The Florida State Board of Education will vote on a rule prohibiting the required instruction of “American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” If adopted, this policy will fulfill Gov. Ron DeSantis’s promise to support a new civics curriculum that, in his words, “will expressly exclude … critical race theory.”
Florida is not alone in standing against critical race theory. Recently, the Washington Examiner reported that Wisconsin state lawmakers have proposed prohibiting “sex and racial stereotyping” in curricula and training. In fact, legislators in nearly a dozen states have introduced legislation to restrict the teaching of critical race theory in primary and secondary public schools.
However, these policies have been met with resistance. DeSantis’s proposed rule has been criticized by Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar, who told the Herald-Tribune, “It seems intent on limiting what we teach in civics and social studies.”
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten decried the state legislative proposals, asserting they were “right-wing attempts to ban discussion on history and/or race.” New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg even compared these efforts to “cancel culture,” contending that the Right was on “an ironic quest to cancel the promotion of critical race theory in public forums.”
Is banning critical race theory a form of right-wing “cancel culture”? In some cases, the state legislative proposals have indeed gone too far. For instance, since Texas’s H.B. 3979 lacks explicit First Amendment protections, it would effectively prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in public schools.
In higher education, state intervention violates the principle of academic freedom. It also deprives college students of the opportunity to hear multiple points of view. Conservative philosopher Robert P. George expressed, “Professors who expose students to the views and arguments of thinkers on one side and fail to expose them to the best to be said on other sides violate a sacred trust.”
But it’s a different story in K-12 education. Various state proposals for primary and secondary schools do not actually stifle student discourse on race. Oklahoma’s S.B. 803 allows discussion conducted in an “objective manner and without endorsement.”
Florida’s new rule would encourage age-appropriate civics and history discussions. DeSantis’s rule would only restrict the role of teachers to that of a neutral facilitator, and for good reason.
In many ways, K-12 education is different from college. Teachers have a captive audience, while many professors do not. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, all 50 states have compulsory education for students 7 to 17 years old as of 2017. While a college student can take electives, children may not have that option.
Furthermore, compulsory identity training may prove harmful to adolescents. For instance, William Clark, a mixed-race high school senior at Democracy Prep, was forced to take a Sociology of Change course. Clark was allegedly compelled to write down his identity categories and was denied the opportunity to object to the class material. The promulgation of the oppressor-oppressed paradigm among “oppressed” students in particular will, as AEI fellow Ian Rowe articulates, rob them of personal agency.
One must be wary of using governmental action to censor certain ideas in the public square, especially ones as contentious as critical race theory. However, when K-12 students are a captive audience, banning CRT in K-12 is not “cancel culture,” especially when coupled with neutrality and a commitment to healthy discourse.
