DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Teaching Critical Race Theory’s taken seriously in Missouri.

Yeah. It does oppose liberalism and promote radical leftism.....namely Marxism.

Yes yes…face it….they where teaching some of your kids just that. Some being the key word here. Not just their kids.

j/c

Why are states banning critical race theory?

Fox News has mentioned “critical race theory”
1,300 times in less than four months. Why? Because critical race theory (CRT) has become a new bogeyman for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s racist history and how it impacts the present.

To understand why CRT has become such a flash point in the culture, it is important to understand what it is and what it is not. Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about racism in classrooms. However, there is a fundamental problem: these narratives about CRT are gross exaggerations of the theoretical framework. The broad brush that is being applied to CRT is puzzling to academics, including some of the
scholars who coined and advanced the framework.

CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put,
critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with
racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that
racism can exist without racists. However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us—these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling
social institutions racist as calling them racist personally. It speaks to how normative racial ideology is to American identity that some people just cannot separate the two. There are also people who may recognize America’s racist past but have bought into the false narrative that the U.S. is now an equitable democracy. They are simply unwilling to remove the blind spot obscuring the fact that America is still not great for everyone.

Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past. They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today. Policies attempting to suffocate this much-needed national conversation are an obstacle to the pursuit of an equitable democracy. Supporters of CRT bans often
quote Martin Luther King Jr’s proclamation that individuals should be viewed by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin,
ignoring the context of the quote and the true meaning behind it.

To better understand how widespread these efforts are to ban critical race theory from U.S. classrooms, we did an assessment of anti-CRT state legislation. Here’s what we found:

Nine states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and North Dakota) have passed legislation. Arizona’s legislation was overturned in November by the Arizona Supreme Court.

None of the state bills that have passed even actually mention the words “critical race theory” explicitly, with the exception of Idaho and North Dakota.

The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions.

State actors in Montana and South Dakota have denounced teaching concepts associated with CRT. The state school boards in Florida, Georgia, Utah, and Alabama introduced new guidelines barring CRT-related discussions. Local school boards in Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia also criticized CRT.

Nearly 20 additional states have introduced or plan to introduce similar legislation.

You can find a summary of this legislation in the appendix to this post.

The approach of some Republican-led state legislatures is a method for continuing to roll back racial progress regarding everything from voting rights to police reform. This is a horrible idea and does an injustice to our kids. Laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism, would put a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss in the classroom and provide cover for those who are not comfortable hearing or telling the truth about the history and state of race relations in the United States. Ironically, “making laws outlawing critical race theory confirms the point that racism is embedded in the law,” as sociologist Victor Ray
noted.

Some parents are worried about their kids learning things in school that they do not have the capacity to address. As a college professor who does teach CRT as one of the many theoretical frameworks that I bring into the classroom, students are alarmed by how little they have learned about inequality. They are upset at their schools, teachers, and even their parents. So, this is the conundrum: teachers in K-12 schools are not actually teaching CRT. But teachers are trying to respond to students asking them why people are protesting and why Black people are more likely to be killed by the police.

Ultimately, we cannot employ colorblind ideology in a society that is far from colorblind. Everyone sees it, whether they acknowledge it consciously or not. As I wrote in a previous Brookings article on whether the U.S. is a racist country, systemic racism can explain racial disparities in police killings, COVID-19, and the devaluing of homes in Black neighborhoods. If we love America, we should want it to be the best it can be. Rather than run from the issue of racism in America, we should confront it head on. Our kids and country will be better for it.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/

This article is just over a year old. Now even more states are trying to block teaching the history of race in our nation.

In the words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, USMC. “They can’t handle the truth!”

That’s how the Goper radical right looks at it. So you’re just a parrot of those beliefs.

I don't even think they're interested in reading or finding out what the truth is. It's the whole "You can lead a horse to water" thing.

Pretty much have their collective heads in the sand on nearly every issue that faces us today.

Can you show me where they taught anyone but their kids in their homeschool group?



I think it is also important to clarify that I don't think anything they are teaching is ok. Quite frankly, I think it is extremely disturbing they are teaching this stuff. However, we should get mad about the facts.... not the spin that was put on it. It takes away from the issue.

From the very article he posted....


Had you have bothered reading the link you wouldn't have asked the question.

Essentially, this article is a distillation of what I've been saying for the past 10 years. I mentioned that racism and bigotry were two different things; that bigotry is a set of personally held beliefs, and racism is an institution. That a person could be the beneficiary of racism without having a single bigoted bone in his body. For my efforts, I was rewarded with personal attacks in my inbox. At least this article tries to explain why some posters seemed to take my comments personally. I really was shocked at the time, but suppose I shouldn't have been surprised.

The theory behind CRT is complex and nuanced, making it vulnerable to simplistic mischaracterization: "they want your kids to feel ashamed..." " It's anti American... " " It's meant to divide us...."

I used to write entire op-eds in an effort to openly discuss these types of issues. I was a younger man back then. My remaining time on this planet has opened my eyes: quit wasting time on lost causes.

If the numbers are accurate on the page listing the forums, there are a lot more people reading these forums than posting on them. That has a lot to do with why I continue to post in the political forum. For those we don't hear from. I understand your reasoning and at some point I may come to the same conclusion. I think we can obviously see that some have drawn their conclusions far more by their preconceived notions and sensibilities than trying to get to the truth. That they really have no intention of finding out what CRT is. They are more intent on being outraged by what they're told. And don't get me wrong, this happens on both sides about many topics.

But yes, generational wealth is one such example of which you speak of. And while you may have thought all of your efforts fell on deaf ears, it most certainly didn't. I grew up in a very rural, almost all white high school. The only people of color were one student and my music teacher. Race was never mentioned by any of my teachers and let's just say when I heard students mention anything about race, it was racist as hell! Being part Native American my focus at the time was the atrocities committed against the over 200 Native American nations after Europeans landed on this continent.

Some of the very things I have learned by reading about them in regards to racism in America and raised my curiosity to study such things were inspired by many of your posts. It caused me to question many things and take a look for myself. My life has been an evolutionary journey. I think that holds true for anyone willing to look at things that are uncomfortable to them and do not coincide with their preconceived notions. So please don't think you didn't make a difference.

You've equated, repeatedly, those who are concerned about CRT in classrooms as simply being people who do not want history to be taught in classrooms. For someone whose curiosity has charged you to learn more about this topic, it seems like you've stopped at the foreword.

@Clem. I do not agree with your position about people who have issues with CRT being discussed in elementary and primary school (whatever one wants to call it) for the VERY reason you stated. It is a very nuanced, broad and deep topic. Unfortunately, it can, and is, being distilled in very simplistic and misrepresented ways, IMO....and then politicized by all. I think CRT is an important topic, as are many, that should be correctly taught, explained, and discussed.....just at a different educational level where it is growing now. I think who and how it is being presented can be very damaging and I'd say the very same thing about religion, but that would be easy for me, considering my lack of faith.

j/c:

Here is the full podcast from a snippet I posted the other day. The CRT discussion begins around the 24:00 minute mark, but if your time allows, I suggest listening to the whole thing. Glenn and John discuss various topics all the time and I think they are both great.

John McWhorter is a linguistic professor at Columbia.
Glenn McLoury is an economic professor at Brown.

I actually think that topics and teaching can begin at any level and expand from there. This is the way all subjects are taught in schools. Math doesn't begin in first grade at the calculus level. The foundation must first be laid in any subject. And yes, CRT is based on historical data.

Where I think the divide is, is that different people read different sources on the topic and as such arrive at different conclusions based on those sources.

Again... it's out of context. The 2 people were not teaching other kids.

The parents on Telegram were sharing homeschool lesson plans with other parents.

Unfortunately (in this situation), we really don't have control over what parents teach in their homes.

In most situations... it's a good thing that the state doesn't have complete control over what parents teach their kids.

You're talking nothing more than semantics. They were posting this as a form of education for other parents and students to read and disseminate. Which is what was done.

Do you use that excuse for other online schools? "Well they just posted the lessons online. That's not teaching."

He's damn sure no progressive. In the last few years, Maher has moved right on several issues. He's still a left-leaner though.

It's always the same thing......"everyone else is moving in the wrong direction, but not me."

Ummm. No.

Not as it pertains to this board....unless you are referring to you? Which, ok, I might buy.

No No No I’ve asked in this thread, more than once. Show me a public school that teaches critical race theory. Crickets. Because there isn’t any. Screw your nazi Goper one way street. And to add this thread was named that Missouri is taking CRT seriously. Which is funny. Because you are to.

No I'm pertaining to the bulk of the posters on this board. And sadly you know that's true.

WAIT! No public schools are teaching CRT? Then what the hell is all the HUBBUB?

It's a preemptive strike and to create a sense of fake outrage from those on the right. You know, create a problem that isn't really there.

You be WRONG- I'm still alive and in the 50s and 60s - "we" were NOT taught that. Later, I was taught about diseases which killed hundreds of thousands of Indians....actual deaths between settlers/ Indians will NEVER be known, but it wasn't even in hundreds of thousands...JMHO- more like tens of thousands. History is what the historians write- it ain't anywhere near perfect- lots left out. EVERYONE has their bias. Answer who, what, where, when, why, and how---ask ten people and get ten different answers. Humans, ain't we wonderful.

History is written by the winners. In the winners words to make the winners look good and put in the best light. That doesn't make it accurate or correct.

So it's "let me tell you what you should be afraid of and then let me tell you who's to blame for it" Kinda thing.

The American Political way.

You are a real piece of work.

My family left Italy because of the Nazi's.

Go pound salt.

You are the one who has one-way street.

for those wondering if the concepts of CRT are being taught in school...


https://www.city-journal.org/yes-critical-race-theory-is-being-taught-in-schools


Yes, Critical Race Theory Is Being Taught in Schools


A new survey of young Americans vindicates the fears of CRT’s critics.
Zach GoldbergEric Kaufmann
October 20, 2022 The Social OrderEducation
To what extent, if at all, are critical race theory (CRT) and gender ideology being taught or promoted in America’s schools? With little data available, and no agreement about what constitutes the teaching of critical social justice (CSJ) ideas, the answer up to now has remained open to political interpretation.

Motivated by the work of Manhattan Institute senior fellow and City Journal contributing editor Christopher F. Rufo, many on the right allege that CRT-related concepts—such as systemic racism and white privilege—are infiltrating the curricula of public schools around the country. Educators following these curricula are said to be teaching students that racial disparities in socioeconomic outcomes are fundamentally the result of racism, and that white people are the privileged beneficiaries of a social system that oppresses blacks and other “people of color.” On gender, they are being taught that gender identity is a choice, regardless of biological sex. But are the cases Rufo and others point to representative of American public schools at large—or are they merely outliers amplified by right-wing media?

The response to these charges from many on the left has been to deny or downplay them. CRT, they contend, is a legal theory taught only in university law programs. Therefore, what conservatives are up in arms about is not the teaching of CRT, but the teaching of America’s uncomfortable racial history.

But strong connections exist between the cultural radicalism of CRT and the one-sided, decontextualized portrayal of American history and society that Democratic activists endorse. And these ideas have also influenced many Democratic voters. Indeed, according to a 2021 YouGov survey, large majorities of Democratic respondents support public schools’ teaching many of the morally and empirically contentious ideas to which opponents of CRT object. These include the notions that racism is systemic in America (85 percent support), that all disparities between blacks and whites are caused by discrimination (72 percent), that white people enjoy certain privileges based on their race (85 percent), and that they have a responsibility to address racial inequality (87 percent).

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they are hardly “settled facts” on the same epistemic plane as heliocentrism, natural selection, or even climate change. To the contrary, they are a moral-ideological just-so theory of group differences, an all-encompassing worldview akin to a secular religion, whose claims can’t be measured, tested, or falsified. They treat an observed phenomenon (disparate group outcomes) as evidence of its cause (racism), while specifying causal mechanisms that are nebulous, if not magical. Their advocates have not refuted counterarguments; they’ve merely asserted empirically unverified statements about the nature of group differences.

Publicly funded schools that teach and pass off left-wing racial-ideological theories and concepts as if they are undisputed factual knowledge—or that impart tendentiously curated readings of history—are therefore engaging in indoctrination, not education. The question before us, then, is not whether or to what extent public schools are assigning the works of Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and other critical race theorists. It is whether schools are uncritically promoting a left-wing racial ideology.

To answer this and other related questions, we commissioned a study on a nationally representative sample of 1,505 18- to 20-year-old Americans—a demographic that has yet to graduate from, or only recently graduated from, high school. A complete Manhattan Institute report of all the findings from this study will be published in the coming months; what follows is a preview of some of them. Our analysis here focuses mainly on the results for the sample overall rather than for various subgroups.

We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory. The chart below, which displays the distribution of responses for each concept, shows that “been taught” is the modal response for all but one of the six concepts. For the CRT-related concepts, 62 percent reported either being taught in class or hearing from an adult in school that “America is a systemically racist country,” 69 percent reported being taught or hearing that “white people have white privilege,” 57 percent reported being taught or hearing that “white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect non-white people,” and 67 percent reported being taught or hearing that “America is built on stolen land.” The shares giving either response with respect to gender-related concepts are slightly lower, but still a majority. Fifty-three percent report they were either taught in class or heard from an adult at school that “America is a patriarchal society,” and 51 percent report being taught or hearing that “gender is an identity choice” regardless of biological sex.


Data are weighted. N = 1,505 respondents recruited via Delta Poll between August 18–23, 2022. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. Question wording was as follows: “Thinking about the school you attended, were you ever taught any of the following concepts in class or did you hear them from adults in the school you attended?”

We also wanted to assess whether certain concepts were more likely to be taught in some educational contexts than in others. To this end, we separately asked respondents whether, “in high school, college, or other educational settings,” they were ever taught that “discrimination is the main reason for differences in wealth or other outcomes between races or genders” or that “there are many genders, not just male and female.” Overall, excluding those who didn’t know, 62 percent were taught that discrimination is the main reason for outcome gaps and a third were taught that there are many genders. As shown in the chart below (which includes “don’t know” answers), statistically significant (if only modest) differences emerged between respondents with no versus at least some prior college instruction: 58 percent and 26 percent of those in the latter group, respectively, report having been taught these two concepts, compared with 50 percent and 25 percent of those in the former. Far from being the preserve of academic curricula, then, CSJ ideas central to contemporary left-wing racial and gender ideology are being taught to students before they arrive at college.


Data are weighted. Sample sizes in parentheses. Bars represent the shares of respondents who reported being taught each respective concept. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. Question wording for the discrimination item reads as follows: “Thinking generally about your time in high school, college, or other educational settings, were you ever taught that discrimination is the main reason for differences in wealth or other outcomes between races or genders?” “No” (34.2 percent) and “Don’t know” (13.8 percent) responses to this item are included in the analysis but are not shown. Question wording for the gender item reads as follows: “When it comes to gender, which one of the following comes closest to what you were taught by your teachers?” “There are two genders, just male and female” (40 percent), “There are more than just male and female genders, but not many more” (8.4 percent), “I don’t recall being taught anything about gender” (20.9 percent), and “Don’t know” (5.7 percent) responses are included in the analysis but not shown. Respondents (N = 45) who answered “Don’t know” when asked to indicate their highest educational level are excluded from the analysis. “No college” is the reference group for tests of statistical significance. For all charts: p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

The summary chart below underscores the pervasiveness of at least some form of exposure to these concepts. For instance, 93 percent of respondents reported either being taught (85 percent) or hearing from an adult at school about at least one of the eight listed concepts, with an average of 4.3 concepts; 90 percent reported either being taught (80 percent) or hearing about at least one of the five CRT-related concepts, with an average of 3.0 concepts; and 74 percent reported either being taught (54 percent) or hearing about at least one of the three gender-related concepts, with an average of 1.3 concepts. While these figures are for the sample overall, they do not meaningfully differ by school type. Levels of exposure were similar regardless of whether respondents reported attending public or private high schools.


Data are weighted. N = 1,505 respondents recruited via Delta Poll between August 18–23, 2022. Bars represent the share of respondents who reported being taught in class each of the listed concepts. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. “Neither/No” and “Don’t know” responses are included in the analysis but not shown. A “Heard” response category did not feature in two of the items (the first and the fourth from the bottom).

Perhaps it’s wrong to assume that the teaching of these CSJ concepts necessarily amounts to ideological indoctrination. After all, such concepts are salient on social and other media, and have also been uttered or invoked by prominent politicians. Perhaps, then, most teachers are merely using them as fodder for healthy classroom debate or presenting them as perspectives among other competing ideas.

Yet our data suggest that this is hardly the majority experience. Specifically, we asked those who reported being taught at least one of the listed concepts in a high school class what, if anything, they were taught about arguments opposing them. As shown in the chart below, 68 percent responded that they either were not taught about opposing arguments or were taught that there are no “respectable” opposing arguments. Importantly, this rate does not meaningfully vary by race, political orientation, or high school type. Whites (30 percent) and nonwhites (34 percent), Democrats (29 percent) and Republicans (31 percent), liberals (29 percent) and conservatives (31 percent), and public (32 percent) and private or parochial (28 percent) schoolers were equally likely to report being told about respectable counterarguments. No evidence, then, suggests that this response reflects respondents’ political biases. Instead, the data suggest that large majorities in all groups have been given the impression that the concepts they were taught are beyond reproach. And these data hardly tell the full story: in our forthcoming report, we additionally show that the number of concepts respondents report being taught is positively related to the probability of being told there that opposing arguments are not “respectable.”

If this isn’t indoctrination—unwitting or otherwise—then what is?


Data are weighted. N = 1,003. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. Sample is limited to respondents who reported being taught at least one of the six CRT-related and gender-related concepts. Respondents who gave a “Don’t know” response (N = 166) are excluded. Question wording reads as follows: “When you were taught these concepts, what were you taught about arguments against these concepts? If this happened more than once, please think about the most recent time.”

The prevalence of students’ classroom exposure to left-wing ideological concepts raises the question of its attitudinal effect. Are students who report receiving such instruction more “woke” than those who do not? Given the many other sources of attitudinal influence with which any effect of exposure must compete, there is ample reason for skepticism. At the same time, our respondents are in a phase of life in which, by some accounts, social and political attitudes are malleable.

The potential for exposure to shape related attitudes is plausible. In fact, in a dissertation chapter, one of us found that having white respondents read a short “racially woke” op-ed article led to eight- to 12-point increases (mostly via increases in collective shame and guilt) in support for race-based affirmative action, government assistance, and reparations to African-Americans. If attitudinal shifts of this magnitude can be produced over a span of just minutes, what might be the effects of more protracted exposure?

It’s also fair to say that many educators incorporating such concepts into their instruction expect, or at least hope, that doing so makes a difference in the minds of students. Indeed, the notion that concepts like “white privilege” and “systemic racism” are solely taught for knowledge’s sake strains credulity, especially when such instruction usually entails the omission or delegitimization of competing arguments. The hope instead seems to be that students will come to see white people as ultimately responsible for the creation and persistence of racial inequality; and that this realization will inspire support for race-conscious, “equity”-oriented policies.

Perhaps this hope is ill-founded, but our data indicate otherwise. As an initial test, we examined whether those who report being taught a given concept are more likely to endorse it. For instance, the chart below shows that, relative to those who reported they were not taught the related concept, those who indicated they were taught it were 14 points more likely to agree that the black-white pay gap is mainly due to discrimination, 15 points more likely to agree that “being white is one of the most important sources of privilege in America,” 23 points more likely to agree that “white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect non-white people,” and 29 points more likely to agree that “America is built on stolen land.” These differences, all statistically significant at the 99.9 percent level, persist after adjustments for a host of theoretically plausible alternative explanations, including race, political orientation, county rurality, county partisanship, county racial liberalism, and county school segregation.


Data are weighted. Bars represent the share of respondents who gave an “Agree” response to the statements shown in the legend. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. Sample sizes for the “Have not been taught” and “Taught” groups are shown in parentheses. Respondents who gave either a “Heard it about from an adult at school” or “Don’t know” response are excluded from the analyses. The “Have not been taught” group serves as the reference category for tests of statistical significance.

If the effects of CSJ-related instruction were entirely limited to the above, its proponents would likely be disappointed. For what good is increasing agreement with CSJ-related concepts if that agreement doesn’t translate to increased support for “anti-racist” policies? However, because such policies discriminate on the basis of race and can thus be regarded as unfair, increasing support for them—particularly among whites—may not be so easy. To this end, it’s important that instruction increases the justifying belief that white people are to blame for (and thus are responsible for rectifying) black disadvantage.

Our next analysis thus examines whether the volume of CRT-related classroom exposure—which we define as the total number of CRT-related concepts respondents reported being taught in school (from zero to five) affects attitudes toward white Americans and pro-black policies like affirmative action and race-based government assistance.

First, we consider whether exposure to a larger share of the five concepts increases agreement with the view that white Americans “are ultimately responsible for the inferior social position of black people.” Referring to the dark blue bars in the chart below, this indeed appears to be the case. Support is lowest (32 percent) among those who didn’t recall being taught any of the five CRT-related concepts (the “no exposure” group), and agreement rises—albeit non-linearly—to a high of 75 percent among those who report being taught all five concepts. Adjusting for alternative explanations has a minimal effect on this 43-point difference in attitudes between those taught no CRT concepts and those taught all five, which remains statistically significant.


Data are weighted. Sample sizes are shown in parentheses. Bars represent the share of respondents across each exposure category that provided an “Agree” response to the statements shown in the legend. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. The five CRT-related concepts encompass the following: 1. “America is a systemically racist society”; 2. “In America, white people have white privilege”; 3. “In America, white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect non-white people”; 4. “America is built on stolen land”; 5. “Discrimination is the main reason for differences in wealth or other outcomes between races or genders.” Those who didn’t report being taught any of the five CRT-related concepts serve as the reference group for tests of statistical significance.

We next consider whether exposure increases agreement with the broad-brush generalization that white Americans are “racist and mean”—an item one of us has previously tested and used as an indicator of collective moral shame among whites. As denoted by the light blue bars, agreement with this statement begins at a low of 40 percent among those in the “no exposure” group and increases (again non-linearly) to a high of 72 percent for those who report being taught all five concepts. This difference remains significant when controlling for alternative explanatory variables.

If greater CRT-related classroom exposure increases the endorsement of negative moral appraisals of white Americans, we’d also expect it to boost support for group-based policies that afford preferential treatment to African Americans—even when descriptions of such policies explicitly speak to the risk of discrimination against whites (as our measure of support for affirmative action, adopted from the General Social Survey, does). Consistent with this prediction, our data show that support for the preferential hiring and promotion of black people falls to a low of 17 percent among those who reported hearing no CRT, while reaching a high of 44 percent among those who reported being taught all five CRT-related concepts. Similarly, the belief that the government should help black people (versus “our government should not be giving special treatment to black people”) is endorsed by 35 percent of those in the “no exposure” group, compared with 43 percent of those who reported being taught one concept, 51 percent to 54 percent of those who reported being taught two to four concepts, and 72 percent of those who reported being taught all five concepts. Again, a 30- to 40-point difference emerges between those who were not taught CRT material and those who received the maximum dose of it.

Here we should note that the above results are similar for white and non-white respondents alike—even if not always to the same degree. One relationship that is necessarily exclusive to whites, though, is that between exposure and white guilt, which is shown in the chart below. Whereas 39 percent of whites who did not report any CRT-related classroom exposure indicated feeling “guilty about the social inequalities between white and black Americans,” this share rises to about 45 percent among whites who reported being taught one or two CRT-related concepts, and to between 54 percent and 58 percent among whites who reported being taught three or more concepts.


Data are weighted. Sample is limited to non-Hispanic white respondents. Sample sizes are shown in parentheses. Bars represent the share of respondents across each exposure category that provided an “Agree” response to the statements shown in the legend. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number. Those who didn’t report being taught any of the five CRT-related concepts serve as the reference group for tests of statistical significance.

These findings indicate that those reporting being taught more CRT-related concepts are more likely to endorse negative moral appraisals of and to view white Americans as responsible for black disadvantage. Among whites, greater CRT exposure is also linked to higher levels of guilt over racial inequality. Finally, and perhaps consequently, greater CRT exposure predicts a higher likelihood of both white and minority young people supporting race-conscious policies that afford preferential treatment to African-Americans. The same is true for gender. Among those that were taught that gender is a choice, 53 percent say “the gender we identify with is more socially given than determined by our biology” compared with 40 percent of those who were not taught this, a significant difference. Those taught about gender as an identity are more likely to view it as detached from biological sex.

While we can’t be certain that exposure causes attitude change—those with progressive attitudes could have had parents more likely to select into schools where CRT is taught (or to recall being exposed to it)—we used data from a person’s zip code and county (rurality, diversity, education, voting patterns) that make such competing explanations unlikely. We can also rule out the possibility that these relationships are the product of alternative explanatory factors in our dataset.

While only scratching the surface of what will feature in the full report, our findings have several important takeaways.

First, the claim that CRT and gender ideology are not being taught or promoted in America’s pre-college public schools is grossly misleading. More than nine in ten of our respondents reported some form of school exposure to at least some CRT-related and critical gender concepts, with the average respondent reporting being taught in class or hearing about from an adult at school more than half of the eight concepts we measured. Eight in ten reported being taught in class at least one concept central to CRT and contemporary left-wing racial ideology, with the average respondent reporting being taught two of the five we listed. A majority were taught radical gender ideas. Given the sheer size of these numbers, the promotion and teaching of “white privilege” and “systemic racism” in America’s public schools can hardly be regarded as a rare or isolated phenomenon. It is the experience of a sizeable share of pre-college students.

Second, educators are presenting CSJ ideas to students uncritically. If such concepts were presented only as perspectives—and in conjunction with competing others—then their introduction into the classroom could very well be defensible. But our data suggest that this is not the case. Instead, most are receiving them as undisputed “facts”—or at least facts only disputed by bigots and ignoramuses. This is indoctrination, and governments should act swiftly to put a stop to it. More-detailed policy recommendations must await the full report. But schools and teachers that wish to teach about these concepts should be given the option of either teaching the diversity of thought surrounding them or being barred from teaching them altogether.

Third, such biased instruction is effective. Our data show that those who report being taught CRT-related concepts are not only more likely to endorse them but are also more likely to blame white people for racial inequality, to essentialize white people as “racist,” and to support “equity-oriented” race-based policies. Among whites, we also observe higher levels of white guilt among those exposed to more CRT-related concepts.

Overall, then, our data would appear to confirm many of the fears of anti-CRT activists about such instruction. Anecdotes are borne out by our representative large-scale data.

Critical race and gender theory is endemic in American schools. The vast majority of children are being taught radical CSJ concepts that affect their view of white people, their country, the relationship between gender and sex, and public policy. For those inclined toward a colorblind and reality-based ideal, these findings should serve as a wakeup call. Unless voters, parents, and governments act, these illiberal and unscientific ideas will spread more widely, and will replace traditional American liberal nationalism with an identity-based cultural socialism.

Zachary Goldberg is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute, where Eric Kaufmann is an adjunct fellow.

So anything and everything that can be found in CRT is now teaching CRT? Concepts that were widely accepted and taught even before there was such a thing as CRT is now considered CRT?

Which public schools are teaching CRT? Name one.

And two members of my family died fighting nazis while your parents fled.

Fine. I'll bite.

So, I can research...

Define: CRT

What information would be taught?

Define what you mean by teaching. Ie: a course, a class, a lesson?

What subject would it be taught under?

Math
Language Arts
History
Science
Physical Education
Health
Art
Music

What grade level would this be taught to?
Primary, junior high, high school, or higher education?

Just like FATE. You claim all this BS but can’t ever come up with an example.

it took you 15 days to respond. Your response was exactly what everyone would expect from you.

Answer my questions and I'll do the research.

I missed your post …anyways even if I answered your list of ridiculous questions you still wouldn’t be able to name one public school presently teaching CRT. Because there are none.

Exactly. You can't even answer 5 basic questions about CRT.

CRT isn’t being taught in public schools. You nor annyone else can name one public school that teaches it. Yet CRT is virtually vilified by all the right wing-nuts as if it is. Why? I really do hope the public schools in the USA would allow religious prayer in class in public schools so I can see the evangelical Christian nationalists go nuts when Muslims in public schools pray two times a day facing East to Mecca.

And really if you couldn’t answer or research those questions yourself then you’re much more dense than I thought.

The biggest question I have is where will schools store all of the prayer rugs?

Considering public schools don’t even have pencils ….. that’ll be a tough one.

you can't even describe CRT or answer the 5 questions.

keep preaching, insulting, and deflecting