The paternalistic nature of social justice educators
Bion Bartning wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal outlining how the values of his family are increasingly at odds with the social justice orthodoxy of the private school his children attend. This disconnect between parents and schools is becoming all-too common in public and private schools alike. Parent, and educator, groups have sprouted up across the US in response to the current social justice approach to education, which often employs critical race theory as the pedagogical and curricular framework for teaching about issues of power and race in society.
Oregonians for Liberty in Education is one such organization. It began in response to the implementation of comprehensive sex education in schools but is broadly concerned about how “controversial ideology” is promoted in schools. The organization was founded by parents and educators, and their mission is to advocate to “advance educational policies that support parental rights, protect truth, and promote unbiased, ethical education for students and their families.” Recently, they have focused on issues related to implementing critical race theory in schools and how the Oregon Department of Education and districts have responded to Black Lives Matter (the movement, not the sentiment).
I interviewed two parents who work with the organization. One theme emerged from that interview that seems to be widespread in schools that are approaching education through a social justice lens: Schools are taking up the role of parent.
I first became aware of the sentiment that schools exist to serve as co-parent, so to speak, in the summer of 2020. Harvard Magazine highlighted an academic article by Elizabeth Bartholet in which she called for a presumptive ban on homeschooling and posed the question: “Do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18?” Her response: no. The article was published amid wide-spread virtual, in-home schooling due to the pandemic.
I wrote about the issues surrounding virtual schooling during the pandemic to point out how it was blurring the line between public and private life, and how schools and teachers were overstepping their boundaries. I presented a case in which a school teacher expressed concern about how parents would react to his diversity and equity work:
“Matthew R. Kay, founding teacher at Philadelphia’s Science Leadership Academy, who posted the original, then-public tweet, worried about how spectators (parents, siblings, etc.) during virtual classes would impact the school’s ‘diversity/equity work.’ He noted: ‘[W]hile “conservative” parents are my chief concern—I know that the damage can come from the left too. If we are engaged in the messy work of destabilizing a kids [sic] racism or homophobia or transphobia—how much do we want their classmates’ parents piling on.’”
This view of Kay illustrates well how social justice educators in particular view their role in the lives of their students. Because he thought it best to actively hide these conversations from parents, Kay likely did not inform parents of the race and gender lessons he aimed to teach.
Similarly, the parents working with Oregonians for Liberty in Education described scenarios in which teachers were positioning themselves as someone that children should confide in away from their parents. This was evident when comprehensive sex education was being introduced in schools. At that time, the parents argued that kids should be given “tools to have difficult conversations with their parents about sex,” rather than teachers coddling them and protecting them from difficultly. The parents argued that the same approach applies to discussions related to race and racism. They noted that teachers should view kids as competent: “they can handle these things, ... they can learn to disagree with people and it’s not a personal attack.” The parents are concerned because they don't see this approach happening “in any way, shape, or form.”
The Oregonian parents view school as a place where children can learn about new ideas and perspectives, even if they are in opposition to the personal beliefs of the student, and should feel comfortable voicing a perspective that might deviate from the norm. Critical race theory assumes that society is made up of dichotomous groups—i.e., oppressors and oppressed, privileged and marginalized, good and bad. This assumption leaves little room for nuance, and presenting a view that deviates from the assumption is often not well-received. One parent expressed concern, not with teaching critical race theory as one way to view the world, rather the problem, in her view, is that it is being presented as “truth.” Instead, she asserts, it should be taught as one of many ways to understand the world and solve the issue of racism.
When Oregonian parents raise concerns about critical race theory and question whether schools are overstepping their bounds, school administrators treat them as if they are being hostile. But, considering what parents are hearing from their children, the school environment seems to be the place creating hostility:
“When our children come home and they talk about ... the feeling in the [class]room, it’s pretty hostile to anything that is an opposing viewpoint to critical race theory or racism. There is one way to think and if you don’t think that way, you’re going to get opposition and it’s not going to be kind.”
The parents I interviewed are not the only ones hearing worrying stories from their children about how issues of race are being discussed in schools. One parent, who is black, told Oregonians for Liberty in Education about an experience his child had in school that he found alarming: His daughter “had to rate herself on a scale of color, of what color she thought she was closed to: white or dark black.” Unlike with comprehensive sex education, the parents have not been given access to the curriculum that is using the critical race theory perspective. This has made the task of understanding what their children are learning in school difficult. They must rely on what their kids relay to them.
A similar scenario played out in Cupertino, California. A third-grade teacher conducted a lesson during math class in which students had to create an “‘identity map’ listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics.” The students were then told that they live in a “‘dominant culture’ of ‘white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s],’” and that this dominant culture “‘created and maintained’ this culture in order ‘to hold power and stay in power.’” Following the lesson, the “teacher had the students deconstruct their own intersectional identities and ‘circle the identities that hold power and privilege’ on their identity maps, ranking their traits according to the hierarchy.” Like the parents in Oregon, the parents of R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School were unaware of this curriculum. They, however, were successful at ending the program.
Although parents are often not told about the social justice curriculum taught, they are being instructed in how to talk to their children about societal issues. “Woke at Brentwood,” an Instagram page, shares stories about how critical race theory is implemented at Brentwood School, as well as in other schools. One post displayed a snapshot of a list of advice that was sent home to Brentwood parents on how to talk to their kids about the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The assumption of the letter was that there is a right way to talk to kids about these issues, and that parents might not know what this right way is. The list of bullet points was intended to, according to the school, provide resources to support parents in speaking with their kids about the value of managing their emotions and strengthening their humanity and civility:
“Calmly expressing your own range of emotions helps children process their own feelings and fears.
Validate their feelings and remind them that it is natural to feel confused and upset, and it is good that they are talking with you about their feelings.
Provide reassurance that they are safe.
Follow your children’s lead. Begin discussions with open-ended questions, asking what have they seen, what have they heard, what they think about the behavior, and/or how it makes them feel. Ask what they would like to know or understand and welcome their questions. While it is important to be honest and factual, it is most important to offer age-appropriate answers to their questions.
Try to avoid talking about political perspectives and policies, instead focusing the conversation on behavior. Wonder with them how one should behave to achieve their goals. For example, if they disagree with a referee's call during a game or even a rule within the home, would yelling and violence achieve their goal? It might be helpful to ask children what advice they would give the President in this time of crisis. Could he do things differently to achieve his goals? Help your children consider alternatives that would be more effective in achieving the desired outcomes.
Elementary school-aged children often have trouble understanding and emotionally processing news images and reporting, which can instill fear and anxiety. Be mindful of television, media, and adult conversation. If your children do view a disturbing image, ask them to share their feelings.”
The fourth bullet point is what stood out most to the administrator of the Instagram page:
“Does BWS have a right to tell parents not to share political beliefs with their own children? Interestingly, there have been many reports from students that teachers are sharing their political bias and encouraging the students which way to vote once they are eligible. Schools should focus on educating our kids in an unbiased, supportive way, instead of contributing to the polarization.”
The “concept of school should be to support parents, not replace them,” as one Oregonian parent articulated. This sentiment aligns with the values of Oregonians for Liberty in Education: “We believe children belong to their parents and families, not their governments. The primary authority and responsibility for a child’s education rests with parents and guardians.” But the sentiment doesn’t always align with those working in the fields of education and child welfare.
For instance, James Dwyer, a law professor, believes that “the state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s well-being, there’s just no alternative to that. The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the state confers legal parenthood, not people, through its paternity and maternity laws. It’s the state that is empowering parents to do anything with children, to take them home, [to] have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.” This view of the role of the state is in contradiction to the values of Oregonians for Liberty in Education, as well as the values and beliefs of, I venture to guess, most parents who send their kids to school.
If schools and teachers share Dwyer’s perspective and view themselves as the “ultimate guarantor of a child’s well-being,” they may not think it necessary to inform parents of the curriculum that is being taught or take seriously the misgivings of parents. Even when 1,400 Oregonian parents signed a petition and attended board meetings to express their concern about comprehensive sex education, the parents didn’t see much change in the curriculum. They are having the same issue with how critical race theory is being embedded in curriculum. The parents I interviewed noted that it’s tough to get public schools to be transparent, and I doubt that they are alone in this feeling.
I have advocated for teachers to create political classrooms (see here and here) in which teachers act as facilitators of discussion of controversial topics, such as race and gender, and play devil's advocate to introduce viewpoint diversity into conversations, rather than presenting their own views. This approach would remove the viewpoints of teachers from the classroom and encourage students to civilly engage in discussion with their peers, who hold a diverse range of worldviews. This may satisfy the concerns parents have about teachers imposing their beliefs on students. Others have argued that to avoid social justice doctrine, or dogma, entering classrooms, teachers should not include controversial topics in curriculum at all. Rather, they should stick to what they are licensed to teach—if you are licensed to teach math, stick to math; no teacher is licensed in social justice.
These arguments about the role of teachers are not new. No matter which approach schools and teachers decide to take up, they should be informed by the tenets of a liberal society. Schools need to ensure that they are respecting the division between public and private life and embracing the role of parents as an important form of checks and balances for the schools that educate their children.
From the web:
Christopher Rufo has written extensively on this topic. Read his articles covering critical race theory in American schools.