Olivia B. Waxman's Anti-Critical Race Theory Doesn T Work

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a highly debated issue in education that needs to be addressed. It is an interdisciplinary academic field centered on the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, throughout social and political laws and media. It explores racism being systemic in various laws and rules. CRT was first discussed during the 1970s and 1980s in response to what scholars viewed “as a lack of racial progress following the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.” Therefore, how will the legislation address this new theory? Not until recently have states given it much attention, until Tennessee, “one of 19 states with laws or rules designed to regulate how racism and issues of race are discussed in the classroom,”

In the article, Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Are Working. Teachers Are Thinking Twice About How They Talk About Race, Olivia B. Waxman explains perspectives from states experiencing anti-CRT laws. Waxman explains Tennessee state Rep. John Ragan, (R), a co-sponsor of his state’s bill, states, “In Critical Race Theory there is no acknowledgment that all men are created equal or have divinely bestowed individual rights. We aren’t going to teach hate in Tennessee. We aren’t going to teach our children to demonize each other.” Rep. Ragan believes CRT will divide children, leading them to hate each other. In the article, Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action Programs at Harvard and U.N.C, by The New York Times, Justice Sotomayor proves this wrong by explaining we live “in a society where opportunity is dispensed along racial lines, equality cannot be attained through race blindness.” By denying CRT, we are not providing students with the right history to move on from racism. Sotomayor also goes on to congratulate “Brown and its progeny recognized the need to take affirmative, race-conscious steps to eliminate that system,” because Brown v. The Board of Education was able to emphasize the message that education in our society is important. The way Brown was able to get across this message was by making a “race-conscious decision.” Once again, Justice Sotomayor realizes just how

He immediately abolished the gender studies program. This forced students to team up, forming a community and even the coach realized “we have a lot to learn from these kids,” and said “‘I think it’s great that they have a place where they don’t feel they’re going to get criticized,” he said. . . ‘I respect them for having the guts to be themselves.”’ Rivera Calderón describes how he believes it's nice for the kids to feel at home at their college and to be themselves. Furthermore, Totten is a student-athlete pitcher who recently joined the college to see a new environment and said, “Just getting yourself out there and exploring, finding new things, is how you’re going to learn and get along with more people.” This idea of a college where everybody is themselves and students learn from each other connects back to the Supreme Court case where, “the chief justice wrote that educational diversity, the idea that students of different backgrounds learn from one another, is a commendable goal.” In New College, the athletes and kids were able to come together and learn from one each other’s backgrounds to take down the new president, who is destroying the same goal that the chief justice is talking about. This article explains