September 30, 2021
I participated this week in a panel discussion about critical race theory. My position was that the level of controversy over CRT in public schools is a symptom of the larger problems of:
- an impoverished civics education curriculum (borrowed from event moderator and UVU history professor Michael Goode) and
- parents being blindsided by how antiracism is presented to their children (referencing the activist component of CRT, as described by fellow panelist and Claremont religion professor Kevin Wolfe).
The video to the full panel discussion can be found here.
One of the more thought-provoking comments from Wolfe was when he described the words and experiences of Henry David Thoreau and John Brown. Wolfe “chose Brown and Thoreau, in part, because when critics of critical race theory suggest that it shames white people, I wanted to show that it can only shame you if you have a particular perspective.”
Wolfe’s argument is a serious one that offers a moment for self-reflection. While I don’t believe that a person’s perspective is the only reason that someone could feel shame caused by the ideas of CRT (it is possible to emotionally manipulate people, regardless of their perspective), I don’t need to agree fully with Wolfe’s argument to recognize the value in thinking about it.
To what extent are the elements of our personal perspective on matters of race – as opposed to the arguments or tactics of “the other side” – the real source of our grievances or negative emotions about political debates over race?
Thinking beyond race – do our worries about things like the health of our democracy stem solely from the arguments, beliefs or tactics of our political opponents, or are they driven by elements of our own personal political perspectives?
These are healthy questions to ask for people who strive to be reasonable, principled and grounded in the facts, and who value intellectual humility. And as the UVU panel illustrates, it is often by participating in discussion with those of a different perspective that we gain the opportunity to ask such questions.
If more of us sought and embraced such opportunities instead of slipping toward the siren song and intellectually ease of absolute certainty (grounded in moral passion and our limited personal knowledge of the facts) it would greatly add to the health of our democracy and its institutions.
Presented before the Education Interim Committee by Stan Rasmussen, Sutherland Institute vice president of government affairs: We appreciate Senator Lincoln Fillmore’s and the committee’s efforts to address this important matter of curriculum transparency. … The proposed legislation admirably strengthens the parent-teacher partnership.
Chief Justice John Marshall, who established the practice of judicial review, was replaced by Roger Taney, a loyalist of President Andrew Jackson, in 1836. To the degree Taney is remembered, it is for the infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
“Today’s political discourse is misleading us about our state of affairs, making us believe that things are far worse than in fact they are,” says Andy Smarick of the Manhattan Institute. He urges localism, among other things, to reestablish Americans’ sense of community.