists.  Should our children not be taught that Africans brought to the United States did not enjoy slavery?  Should they not be taught that Jim Crow, red-lining and other practices have created obstacles for black families to build wealth and achieve the American dream?  Should they not be made aware that our daily lives are impacted by the privileges, either afforded or not afforded, given one’s circumstances?  As a person with advanced degrees and adequate resources, I maintain a much easier time navigating the various systems of our lives, but often, walking into certain spaces, where my color and gender are the first things seen by others, I have been in a position of an uphill climb to be seen as a complete person, to be heard, and to be found worthy. … Should our students not be made cognizant of this reality, be given the tools to combat inequity, and to pursue course corrections to allow everyone, regardless of circumstance, a shot at the American dream?  Black history isn’t only about the contributions of black folks.  It’s about naming the struggles to inform future practices and legislation in the hope of developing a generation that is more tolerant, more inclusive, than the current one.”

Next came Melanie Merin (Hunter Mill District), who said:

“Virginia’s legacy as ground zero for enslaving kidnapped human beings puts a responsibility on educators in this commonwealth to portray the full breadth of history. … I know that the constituents I represent overwhelmingly support the teaching of America’s complex history involving racism against black America’s economic, political and social explorations into critical thinking.  I began advocating for anti-racism instruction about American history that truthfully presents the role of black Americans in history and society long before I was elected, and I’m proud that my child received a more accurate and full account of American history when in the 4th grade two years ago ….”

Karen Corbett Sanders (Mt. Vernon District) spoke next.  She noted that she hadn’t in the past spoken in connection with the recognition of Black History Month,  but she felt compelled to do so this year:

“In light of the tone and tenor of the discourse regarding how we teach history, I think it is imperative for all of us to speak about this issue.  … The best part of Mt. Vernon is that it is steeped in history, representing the best of the country’s beginning and the worst, with its history of slavery …. [Learning about slavery] does not diminish understanding our country’s history … the good, the bad, and the ugly.  It does not mean that we diminish the positives; learning about that history … empowers our children to understand and to think critically and to want to dig deeper.

Abrar Omeish (member-at-large) said:

“Our public schools have been under attack.  Some have genuine and valid pains and grievances they are voicing; many, though, have sought to sow division deliberately, and foment untruths.  I call upon us to learn from our past, as we always should, and stand against division and for our public schools.  Let us not forget the day we didn’t.  [Ms. Omeish then referred to historical injustices, including concentration camps, segregated schools, etc., and continued]:  Today is a day we articulate unfairness exists, and own that action is required, and that we have a long way to go.  Let us stand with our schools and put our worst days behind us.”

Laura Jane Cohen (Springfield District) did not speak about these issues at the February 10 meeting, but she recently did so in an email exchange reported on in a recent post on this site.  Her comments were in line with several of the ones quoted above.  In particular, she spoke about “critical thinking,” by which she meant judging the motivations of people in positions of authority by their “identity” (i.e., race, sex, etc.)  See “Revealing Dialogue With a School Board Member,” Jan. 24, 2022.

Analysis and Critique

The speeches of the Board members are high-sounding and may have superficial appeal upon initial reading.  Who can oppose “teaching history, all of it?”  However, the speeches obscure the reality of what the Board is doing.  They include false assumptions and factual mischaracterizations, and they embody bad, divisive public policy.  They also exhibit an insular viewpoint in which legitimate criticism is perceived as an attack on the public school system itself.

These considerations will be discussed in the next post on this website.

    To Be Continued …..