Straight Talk With Steve

Can states ban Critical Race Theory (CRT)? Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have already passed legislation banning the teaching of CRT in their public schools.

Kevin Stitt signed his state’s bill into law, he said he did it to bring the people of his state closer together, but the State of Maine has inadvertently given states a new way to oppose the teaching of CRT.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments from a lawsuit filed by parents in the State of Maine challenging their state’s new school voucher program. Maine’s voucher program allows rural families who live in towns without a public school to use state funds to send their students to private schools, but not to private religious schools. So, some of the parents decided to sue the state.

Opinions by justices on the nation’s highest court have been mixed. While Justice Elena Kagan views the voucher program as carefully skirting questions of religious favoritism, Justice Brett Kavanaugh views the program differently.

Justice Kavanaugh views the program as discriminating against religious families. More importantly though, is how the State of Maine got tripped up when trying to defend its school voucher program, especially when the subject of CRT came up in the hearing.

Maine’s Chief Deputy Attorney General, Christopher Taub, argued in defense of the voucher program for the State of Maine. Taub inadvertently acknowledged in court that states have every right to regulate their curriculum.

When questioned about the meaning of the word ‘sectarian’ by Justice Samuel Alito, for example, Taub argued that states have the right to demand religious neutrality. Alito then followed up by asking if a school could teach a curriculum which “Inculcates a purely materialistic view of life?” Taub answered by saying that schools should disallow viewpoints which are harmful to public education. Commenting hypothetically about a school that teaches Marxism, Leninism, or white supremacy, Taub said, “Clearly those kinds of schools would be doing something inconsistent with public education.”

Justice Elena Kagan asked Taub if a white supremacist school would be able to receive state funding through the voucher program. In response, Taub assured her that such a school would not receive any state aid through the program. This prompted Justice Samuel Alito to ask Taub directly about CRT saying, “Would you say the same thing about a school that teaches Critical Race Theory?” Alito’s question caught Taub completely off guard.

Here is the full text of Taub’s very erratic reply: “So I think that that is something that the Legislature would have to look at. I mean, that one’s closer because, frankly, I don’t – I don’t really know exactly what it means to teach Critical Race Theory. So, I think – I think the Maine legislature would have to look at what that actually means. But – but – I will say this, that – that if – that – that if teaching Critical Race Theory is – is – is antithetical to public education, then the legislature would likely address that.”

So, there you have it. Any theory, including CRT, which can be shown to be harmful to public education is a theory which the State Legislature ought to address!

CRT is harmful to public education. CRT is harmful to public education because it rejects the use of sound reasoning. For instance, to suggest that all white people are white supremacists is a fundamental generalization adhered to by many proponents of CRT, such as Rebecca Stevens A. But this generalization is false and devoid of any sound logic – yet it is a premise of CRT which absolutely must be accepted and adhered to without question and without challenge to its soundness.

Because CRT adheres to these kinds of propositions which run contrary to sound logic, it is a theory which is harmful to learning and should not be taught in Nebraska’s K-12 public schools.