Banning Critical Race Theory Does Not Threaten Academic FreedomVirginia’s ban and those like it represent the American public defending itself from belligerents—and none too soon.
By Teresa R. Manning
February 6, 2022
Congratulations to Virginia’s new Governor, Glenn Youngkin, for starting strong. Immediately after his inauguration, he signed multiple executive orders, including one on education, the issue that put him in office after he stood up for parental involvement in schools to fight neo-racism.
For those unaware, this neo-racism goes by different names including critical race theory, white privilege, or DIE (diversity, inclusion and equity). But they all end up in the same place: teaching that America is quintessentially racist, as are all whites, men, and heterosexuals. Virginia’s James Madison University actually added Christians and Americans to this list.
Virginia is hardly alone. Other states have forced students to apologize for their privilege or take race walks of shame.
What’s more, because these doctrines teach that racial oppression persists to this day, the only solution, allegedly, is reverse discrimination. Welcome to more race shakedowns.
Youngkin’s much needed ban on “inherently divisive concepts” such as CRT is similar not only to President Trump’s EO 13950 but to many recently passed laws in other states. This legislation has prompted both discussion and confusion, including from organizations that otherwise are very clear-headed. Some now actually oppose these bans, especially in higher education, where they see threats to academic freedom and free speech, claiming: “You cannot have bans on what is taught in the classroom. Period.”
Such a strong statement requires a step back. First, while these laws differ slightly in wording, they all seek to ban discrimination based on race, including the creation of racially hostile environments. They are therefore on par with laws already on the books at both the federal and state level, including the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, state constitutions, and state human rights laws. These bans are therefore just another component of this body of civil rights law. (Unfortunately, enforcement of these laws depends on someone’s willingness to sue, or on partisan agencies which may or may not act on a complaint.)
One wonders if those objecting to CRT laws also object to the Equal Protection clause? Or the Civil Rights Act? Indeed, Youngkin’s EO makes the ban’s connection to already established law clear when it defines “inherently divisive concepts” as “ideas [already] in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
* * *
Source:
https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/06/banning-critical-race-theory-does-not-threaten-academic-freedom/
