The Culture War Turned Legal And It's Hurting Kids

Ignorance isn't always bliss. Sometimes it's discontent.

There’s been a lot of discussion about Critical Race Theory and what it is — a term that could refer to the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw, principals getting fired, or Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, apparently. And there’s a reason it’s so vague! It’s because the “Anti-CRT” movement is actually just White Nationalist rhetoricians who are using the law to target and recruit your children.

OK, now I know that was a lot, but hear me out.

If you graduated law school before this neutral term got weirdly politicized in the way things are nowadays (see: wearing masks, getting vaccines, being barefoot in public, etc.), you probably half remember talking about Critical Race Theory in some stuffy class you registered for because you hate the way Mr. Stevenson taught §1983 and this was the only other thing that fit in the time slot. Something about how if you look at legal outcomes, they aren’t always reducible to someone’s race or their gender — legal outcomes can be better explained by understanding how a confluence of identity categories can interact with the law. Cool right? Well that’s not what it means anymore, and here’s my proof.

1) Conservative activist and Manhattan Institute fellow Christopher Rufo said the quiet part out loud and openly admitted that the plan was to group any and all “cultural insanities” under the CRT umbrella back in March.

 

2) Data shows that anti-CRT rhetoric is being used as a rallying cry to help elect Republican politicians and impact school curricula with fear mongering that mirrors Red Scare tactics from the early-to-mid 1900s. And if you don’t buy that, you don’t find it weird that it just happened to evaporate from public discussion after elections?

Sponsored

3) The same anti-CRT people are broadening it out to include discussions of mental health and, oddly enough, suicide prevention in schools. They claim that Social Emotional Learning (SEL), which is supposed to help students get in touch with their emotions and encourage empathy, is actually a social justice recruiting mechanism.

What I will say, and this may make my take seem even more out of left field, is that the anti-CRT folks are also borrowing from another classic intervention into public education: compulsory abstinence. There is no question about the data — students taught comprehensive sex ed tend to have more agency in making sexual decisions, have sex at later ages with reduced risk of unwanted pregnancy, and on average have safer school environments for LGBTQ+ youth. In 2019, suicide was the second leading cause of child death in youth aged 10-14 (behind accidents). The decision to prepare young adults with information that could assist them in living informed lives should be a simple one. But I would bet that if there were Venn diagrams that had anti-CRT folks, anti-SEL folks, and anti-comprehensive sex ed folks on it, there would a great deal of overlap. Why is this?

I think that both of them could stem from a well-meaning assumption of childish innocence. But I assure you, anyone who has been in a Call of Duty waiting room or even glanced at data reports on teenage behavior knows that they are already very well aware of the world around them. The notion that school is a place that corrupts with knowledge should be combated with another one. Students are already fully capable of learning — what teachers do is aid them in assessing what is worth learning about and why. And if it goes unchecked, compulsory whitewashed history and compulsory prevention of mental health discussions won’t prevent students from searching for truth. It will just cede their education to TikTok at a time when it is already challenging enough to differentiate facts from fake news.

The acceptable amount of collateral damage caused by the Culture War will likely be determined in court. Given that many of the battle grounds are public schools, how far are we willing to go to “protect white children from guilt“? What if it means constant First and Fourteenth Amendment violations? What other civil rights advances can we stomach? If they are successful and ban discussion of mental health in school, will we allow children to go to schools where they can get detention for merely talking about potentially having depression or any other ADA-protected disability? We’ve already seen students get suspended for planning to protest what they felt were racial injustices. Would we rather kids die than talk to their teachers about depression? Because they are. Is attending children’s funerals really worth owning the libs? If so, know that we will be sure to cover the scandal if it is discovered that a bunch of lawmakers own stock in kiddie coffin companies.

Parents Protesting ‘Critical Race Theory’ Identify Another Target: Mental Health Programs [NBC News]

Sponsored


Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.