America’s debate has heated up over how race and racism should or shouldn’t be taught in schools and discussed in the broader society.
By Nazarul Islam
America’s debate has heated up over whether, or how, Critical Race Theory (CRT) may be taught in schools. It has obscured the real debate over how race and racism should or shouldn’t be taught in K-12 education and discussed in the broader society.
In a recent Facebook exchange, an acquaintance of mine, with deep public policy experience had denied that CRT was being taught in public schools. However, he had tellingly added: “It’s important kids are taught how racism shapes our society’s structures and systems.”
One parent who had helped collect together, the diversity curriculum for her school put it this way: “Critical Race Theory is simply the concept that racism is something embedded in our legal systems and policies. This means that CRT in the classroom teaches that racism is part of everyday life, so people, even well-intentioned white people, can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.”
Thank you! Finally, we have some clarity. Now let’s reframe their statements into a question: Should kids be taught – or told – how racism has shaped our society?
The answer lies in a single word—‘no’! They should be taught to consider the question of whether and how racism molds American institutions from a variety of viewpoints and allowed to reach their own conclusions.
How racism currently influences society is a matter of opinion, not fact – and it should not be taught as fact. Asserting how racism shapes society is like asserting how teaching styles affect educational outcomes. We know they do to an extent but may not be able to pinpoint the impact compared to other factors. In other words, it’s not a fully settled question.
What’s more, in teaching opinion as fact about racism, we may be harming the same marginalized people we are trying to lift up.
Proponents of teaching how racism shapes society offer several justifications for doing so.
Our arguments of history: Proponents argue that there is no disputing that racism dominated American society for much of its history. I couldn’t agree more. But the fact that something happened in the past doesn’t mean it’s happening in the present. It is uncontroversial that numerous American institutions were defined by racism through at least the mid-1960s. Slavery was a horrific racist institution.
After abolition, racism continued to animate American society for at least 100 years, from Jim Crow to reconstruction to redlining. But after the hard-won civil rights battles of the 1960s, the role of racism became murkier. Reasonable people disagree. There certainly continue to be ample racist attitudes. That’s not the same thing, however, as the claim that racism is embedded in every system of society and insisting that it explains all disparity among groups. How racism shapes American institutions today should be discussed, debated, and studied – not imported.
The argument of examples – Proponents have pointed to specific incidents of alleged ‘systemic two racism’, but individual instances of racism do not prove that racism is everywhere. Some point to the example of Flint, Michigan, a majority-black town operating under state government control, which allowed its water supply to become contaminated.
Others point to disparities in the criminal justice system in which black people make up almost 40 percent of the incarcerated population, nearly three times their percentage of the overall population. Others point to horrors of modern policing or skewed drug laws or voting rights laws that disempower black voters. Let’s assume for a moment that we can demonstrate that racism is the singular or a significant culprit in each of these systems. It still does not mean that racism characterizes all systems all the time.
Racism didn’t, for example, shape Michigan’s state-appointed Civil Rights Commission that found that the state was guilty of systemic racism in Flint. Racism is likely a greater determinant in some systems, in some places, at some times than in others. And this is why again systemic racism should be discussed and debated, not taught as established fact.
The argument of a catalyst, a lone cause:
Proponents of this view often insist that racism is the only possible reason for racial disparities. But disparity usually has many factors, such as economic conditions, average age of a subgroup, and cultural differences. David BenMoshe, a formerly incarcerated African American writer, put it this way: “The disenfranchisement of a group of people is a complex problem. Complex problems are always multifactorial in nature.
When you focus on one thing as the sole cause and the only thing that needs to be fixed, you miss the complex interplay of the other factors that affect it.”
There are, without a doubt, other factors at play. Out-of-wedlock births have long been highly correlated to social pathologies, irrespective of race or ethnicity.
That there is a high percentage of fatherlessness – upwards of 75 percent – in inner-city communities is very likely a significant factor for many social problems, from crime to drug use to lack of educational achievement. Systemic racism is a possible factor as well. How do we weigh these factors? We conduct studies, show evidence, and debate. But we don’t insist that one factor explains all of reality.
Those who insist on a single cause will often accuse anyone who offers up an alternative explanation of victim-blaming and racism. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it’s not a line of reasoning – it’s an allegation, meant to slander and shut down alternative explanations.
And if the accuser shuts off conversation about varied causes, as often happens in the current ideological environment, then we won’t be effective in addressing social problems. Indeed, all these arguments that seek to uphold the pedagogy of systemic racism conspire to suppress discourse and make life worse for the people adversely affected by current conditions. If, for example, proponents insist that the only reason there aren’t enough minority scientists is because of discrimination, and they make it difficult to discuss more salient factors such as education and upbringing, then society may never take the steps to build a pipeline of minority scientists.
The last thing we should do is tell our kids that we know all the reasons for disparity in society when we don’t. They will be in for rude awakening when efforts to curb racism don’t, as advertised, significantly narrow the racial divide. Let’s instead expose them to multiple perspectives, including the perspective that identifies systemic racism.
Equipped with stronger critical-thinking skills, they may, we can hope, do better in addressing American society’s problems than their parents and grandparents, had accomplished.
[author title=”Nazarul Islam ” image=”https://sindhcourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Nazarul-Islam-2.png”]The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his 119 articles.[/author]
