Fairfax School Board Defends Race-Centric Curriculum — Continued

Introduction

The most recent post on this site reported on speeches by members of the Fairfax County School Board in defense of their new social studies curriculum, which focuses relentlessly on issues of race, power, bias and identity.  See “Fairfax School Board Defends Race-Centric Curriculum,” February 12, 2022.

This post analyzes and critiques the comments of the Board members.

False Assumptions, Mischaracterizations of Fact, and Bad Policy

The Board’s Arguments Rest on a False Narrative

The Board contends that the purpose of the new curriculum is to “teach history … all of it,” including the “bad and ugly,” along with the good.

This narrative suggests that the curriculum hasn’t taught about the evils of slavery until now, or has given it only short shrift.  This is grossly misleading.  Fairfax County schools aren’t just now emerging from the dark ages.  Our history of racial injustice has been taught for many years.

One only needs to look at the social studies textbooks used in our schools to see the untruth of the Board’s framing of the issue.  As reported in the very first post on this website, the texts are modern and comprehensive.  Virtually every chapter includes discussions of the injustices of the era, as well as the contributions of minority citizens.  See “First Steps,” Dec. 15, 2021.

The truth is that the new curriculum has very little to do with teaching new things about the facts of our history.  Rather, the Board’s over-arching purpose is to use the facts of history as a backdrop for advocating the Board’s policy agenda for today.  Board member Dr. Ricardy Anderson essentially admits this when she states that the social studies courses should teach about “the obstacles that continue to exist today,” due to “institutionalized patterns of disparity” and privileges enjoyed by some at the expense of others.  Similarly, member Karen Keys-Gamarra states that “we have to discuss the facts, and we have to analyze them,” using the “critical thinking process.”

The new curriculum focuses on this so-called “critical thinking,” and on policy questions in today’s world, not the facts of history.

 “Critical Thinking” Is a Myth for Young Children

The term “critical thinking” sounds good.  Adults should engage in it a lot more.  But when teachers lecture young children, it’s not realistic to believe that true critical thinking occurs.  The vast majority of students at this level simply absorb what their teachers tell them, and they lack the breadth of knowledge and experience to challenge what they are taught.

If a teacher tells a 4th grader, or 7th grader, or 9th grader, that as a result of past and present discrimination, the black children in the classroom will be behind the eight-ball throughout their lives, is it realistic that a student will raise his or her hand and say, “Wait a minute, Miss Jones, that’s not true … opportunities abound in today’s world for everyone, regardless of their race.”  Of course not.  And if a student did have the temerity to do this, what would be the result?  Would the subject be opened up for objective discussion by the students, without interference from the teacher?  Probably not.  More likely, there would be suggestions that the student is not sufficiently attuned to the sensibilities of his or her classmates.

The Board members know this.  What they mean by “critical thinking” is that the teachers will impart their views about today’s world to their students, and that the children will absorb that way of thinking.

The Board Doesn’t Support True “Critical Thinking,” Even for Older Students

Critical thinking implies (i) examining all the facts, (ii) thinking rationally about all the potential explanations for the facts, and (iii) weighing the alternatives objectively to reach a full understanding.  That’s not what the Board has in mind.

Let’s take the question of why blacks lag whites in jobs and income in today’s society.  The Board wants to teach that the cause is ongoing racism, white privilege, and institutional barriers.  But those aren’t the only possible explanations.  A true “critical inquiry” would examine the potential roles of teenage pregnancy, fatherless homes, failure to read to babies and tots on a daily basis, failure to get a good education, and so forth.  It would also weigh the effect of ongoing barriers, which undoubtedly exist to some extent in some situations, against the incredible opportunities available in today’s world to those who work hard, get a good education, and believe in basic values like meritocracy.

There is no indication in the words of the Board members, or in the their new curricula, that a full, candid discussion like this is involved in the “critical thinking” they envision.  Rather, it appears that their idea of critical thinking is to focus narrowly on issues of identity, race, power and privilege.  That isn’t “critical thinking”; it is “critical race thinking,” plain and simple.

An examination of the social studies curricula also reveals that the Board wants teachers to get students involved in so-called “anti-racist” and “equity” causes.  Again, this is one-sided political activism, not objective instruction on how to be a good, involved citizen.  The ideas of race-neutrality, color-blindness and meritocracy are supported by the vast majority of Americans.  Is the current Board supportive of this way of thinking?  No, it is not.  Is the Board encouraging students to get involved in both liberal and conservative causes?  The answer is obvious.

The Board’s Approach Is Divisive and Counter-Productive

It’s hard to understand how the Board believes its race-centric curriculum will solve racial divisions.  Teaching students to view the world through the narrow lens of race, and characterizing disparities between whites and blacks as the result of racism, is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Black kids should not be taught that the deck is stacked against them.  It tells them their white peers are racists, and it provides a convenient excuse for any of their achievement failures.

Likewise, telling whites they are “privileged,” and that their achievements aren’t fully earned, is also likely to stoke racial divisions.

Board member Ricardy Anderson says this shouldn’t be so.  In her February 10 speech, she stated: “Recognizing differences in advantage … should not imply racism or be perceived to promote divisiveness ….”  This is a statement of her wishes, but her wishes are contrary to human nature.

If you tell me I’m a racist when I know I am not, or if you falsely say my accomplishments are mainly attributable to my whiteness, of course I will react negatively.  My natural reaction will be to say that you are the one espousing racist views, judging me by my skin color.  And if black students are relentlessly taught that their white classmates have institutional advantages over them, that’s likely to promote divisiveness too, notwithstanding Dr. Anderson’s wish that it shouldn’t be so.

Who’s Trying to “Sow Divisions”?

Several Board members at the February 10 meeting disparaged the motivations of those who are questioning the Board’s agenda.  There were references to “illegitimate political discourse in this current political climate,” to “the tone and tenor of the discourse regarding how we teach history,” to efforts “to sow divisions deliberately, and foment untruths,” and to schools being “under attack.”

Who are these people?  I have attended many Board meetings in recent months and haven’t seen them.  Citizens are sometimes passionate in expressing their disagreements with Board policies, but this is legitimate political discourse, designed to make things better, not an effort to destroy the schools.

This website has taken a careful, fact-based approach in investigating what is happening in our schools, but we have found that the Board is pursuing bad policies.  Is it “deliberately divisive” to say so?

It seems that if anyone is fomenting untruths, it is those who claim that the new curriculum is just an effort to “teach history.”  It is also untrue to deny that the school system has embraced the ideas associated with Critical Race Theory.

Part of the problem is that the Board has twelve members who all sing from the same hymnal.  There doesn’t appear to be a single voice questioning an agenda that’s so much at odds with the values of middle-of-the-road citizens.  Given the group-think of the current Board members, it is perhaps not surprising that they would believe it’s unreasonable and divisive to disagree with them.

Perhaps the solution needs to be election of a new Board with members who are more representative of the entirety of Fairfax County.