Miller Fernandez Hutchens_2023_The race to ban race

The Race to Ban Race: Legal and Critical Arguments Against State Legislation to Ban Critical Race Theory in Higher Education

ABSTRACT

  • Anti-critical race theory (CRT) legislation affects institutions of higher education, not solely K-12 education.

  • Legislation opposes teaching ideas that suggest racism and sexism are pervasive in society.

  • Opponents of CRT argue that it promotes anti-white racism and cultural division.

  • Critics argue that anti-CRT bills mischaracterize CRT and its applications.

  • This article asserts that anti-CRT policies conflict with First Amendment rights and undermine efforts toward equity in education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. INTRODUCTION

  2. OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY BANS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

    • A. What Is Critical Race Theory? What Is It Not?

    • B. Development of Critical Race Theory Bans

    • C. State Legislative Efforts to Ban Critical Race Theory

  3. ACADEMIC FREEDOM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY LEGISLATION

  4. USING A CRITICAL LENS TO PUT ANTI-CRITICAL RACE THEORY LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS INTO FOCUS

    • A. Banning CRT as an Attempt to Limit the Educational Benefits of Diversity

    • B. The Chilling Effects of Efforts to Ban Critical Race Theory

    • C. Cloudy Times in the Sunshine State

  5. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

  • Conservative officials are pushing laws to ban CRT in higher education, affecting how race and gender are taught.

  • Anti-CRT sentiments are often constructed based on misconceptions about its tenets.

  • Legislative trends mirror former President Trump's rhetoric against CRT after events like the murder of George Floyd.

II. OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY BANS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

A. What Is Critical Race Theory? What Is It Not?

  • CRT is an academic framework asserting that race and racism shape American law and society.

  • Originated in the 1970s-1980s as a response to the failures of civil rights legislation.

  • Key contributors include Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Mari Matsuda.

B. Development of Critical Race Theory Bans

  • The murder of George Floyd sparked heightened scrutiny of race in curricula.

  • Activist Christopher Rufo criticized CRT and pushed for its ban, leading to legislative action.

C. State Legislative Efforts to Ban Critical Race Theory

  • States like Idaho, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Florida have enacted laws restricting CRT teaching.

  • These laws often misrepresent CRT, falsely conflating it with various related concepts.

III. ACADEMIC FREEDOM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY LEGISLATION

  • Anti-CRT laws raise significant concerns regarding academic freedom and First Amendment protections.

  • Debates about whether protections apply to individual faculty or institutions.

  • The AAUP denounces anti-CRT laws as a violation of academic freedom.

IV. USING A CRITICAL LENS TO PUT ANTI-CRITICAL RACE THEORY LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS INTO FOCUS

A. Banning CRT as an Attempt to Limit the Educational Benefits of Diversity

  • Legal arguments suggest that the benefits of diversity in education are not just about numbers but about perspectives.

  • Supreme Court cases confirm the importance of diverse ideas in academia.

B. The Chilling Effects of Efforts to Ban Critical Race Theory

  • Research shows that organizations adapt to legal and political environments, often leading to self-censorship.

  • Anti-CRT legislation promotes fear among educators, limiting discussions on race.

C. Cloudy Times in the Sunshine State

  • Florida faces incidents of censorship and legal challenges to academic freedom related to CRT.

  • Growing anti-CRT sentiment and related legislation threaten higher education’s integrity.

V. CONCLUSION

  • The ban on CRT embodies a significant threat to free speech and academic freedom, particularly from the political right.

  • These efforts risk silencing critical discussions necessary for understanding and addressing racial inequalities.